With my luck I'd find myself alone with McCain at a deserted truck stop, the only sound his empty candy wrapper crinkling on the counter.

He looks as if he's making a cameo in The Matrix!

Those shades are dangerously close to the ski-goggle senior citizen type that cover the entire face. Why wouldn't he opt for the aviator look that's making a comeback right now?

Perhaps McCain was upset because the foriegn minister of Germany was playing frisbee on his lawn again?

Is Joe Lieberman auditioning for the role of Jiminy Cricket?

So is this going to be an ongoing theme? The ever ready and would actually prefer to rip your guts out McCain?

Oh and great detective work on the tie. If only we can find out where Obama gets his socks from we'll know everything one needs to know about the upcoming election.

Finally, the mainstream media starts to notice McCain's ties. After sixteen years of the tyranny of the solid-color tie under Clinton and Dubya, McCain offers liberation for America's professional men with his bold choices of patterns and stripes.

(Obama is almost as bold in his tie choices, but he tends toward more subtle patterns and lower contrast stripes, or no tie at all, whereas McCain chooses ties like he's auditioning for the next George Clooney movie.)

Well, this Obama supporter just gained a measure of respect for Sen. McCain.  I tip my cap that he appreciates the understated elegance of Giorgio Armani cravattes.  Well done, sir!

Actually, if I were McCain, I would circulate that picture.  I think he looks pretty bad-ass, and will vote accordingly.

That picture isn't sufficiently cool to overcome the picture of doughy McCain hugging Bush.

And Yardy, wasn't it a wrapper from some salted peanuts?  If you're referencing what I think you're referencing, that is.

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I am all out of bubblegum."

Joe Lieberman the Cato to McCain's Clouseau. I imagine that every time McCain comes home, Joe is hiding, ready to spring on him in a martial arts flurry. Keeps him both mentally aware and physically fit.

I thought John was staring in the sequel to Lee Marvin's 'Point Blank' as the "older" Walker in 'Get to the Point!'

"Walker is an emotional and primitive man!"

www.youtube.com/watch

The real question is about this pattern of Joe Lieberman whispering in McCain's ear.  That's two in a row.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the electorate?

bcbaird

You may be correct.

I got here the same way the coin did.

boneill:  perhaps if we stopped voting for presidential candidates because they talk tough and/or look "pretty bad-ass," we might get a president with some intelligent ideas for dealing with the range of serious problems that the country faces?

Hey, it's worth a try!

Not entirely facetious question: does it really hurt McCain to be known as the candidate who loses his temper when confronted with double-talking European bureaucrats?  

That necktie's too glossy to be high-end. Armani's basically part of the mass market now, available at middlemarket joints and entry level price points.

Expensive upmarket ties like Zegna or are not glossy and have minuscule fauna and flora on them-- giraffes, gazelles, pandas etc. Also RINOs and Elephants.

Ironyroad, we could do that, but it seems easier to elect someone for looking badass.  

Tep:  I can't tell if you are giving Zegna ties props or not.  I find them way too busy and over-the-top, myself.  They remind me of the Coogi sweater that those populating the floor seats wore at the old Chicago Stadium and United Center during the Bulls' two 3-peats back in the 90s.  Which is why Armani's ties suit my eye.  By and large, they are muted, simple and classy, price points notwithstanding.  But, again, certain Ohioan labor leaders would simpy disregard me as an effete, African American, Volvo-driving (OK, Honda Accord), latte-sipping (um, I just get a simple vente coffee), Birkenstock-wearing (well, I actually only do Nike and Cole Haan) elite (only a paralegal, not even an attorney!).

Neckties...grrrrrrr. I mean, why not just strap on a dog collar and leash...not that there's anything wrong with that...

My Goddess, I wore those multi-colored silk nooses for *way* too many years. Ah, but I was so much older then. They're okay for funerals, I s'pose. So, if y'all want to commit suicide or what not, I'll show up in one. I promise.

Damned things don't help us guys one damn bit. Now a lady, on the other hand, profits by a loosely knotted man's tie worn with one of his starched buttoned-down oxford-cloth long-sleeve dress shirts, and a pair of her own thigh-high stockings with seams up the back, and nothing else.

"Not entirely facetious question: does it really hurt McCain to be known as the candidate who loses his temper when confronted with double-talking European bureaucrats?"

Possibly not, but Steinmeier isn't a bureaucrat, he's the foreign minister of a major allied nation.

udike - I guess I just associate Armani with the early 1990s, shoulder pads and earth tones and all that. "Rising Sun," with Wesley Snipes in a melon green suit with an orange shirt.... As Snipes'  character says to the snarling racist Senator's aide who asks him to park the Senator's car, "Wrong century!"

Lieberman for veep? Hey, it worked in 2000.

He's got a good reason to be pissed with the Germans.  They've got lots of money, lots of people, and they're not carrying their own in Afghanistan.  But, then, neither are the other Euros.

Like Mrs. Merkel, though.

True, but the Germans, like other reasonably intelligent citizens in a democracy, are wont to ask their government about military deployments abroad, what are we doing there and what risk do we legitimately take on?  If the answer is, we're there as part of a NATO mission to provide security in a country that is moving toward stability and political maturity, and we take the risk that there are some elements that would like to upset things and see foreign forces as a useful target, then that's fine.  But if the reality looks like a country that is moving away from stability and heading back into clan and religious enmity, and there's a history of the savage destruction of foreign military forces who have attempted to control the place, then the question arises as to whether this is, as the Krauts say "ein Nummer zu gross" (a bigger mouthful than we thought it was).

irony, you write as if the West has the option to retreat from the M.E. and getting the savages under control.

Well, we do have the option.  Just as we have suicide as an option.  

But, it might be more prudent of our various democracies to look these threats in the face and deal with them.

Hitler thought that the Western democracies were weak.  Luckily, at the last moment, he was proven wrong.  

I hope we have the luxury to twiddle and dawdle this time.

I probably do, Chan.  We have no option whatsoever of defeating "the savages" by military means because even if every single American soldier (with every NATO nation contributing much more) were sent to the territory between the Middle East and Afghanistan (much more South Asia than M.E.) we wouldn't be doing any better than we're doing, which isn't very well.  To imagine otherwise is to deny that reality is real.

The only solution to the "savages" problem is a political and diplomatic and, most importantly, intelligence one (with well thought-out military deployments when absolutely necessary).  We also need to be honest about what we're doing.  If it's fighting terrorism then we need to recognize that Iraq has created more terrorists than there were the day before we invaded.  If it's trying to lock down our dominance over natural resources while spouting nonsense about exporting democracy then the real game will leak out from the edges no matter how we try to disguise it.

We have very little purchase with the Europeans at the moment because we dissed them just after 9/11 when they were willing to go the journey with us, and then when we discovered we needed some support we had the worst possible preconditions for getting it.  It will require a different administration with intelligent people at the helm who can repair our diplomatic and strategic relationships and rebuild our leadership capability in the world.

You talk a good game about "looking the threats in the face."  Ok, you're on.  That might mean, for example, not exaggerating threats like Iran because that plays well with resentful white guys in a truckstop on the I-40 and -- on the opposite tack -- not pretending that an unstable powder-keg with nukes in the garden shed like Pakistan is in any real sense an "ally."

irony, you act as if the Europeans are doing us a favor.  This is their problem, too.  They've been hit by terrorists several times since 9-11.  And they, most of them, have an immense Fifth Column of disaffected Muslims within their own borders.

Meanwhile, they're losing the battle of the bedroom to them.

Yes, Pakistan could turn into a problem at the next coup.  Iran will be a much worse problem when she starts building nukes.

No, we can't win with military solutions alone.  Anymore than WW2 was won solely by military power.  There was propaganda, intelligence, economic leverage, etc.

But, we are carrying far more than our fair share of the weight in Afghanistan than the Euros.  It has nothing to do with us dissing them.  It has to do with their spending priorities and culture.  We've been carrying the largest burden of the defense of the West since 1946.

As a tie appreciator, I disagree with Williamyard. But I hate most ties, so he's more or less right that ties don't help. But a really good tie - yes. Here's what I'm so incredibly happy is leaving the stage: the laser etched ties, particularly [and inevitably from what I saw] when the laser etched pattern bears no relation to the color pattern. Ding dong it's dead!

I wish I had money to afford ties.

It's not WW2.

Irony, I didn't say it was WW2.  I, in effect, agreed with you, or at least an important part of your point.  We aren't going win against the Jihadists with military power alone. We also need to employ intelligence, espionage, diplomacy, and economic power.

But, on the other hand, we can't win without employing military power, and on a relatively large scale.

It is not WW2 in that there are not immense armies clashing in plain sight.

But, it is WW4 in that we are mortally threatened.  But, because that threat is not obvious, unambiguous, and above ground, many do not see it.  Making it all the more dangerous.

Worse than those who do not see it, are those who willfully refuse to see it, because dealing with it is too difficult or frightening.  You know, like the Democratic Party leadership.

psantillan - woven's the only way to go. Robert Talbot is a small family-owned company in the Monterey CA area that weaves beautiful ties. Highly recommended.

Chan, would you go on record as saying "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"?

Seriously, it's obvious from endeavors such as Iraq that large-scale military force is of relatively little value in fighting terrorism, especially when you invade a country that has relatively nothing to do with state-sponsored terrorism.  It's of even less value when you cannot sufficiently control or pacify large expanses of a country that is infested with terrorists because you had to divert troops in order to quell religious and tribal violence in the other, all while losing critical backing from European allies.

Terrorism is a threat.  It will require military might, but in a surgical manner.  We simply do not have the resources to fight terrorism by invasion and pacification.  Even if we did, the results we have seen from our attempts has shown us it will be of relatively little value.  Our best hope is to use our intelligence services to target those plotting to attack the US and its allies, and use military force as a means of punishing and crippling those regimes that overtly support terrorism.

But we should not, under any circumstances, employ large-scale force to combat terrorism.  We spent countless years developing our armed forces to fight short wars that left the military capacity of our opponents in ruins.  But we never prepared for, or wanted to, occupy any country for any length of time.  Our military might is great for battle, terrible at babysitting.

I'd expect someone like you to understand that, but for all I know you want to re-institute the draft and raise the armed forces to WWII levels, all while cutting out funding for things that are relatively useless, like submarines, advanced interceptors and dangerous helicopter/airplane hybrids.  You can buy a lot of rifles and pay a lot of troops for the cost of one of those things.  Is that your plan?

How are we "mortally threatened," Chan?  In the Cold War there was a bristling arsenal of hundreds of ICBMs and squadrons of bombers aimed at us, and we aimed the same or more back.  This is terrorism, not a nuclear stand-off with another superpower.

We have to get a psychic handle on terrorism or we will end up permanently scared, voting into office a series of blowhards who promise to "keep us safe" while doing everything possible to avoid thinking about how to deal with the actual threat (clue:  invading other countries is probably not a good idea).

We have to understand that a poisnous combination of tax cuts, debt-financed consumerism, out-of-control war spending, and a lack of interest in the value of education, health, and infrastructure is going to cripple us far more than the terrorists could.

We need to grasp that if we want global leadership to be in our grasp again then we have to develop the kind of foreign and strategic policy that encourages other countries to buy into that leadership.  This administration has been a towering failure at convincing anyone else that we know what we're doing.

And NATO troops in the mountains of Afghanistan are going to do nothing whatsoever, under any possible circumstances, for the non-muslim birthrate in Europe.  To that extent, Muslims in Britain, Denmark, Spain, or even the United States are "the West" too, whether they or we like it or not.

The sky is not falling, bcbaird.  The elements that would destroy us-- and they have made themselves eminently known-- are quietly, inexorably working towards the day when they can acquire portable nukes.

they will know what to do with them. I would know what to do with them.  Anyone who wanted to do cataclysmic damage to us with minimum resources can, with scant imagination, figure out how to use such weapons to bring us to our knees.

We haven't invaded the entire M.E.  We have occupied two countries in the middle of the Middle East.  In one of those countries we have our NATO allies.  In the other, we have Britain, which has now delayed leaving.

We are not doing everything we could do to prevent eventual cataclysm.  We are doing everything we have the current will to do.  And most of that will comes from the administration.

The Democrats have no such will.  It is much easier, and easier to sell, that we retreat, pretend there is nothing to worry about, wait, and die.

Channy, do you realize how difficult it is to hide nuclear arms production?  Or the level of technology needed to create a portable nuke?  Or the fact a portable nuke could do very little damage given its size?

Let's face it, the people building nukes right now aren't using them to target the US (after all, we would vaporize their entire country if we were attacked in such a manner), but rather regional enemies - Israel being a prime example.

Additionally, hiding nuclear arms production is impossible.  As soon as any country could reasonably threaten the US (or Israel), they would find those facilities quickly destroyed.  Israel has done it several times, I doubt the US would hesitate to do the same given the current climate.

Your sort of fearmongering doesn't hold up to objective scrutiny.  Tough talk, but nothing to back it up.

Way back at the beginning:

"ejbenjamin said: Perhaps McCain was upset because the foriegn minister of Germany was playing frisbee on his lawn again?

"miceelf said: Is Joe Lieberman auditioning for the role of Jiminy Cricket?"

ejbenjamin & miceelf - you made my night.  Thanks.

bcbaird, I take the long view.  And, it's not that long--35 to 30 years.

The U.S. had portable nukes by the late fifties, early sixties.  A player like Iran, or a hostile Pakistan, could have same by the late teens or twenties.

Of course a portable nuke wouldn't destroy an entire city.  But, detonated strategically, say in Mid-Manhattan or, worse, next to the Capitol during the State of the Union speech, it would be devastating in a way that you can extrapolate by multiplying the 9-11 event many times.

A latter Capitol nuking would decapitate the country.

We might or might not be able to trace the source.  But, I'm assuming that we would simply assume it was the work of Iran, if they were still hostile to us in the way of the last 30 years, and we would retaliate massively, with who knows what consequences?  Setting off Russia, perhaps?

Your sanguine talk does not really settle the question.

TYPO CORRECTO:  ...I take the long view.  And, it's not that long--35 to 30 years.

irony writes, "...How are we "mortally threatened," Chan?  In the Cold War there was a bristling arsenal of hundreds of ICBMs and squadrons of bombers aimed at us, and we aimed the same or more back.  This is terrorism, not a nuclear stand-off with another superpower."

Yes, irony, and during the Cold War we had an enemy that was dangerous, but materialistic, and thus clearly not suicidal.  MAD--Mutual Assured Destruction-- was crude but effective, and kept both sides in check for 40 years.

Our society is in many ways fragile, so dependent is it on both vulnerable technologies and the confidence of markets.

If even a small nuke was detonated in a strategic place, the reverberations would be catastrophic.  A nuke in mid Manhattan could make the that borough or the entire city uninhabitable.  Financial markets would likely tumble to the ground globally.

A nuke set off next to the Capitol during the State of the Union would decapitate the U.S. government.  How long would it take for us to reassemble a central government.  The Constitution has no procedures for such a catastrophe.

If two nukes were set off simultaneously or in close succession as describe above, what would your scenario be for the outcome?

And what if four or six were set of in several Western capitols at about the same moment?

"..., Muslims in Britain, Denmark, Spain, or even the United States are "the West" too, whether they or we like it or not."

To that point, irony, these Muslims are in the West, but I don't know if they are of the West.

If they continue to both not integrate into the European population and increase their population above the size of the native one, we are in agreement.  There is no remedy.  

We may not be in agreement that this will ultimately be a great calamity for Western civilization.  Meaning free civilizations.  

Now perhaps this Europe will evolve into something like Turkey or the once peaceful Lebanon.  That wouldn't be wonderful.  But, it would at least not be cataclysmic.

The way things are evolving in this regard in places like Britain and France do not give comfort.  The Spanish drove the Moors out in the late 15th Century.  It will not be easy to do that again.

Chan, I agree that the danger of a terrorist nuclear detonation is a real one, but the smart ways of dealing with it do not include

a.  saber-rattling at Iran when we're in a really weak position politically

b.  invading Iraq on the basis of shaky intelligence

c.  giving Pakistan a free pass

d.  not taking counter-proliferation seriously, and trying to lock in a system in which we can keep ahead in the nukes race without thinking of larger disarmament concepts

I don't disagree with you about Europe and Islam, I was just pointing out that NATO in Afghanistan will not change anything about demographics in Europe.