They’re bullshit.

McCain pushed a bill that authorized the Department of the Interior to exchange land it held for land it did not hold, as it saw it “necessary and beneficial.” The actual land exchanges won praise from the Sierra Club, no big fan of development and profiteering. The Audobon Society backed one of them. The land swaps expanded existing national parks and monuments, protected endangered species by putting their habitats in federal custody, and sparked developments in other areas that benefited the local economy.

You’re absolutely right. Crucify the guy.

And while you’re at it, why not take away his tax-free disability pension from the Navy? (See today’s LA Times.) He’s certainly not too disabled to run for president, after all. And why not strip him of his right to run for president? How DARE his parents arrange for his birth in the Panama Canal Zone, just because that’s where his father was serving in the Navy at the time?

That last one is Obama’s trademark. As I recall, when he first ran for office, he managed to get every one of his opponents thrown off the ballots. Then, when he ran for Senate, both his primary opponent and his Republican rivals found their sealed divorce records opened “in the public interest” and their dirty laundry aired for all to see. This primary might be the very first time Obama’s had to face an actual electoral contest.

God knows I got my own issues with McCain. When the primary season started, the guy didn’t make my top three candidates. Hell, had I worked it out, he probably wouldn’t have made the top five. (I have a LOT of resentment over McCain-Feingold, especially the parts that threaten to silence us bloggers once the election gets close.) But this crap is beyond stupid. It’s not much more legit than the “Barack Hussein Obama’s a secret Muslim” idiocy.

J.

I recommend they try both. Why take a chance?

Wow, Special Ed’s / Hot Air (a Good Housekeeping seal for rightwing bullshit) NY Times rebuttal, what a smackdown.

Apparently Special Ed is taking exception to the “phrasing” of the article from the “Get McCain Desk” and then cites the shady land deals perpetrated by Harry Reid -who is not running for president.

“Despite several investigations by the AP and the Los Angeles Times, Rutenberg failed to cover or even mention the land deals that directly benefited Harry Reid personally” [where] “I wrote about this extensively in 2006″ -Citing his own sorry ass and two Op Ed pieces.

Well, Dick Tracy and company must have missed the memo where:

“Congressional ethics specialists said the (Reid) omission was at least a technical violation of the disclosure rules, which are intended to identify a lawmaker’s business partners and potential conflicts of interest. ”

-ergo, not quite in the same ballpark as Arbusto, Enron, Harken and lets add Lincoln Savings / Charles Keating to keep with the times, dig?

“Kind of like… you know… this place.”

You’re one to talk. Your investigative team of Wizwanks read like a bunch who are passing the time before they decide between the pills or the shotgun.

BTW, I noticed that you abandoned the thread about Abramoff’s law firm having donated to Obama. I guess even you conceded that it was a lie to say that the firm donated, when the article you posted contradicted that supposition.

And mocking the name doesn’t discount the FACTS Ed came up with.

J.

As long as you don’t actually, you know, look at the facts.

Fortunately, we have other resources besides our noble host blindly repeating the shoddy work of the New York Times. For example, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air actually did some digging into the story, and uncovered a few subtle details the Times overlooked — see http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/22/new-york-times-goes-after-mccain-again-with-similar-results/

Details like:

The Sierra Club, quoted as lambasting the deals now, praised them at the time.

McCain’s bill didn’t order the land sold to Diamond, but authorized the Department of the Interior to trade land as it saw best — a routine deal, often done to acquire more sensitive or significant areas without either taking someone else’s property or spending federal money.

Of course, this is all in keeping with the well-known rule of “IOKIYAR” — It’s OK If You’re Attacking A Republican. Do something that the Sierra Club likes, and you can be certain they’ll turn around and spit on you when it becomes politically convenient for them to do so. And you can always count on the New York Times to have their back.

Now, while they’re on the subject of Senators and shady land deals, do you think they might take a gander at Harry Reid?

Of course I’m kidding. That’d require integrity and principle. And, you know, actual journalism. All three are anathema at the Times.

Kind of like… you know… this place.

J.

Which actually isn’t saying anything about whether he is actually honorable or committed.