Grababyte.com

I''ve heard a lot in the last week or two about John McCain - much of which I don''t believe. For example, he''s against amnesty for illegal aliens and for a fence at the boarder. We probably all just misunderstood the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill last summer. He''s also always been in favor of tax cuts, except, of course, the Bush tax cuts, which he labeled at the time as a "giveaway for the rich". And he''s all for getting original intent judges on the bench. Ahh, the gang of fourteen? Well, that was really to help us get judges, yeh, that''s the ticket, it was to help us out...

Now I''m hearing that he''s the most "electable" candidate we''ve got. With this I began to wonder. The New York Time and the LA Times have both endorsed him. Does anyone really think they would rather see him as the president than either Hillary or Barack? Of course not, and it''s foolish to believe they would. So when it gets down to the general election, most of the main stream media will treat him like they have every other republican presidential candidate, like a baby treats a diaper.

The real unknown is not whether Senator McCain''s media friends will leave him, they will. No, the real question is how will he handle it. He''s never had to run in a campaign where the media has not been on his side. What kind of a reaction can we expect?

If past glimpses are any indication the picture will not be pretty. McCain tends to get cranky when he''s upset with someone, and the media will use this at every opportunity to portray him as a crotchety old codger who''s unsuitable to be the president. This will be problematic if he runs against Hillary, but if he''s up against Barack he''ll get slaughtered.

Think back to the last time we had an old Republican war hero running against a young vibrant Democrat. Then we got the audacious "man from Hope", this time we''re poised to get the man riding "The Audacity of Hope".

Tonight I got a call from a cheerful volunteer from my State Republican Senate fund raising operation. She seemed nice enough, but I was in the mood to ask a few questions.

Cheerful Volunteer: We''ve got to do all we can to beat the Democrats so they won''t raise our taxes. Would you rather pledge $75 or just $50 this evening?

Fund Raising Target (That''s me): I think I''ll hang onto my money and see if the Republican party supports the 5 cent per gallon gas tax increase our Republican Governor is advocating. Why would I want to give money to the tax raising Republicans to beat tax raising Democrats?

CV: Did you realize that the increase in the gas tax is meant to offset Federal funds the state will not receive to repair the 35W bridge collapse? (warning - scary disaster ploy in effect here - ever since the bridge fell down every politician and bureaucrat and politician within 1000 miles is attempting to convince us that there isn''t a bridge in the midwest that isn''t poised to fall over at any minute. The only reasonable solution is to send gobs of our excess cash to the state capital)

FRT: Didn''t the state spend over $1.5 billion over the last few years on a light rail system to carry about 14 people from downtown to the airport? Perhaps we should have put that money into the bridges. Have any of our state senators called a press conference to say "not another dime for the light rail program until every bridge in the state is safe"?

CV: I don''t think any of them have said that yet.

FRT: If I''m not mistaken the state also has a $2 billion surplus to work with.

CV: I think that''s in case we have any unexpected disasters.

FRT: Wouldn''t the collapse of an interstate highway bridge at rush hour count as one of these?

CV: I guess it would. Well, perhaps you would like to start by helping with a smaller contribution this evening.

FRT: Perhaps I''ll wait. Make sure to tell the senators that I''ll be glad to support them if they stand by the promises they made when they were running for office.

CV: OK. Thank you, sir.

FRT: Thank you. Good night.