But that was a long time ago! We like our politicians to undergo a heroic "second birth" that transform them into political supermen. And this is perfect! Foser, why are you trying to muddy John McCain's personal narrative? Don't you know he's a war hero?

Of course the NYT is not against McCain.  This is the paper that publishes an Obama editorial, and then refuses to publish a response from McCain unless they like it.  This is the paper that publishes a front page story about an alleged affair of McCains that supposedly happened years yet they present no evidence.  Not that NYT.  Not the liberal paper of record that still has not corrected themselves and stated the fact that Sarah Palin never ever ever banned a single book.  Say it aint so!!!

Pointy, a good "rule of thumb" for effective sarcasm is to decide if you're going to be sarcastic or not, and stick to it. That flip-flopping between facetious and serious would be disorienting even from somebody whose thoughts were more clear.

Please provide a link if you want to be taken seriously.

Exactly when did the NYT claim that Palin banned any books?

From what I can see they merely mentioned that Palin looked into the possibility of banning a book or books. 

Are you denying she asked about banning books?

worrierking is right about this. In fact, I'd even say that I've almost never seen a post disagreeing with the MMFA post that linked to a credible, verifiable report in support of its author's argument. There was that oreos link last week, which another post promptly debunked.

refuses to publish a response from McCain unless they like it. 

Wrong again.  They refused to publish it because is contained no substance, only talking points and partisan attacks.  They gave him a chance to re-submit his editorial.  He either couldn't or wouldn't.  That's the fact, jack.  Please make a note of it.

Yep, thing is there's alot to question Yawnie about. What with the financial meltdown still in preogress, this is a good topic and the depth of it is far from plumbed.

Still, remembers shrubs financial record and how little press it got.

keating is exactly the kind of thing that this present scandal is all about, and the average voter has probably never heard the name.  it's totally germane to what's going on now.   the palin bubble does seem about to burst though.  mccain is stuck between a rock and a hard place.  either replace her or let her continue.  the fact is that he made a rash, irrational decision, one of the things he's criticized for, and it's a disaster.   if he really had any intention of naming her, he should have thrown her name out there for a couple weeks on his "short list" and let the press "vet" her.   he might have thought twice.  his best choice probably would have been romney.  picking someone who could end up as president based on a three hour conversation was not a good idea.  even a lot of conservatives are saying she is not qualified.

How many houses does Romney own? I think he was trying to avoid having two rich old white guys facing off against Obama. At least Palin has been protected against witchcraft.

he may have been trying to avoid that image, but that's just admitting the choice of palin was strictly to attract votes because she was a young woman, no matter her qualifications.   the palin decision was a self inflicted disaster.

to expand on what i said, trying to "balance" the ticket, geographically or gender, has frequently turned out to be a bad decision.   witness quayle, whose joke of a vice presidency probably helped contribute to poppy's defeat by clinton. or ferarro {sp?} who was a bad choice by mondale.  edwards also failed to help kerry take a single southern state.   one of the wisest choices, by clinton, was him taking...another white southern male, al gore.  but gore was well qualified.  i think palin will go down as one of the political blunders of all time.  it was a double whammy.  she's is spectacularly unqualified, and he looks bad for making such a hasty decision on the most important issue of his candidacy.