McCainiacs United!

Well, I thought John McCain was probably doomed in the presidential primary, but now he holds the distinction of being the only major Republican candidate for president who hasn't lost embarrassing campaign materials. Given the competition, he basically just needs to overcome the fact that his base hates his guts, he's too old to get elected and he's more closely tied to the astoundingly unpopular war in Iraq than any other person in congress.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are in the awkward position of deciding between a supremely competent and ambitious former first lady with unparalleled fundraising ability, a brilliant and eloquent speaker who is already drawing crowds of tens of thousands two years from the election, and an energetic and charismatic former vice presidential candidate with a populist platform that will resonate in the mid-West and upper-South.

Ann Althouse

Ann Althouse, New York Times guest columnist and insufferable blogger, has a column out today begging to be dissected. She starts out recognizing that Giuliani and Romney were both totally pro-choice, and that Rudy is now insisting that he'll elect strict constructionist judges (but being coy about whether they'd overturn Roe) while Romney is saying that he doesn't think his position could be described as pro-life or pro-choice.

Althouse then inserts this gem. "Compare them with straight-talking John McCain, who said: “I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.” That’s harder to mock." Well, it would be really hard to mock him if he wasn't, you know, also a pandering liar. In '99 McCain said that "certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

Althouse then refrains from discussing McCain any more, and settles on the thought that we should all like(!) Romney and Giuliani because they are totally incoherent. "If we listen with a decent sympathy, the things Giuliani and Romney say about abortion make sense. When Romney ran for governor, he made a commitment to Massachusetts voters not to attack the law he knew they supported. That was politically expedient, of course, but it also took an admirably limited view of executive power and acknowledged the independence of the legal system."

Ok, first of all, it did not take an admirably limited view of executive power. Massechussettes doesn't run on a federalist system. He wasn't respecting an independent legislature, he was choosing not to exercise his power because he wanted to win an election. There is nothing honorable in that. He either supports the right to an abortion, or he doesn't and was lying about it. If he's going to settle on supporting it, then the best he can do is the Giuliani states rights bullshit. If he's going to settle on opposing it, he's have to deal with the debates for Massachusetts Governor in 2002, in which he said that "and I've been very clear on that, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and I'm devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."
Giuliani's slippery position is that he doesn't like abortion, but he personally wouldn't vote for a state law banning abortion, but he is pretty clearly comfortable appointing judges who would overturn a 40 year precedent which end up banning abortions for millions of women in this country. Althouse thinks it's taking "account of the deep beliefs Americans have about both reproductive freedom and the value of unborn life."
John McCain in fact has a 0% rating from pro-choice groups, but he's spent the last decade convincing everyone that he's a moderate, and, unfortunately for him, his lying actually worked.

Pro-lifers don't like McCain because he hasn't given them proper respect in the past, and they don't like Rudy and Willard because there is zero guarantee that they won't completely drop the pro-life thing in the general election. Pro-choice people don't like McCain because he has a terrible record, and don't like Giuliani or Romney because they are lying panderers.

Althouse clearly really really wants one of these guys to come out of this looking good. But they were all either pandering then, or pandering now. Lying then, or lying now. In the case of Romney, it appears to be both.

Weird

So, I am planning to write up my thoughts on Rudy Giuliani as presidential candidate shortly. I went to the New York Times search page and typed in "Giuliani." Here is the page I got. Notice anything odd? Look at the second of the paid Advertiser Links. It says, "Giuliani Learn More About The Exploratory Committee", but it is sponsored by JohnMcCain.com. The link takes you to McCain's (really, really creepy, cultish) website.

If you search "John McCain", the first paid link to come up is MittRomney.com, though it at least says Mitt Romney's name on the link that directs you to his site.

If you google Romney, the two that come up are for Romney related sites, and for Clinton, Obama and Edwards, only sites relating to the candidate searched come up in the Advertising link section.

So are the Republican candidates paying to have their websites come up when their oponents are searched? Is McCain paying to have a misleading link with Giuliani's name direct people to his own website? Do the paid advertisements in the Times just work in mysterious ways? Very strange...