I've become increasingly dismayed and angry at John McCain's recent attacks on Barack Obama. I wanted to try to ignore them, because getting upset would be exactly what they want. But these attacks have either, a) been flat-out wrong or misleading, b) beyond the traditionally acceptable political criticism, c) surprising from a candidate who said he wants to run a clean campaign.

 Knowing that he can't win a debate on policy, McCain has resorted to a line of attack that tries to appeal to American's fears about Obama. He wants to cast Obama as the "other" who is not patriotic and does not want to see his country succeed. If Obama said this stuff about McCain, he would be assailed by the media.

First, McCain charges that because Obama opposed the troop surge, he was more concerned about winning a political campaign than winning a war. This just reeks of cynicism and right-wing fear-mongering. Nevermind the fact that McCain talks about the vague concept of "victory," as if one day we'll waltz away from Iraq dancing on the S.S. McCain. Nevermind that Obama, like many other patriotic Americans, including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, believed that the surge would mean more money spent, more American casualties and more distractions from the central-front in the War on Terror, Afghanistan. (I, for one, still believe he was right). The most important fact is that Obama took the extraordinarily unpopular position, risking political ruin, by opposing the war in the first place. McCain went along with it like a cog in a machine. (despite what he'll try and tell us about opposing a "failed" strategy, he was advocating "stay the course" as late as 2005).

Next was the absurd charge that Obama didn't make time to visit wounded troops in Germany. Obama says that the Pentagon was concerned that such a visit would be viewed as too political, since this portion of his overseas trip was paid for with campaign money. McCain accused Obama of taking time to go the gym, while ignoring our troops. Of course, Obama had already spent time with troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. Also, he REALLY supported the troops by supporting Jim Webb's GI Bill, which McCain opposed, and then tried to take credit for. McCain is doing the same thing that these viral emails are trying to do: use Obama's unfamiliarity (augmented by his skin color, name and background) to foment doubt in the minds of American voters about his patriotism. This is politics at its worst. These attacks are personal, not political, have nothing to do with policy, and are aimed at the appealing to the worst prejudices of the American people.

We would never question McCain's patriotism. Nor should we. We don't have to, because we can win the election on policy.

 About a year ago, I wrote a post listing my version of the top 10 annoying members of Congress. Well, it may have taken me awhile, but a boring day of work has inspired me to write the Senate addition. As always, comments and suggested additions are welcome.

10. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) I actually really love his politics. And really, he's a great Senator. Why is he on this list? Because he's the only avowed socialist in the United States Senate. This is a problem because according to the National Journal's rankings, he is not as "liberal" as Barack Obama. Sanders has set up Obama for a lot of cheap shot attacks from the right. I know it's not his fault, but its still annoying.  

9. James Inhofe (R-OK)  James Inhofe is perhaps the most known global warming skeptic in Congress. He spent his allotted time at a hearing with Al Gore to bring up isolated instances in which Gore maybe wasn't praticing good conservation. He claimed that global warming is a conspiracy by the Weather Channel to boost its ratings. Wow, I didn't realize that the Weather Channel was such a powerful lobby (even though I won't miss a captivating episode of "Weather PM"). Why can't he get with the program? Even Bush admits that Global Warming is a problem. The kicker? This guy used to be the chairman of the committee that deals with Global Warming until the Dems took over Congress. What did you say about elections not mattering?

8. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) This guy is John McCain's top surrogate. He's always going on Sunday talk shows and blasting Democrats with his snide self-righteous attitude. Part of what makes him so annoying is his voice, which I can't stand. Mostly though, it's about the content of what he says. Last year in an infamous MTP interview with Jim Webb, he kept repeating that "the troops just want to win" even as Webb reminded him that the troops have just as diverse political views as the American public as a whole.

7. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Let's make this bipartisan! From what I hear, this guy doesn't do much besides walk around and offer people Macademian nuts. Now I know its only hearsay, but can't we find someone else in the great state of Hawaii who could be a more effective Senator?

6. John Cornyn (R-TX) Anyone who hasn't been acquainted with this lovely guy just needs to watch his ad (find it on YouTube) where he's dressed as a cowboy as a Texan deep voice in the background talks about "Big John" and all the great things that he's done. Besides the insane gravitas it takes to make an ad like this, he claims that he "supported our soldiers and rooted out crooks." The first part of that statement is not true, considering that he voted against the Webb GI Bill. The second part is laughable because they needed something to rhyme with "looks" even though Congress has absolutely no role in "rooting out crooks."

5. Larry Craig- (R-ID) The only reason he's not further up on the list is that his bathroom shenanigans have provided us with endless entertainment. But how does a guy who like him with a "wide stance" claim to be a crusader for moral values and supportive of a discriminatory constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That would be like me supporting a constitutional ban on stupid CP blog postings.

4. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) This guy is the obstructionist in chief as the Republican leader of the Senate. The Republicans have already set a record for most bills filibustered and Congress still has another 5 months to go. I can understand filibustering once in awhile for bills that reach too far, but would that be the case for:

-A bill to creat a Cap-and Trade program for greenhouse polluters?

-A bill designed to prevent cuts in payments to medicare doctors?

I think he just likes to wield the little power he has. He is also really smug on Sunday talk shows. It's not the best thing to wake up to.

3. Jim DeMint (R-SC) There is a little known Senate rule that one Senator can put a hold on a piece of legislation. Though rarely used, there are two abusers of this rule in the current Senate. Jim DeMint is one of them. He blocked the bipartisan ethics bill for about 6 months before he finally relented. He also blocks all sorts of non-controversial bills, and then has the guts to go around talking about the "do-nothing Congress."

2. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Everytime I see him on TV, I just want to throw something. I get it, he has drifted away from his party, but he just slings so much mud. Does he remember that Barack Obama campaigned for him in his primary against Ned Lamont? Not only is he a traitor who has become a right-wing talking points extraordinaire, but he does it while claiming to be an "Independent Democrat." Also, he always sounds like he has a stomach ache. And guess what Joe, none of us want to give in and lose to al qaeda!

1. Tom Coburn (R-OK). This guy takes the prize by a long shot. He has blocked so many non-controversial bipartisan bills, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is putting a "Coburn Omnibus" bill together so that the entire Senate can vote on everything he has blocked. Why does he have to be such a thorn in the side of the entire United States Senate? Because he thinks its SOOOO cool to be fiscally conservative. Also, he was doing a crossword puzzle during the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito. And he said that abortion doctors should be subject to the death penalty.

 Congratulations Tom, you take the cake!

I will be very angry if Congress feeds into the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration and Congressional conservatives on the subject of Domestic Oil Production. If you turn on CSPAN these days, a parade of angry, deceiving losers (otherwise known as Congressional conservatives) take to the floor to discuss oil prices, whether the bill up for debate is on energy, or honoring the late Tim Russert. They bring out their stupid graphs about how prices have gone up since the Democrats took control of Congress (didn't they ever learn the difference between causation and correlation?), and they rant about how the problem comes down to the laws of Supply and Demand. China and India are driving up demand, so all we have to do is create more supply! It's that simple!

They propose to open up offshore areas and the pristine Alaska Wildlife Refuge to drill for more oil. They are counting on Americans to have taken only the first day of Econ 101.

Let's get a few things straight. First, the Bush administration has overseen a meteoric rise in oil prices. Why should we follow the policies of the people who drove us into a ditch in the first place by not developing alternatives, and waiting 7 years to enact stricter CAFE standards. Second, oil companies already own millions of acres of leases, which have the vast majority of the U.S. owned-oil and natural gas reserves. They are not drilling there right now. Why should we give them additional permits? Third, if we were to start drilling for oil right now, we would not feel the effects of an increase in supply for 10 years, and even at that point the effect on the price will be a few cents. It is far more likely that even if we increase supply of oil, demand will continue to outpace supply and the price will continue to rise. Fourth, we are not just addicted to foreign oil, we are addicted to ALL oil. Oil is a finite resource that contributes to Global Warming, whether it's from Saudi Arabia or Alaska. The longer we depend on oil, the worse off our economy will be, and the worse off our environment will be.

So let's get real. I don't care if 70% of the country supports drilling. It is a stupid, short-sighted solution to a big problem. If we must get more oil now to lower gas prices, we could do it immediately by taking oil from our strategic reserve. But if we want REAL energy independence, we will stop looking to the past by paying oil companies to rip us off. We will look to the future and direct our money towards sustainable alternatives.

Congressional Conservatives have found the one issue that they think is popular with the American public and so they're running with it. That is why they are the most annoying bunch of deceptive losers ever to hold elected office. Let's make sure we all set the record straight.