BOTH SIDES NOW by l.t. Dravis

Mr. Next President . . . tell us the truth . . . PLEASE!

MSNBC NEWS – Sunday, October 26, 2008 – Alright . . . what if Barack Obama wins the election?

What if John McCain wins?

Does it matter?

Frankly, between you, me, and the gatepost, I’m wondering why either of these two men would want the job.

Think about it . . . bank failures are continuing, business and consumer credit is nonexistent, foreclosures are skyrocketing, job losses are increasing at exponential rates, world stock markets are falling like flies, deficits are daunting, the national debt is profoundly overwhelming, the infrastructure is crumbling, our educational institutions are woefully inadequate to prepare the youth of America to compete in world markets, the Iraq War is costing $10 billion a month, we’re losing in Afghanistan, and Dancing With The Stars has evidently jumped the shark.

So, Mister Next President, how on earth can you restore confidence in our economy – domestically and internationally – in time to save significant numbers of businesses and jobs?

Can you take the right steps at the right pace to prevent us from becoming a second-rate power, economically, politically, and militarily?

After all, we’re in the economic fight of our life against some pretty powerful opponents like the European Union, China, India, and Japan.

You’re going to have to have the wisdom, determination, courage, and bipartisan support necessary to create the kinds of dramatic, powerful, economic initiatives necessary to resolve not only a national economic crisis but a worldwide crisis as well.

So, what can you do?

On the economy, the $700 billion so-called bailout package puts money into the wrong end of the economy because it doesn’t do anything to create jobs and it does nothing to even guarantee that banks will loan one single dime of that $700 billion to business or consumers.

Without enough people working to generate tax revenues for local, state, and federal coffers and consume products and services, nothing you do to pump cash down the funnels of banks and other financial institutions will impact families who live, love, and work on “Main Street”.

You’re going to have to find ways to put people to work . . . in energy related jobs, in rebuilding the infrastructure, in revamping our educational institutions, in improving and expanding health care, in taking care of the environment, and on and on.

So, how are you going to do everything that needs to be done?

It ain’t going to be easy . . . but ‘easy’ doesn’t matter . . . not these days.

The problems left us by eight years of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are enormous and too unforgiving not to challenge head on.

But where’s the money going to come from?

You can’t just print the cash and you can’t continue to borrow so all you can do is increase revenue (raise taxes and/or increase jobs) and reduce costs (cut programs and/or eliminate waste in government) which means you’re going to have to make some tough – and unpopular – choices.

So what?

Rest assured, Mr. President . . . we’ve learned our lesson.

We can no longer try to consume by ‘virtue’ of home equity loans and credit card charges and cash advances . . . ergo, we can’t have it all.

No more, no way.

We might grumble, we might groan, we might even complain, but we’re ready to follow your lead.

We only ask you to be creative, be courageous, be realistic, be willing to work hard, and most of all, be honest with us.

We can take it . . . even if Dancing With The Stars is canceled.

After all, whatever you ask us to do to get out of this mess can’t be as bad as staying in it.

Can it?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Labels: Barack Obama, Economy, John McCain

WON'T Get fooled again . . .

By l.t. Dravis

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Tuesday, September 30, 2008 – If past behavior is really the best predictor of future behavior, voters across the country must be wondering, “Does John McCain really think we can be fooled again?”

The failure of Congressional Republicans to pass the bailout package yesterday not only cost Wall Street a trillion plus dollars, it also gave us a preview of what John McCain would be like as a President faced with a crisis.

What?

McCain’s response to the Wall Street meltdown gives voters a frightening insight into the character, temperament, and capabilities of the 72 year old man who would be President . . . an insight that ain’t giving Americans any reason to trust McCain.

Don’t agree?

Okay . . . let’s look at what McCain has said – and done – over the past few weeks.

At a campaign stop in Jacksonville just two weeks ago, despite the failure of financial institutions like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and other ominous signs of turmoil on Wall Street and on Main Street, Senator McCain declared that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”. Ironically, at the same time he made that statement, the McCain campaign was running a TV ad that opened with a poignant phrase: “Our economy is in crisis.”

Less than two weeks later, without having a clear idea of where his campaign was headed on the economic crisis, McCain told the nation that he’d decided he had no choice but to suspend his campaign so he could immediately return to Washington to provide the leadership necessary to resolve the Wall Street meltdown.

This is what Senator McCain said: “Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday nights debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.”

And this is what Senator McCain did: With cameras flashing, McCain attended a highly promoted White House meeting with George W. Bush, House and Senate leaders, and Barack Obama, with the promise of bringing everyone together to create a quick, resolution to the economic crisis. The Senator from Arizona added absolutely nothing constructive to the proceedings and the meeting ended in chaos.

Then, despite his commitment to remain in Washington until the economic crisis was resolved, despite his initial decision to stay away, McCain suddenly changed his mind and flew to Mississippi to debate Barack Obama.

Fast forward to yesterday morning when John McCain bragged to the world how his leadership brought the bailout bill to victory . . . only hours before the bailout bill was defeated.

Later yesterday, after it was clear that dissident Republicans effectively killed the bailout bill, McCain distanced himself by saying the bill failed because, “Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process.”

Despite McCain’s rhetoric, everyone knows that Senator Obama didn’t defeat the bailout bill; everyone knows that the bailout bill was defeated because John McCain wasn’t capable of persuading 133 of 199 Republican Representatives to support it.

If McCain had the ability to bring politicians together to put the bailout bill over the top, don’t you think he would have done it yesterday?

Woulda, coula, shoulda . . . but he didn’t

So, what does John McCain’s behavior over the past few weeks tell you, me, and the rest of the country?

It tells us that when faced with a crisis, a President John McCain would work the cameras, play the media, and talk the right talk while failing to provide the leadership necessary to unify opposing factions to provide a viable resolution.

Seems like we’ve been there and done that.

After two terms of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, I’m betting we won’t get fooled again.

What do you think?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

We want to hear BOTH SIDES NOW© so we can send your concerns to

435 Representatives and 100 Senators until they listen . . .

and then, we’ll do it some more

Labels: 2008 Presidential Election, John McCain

WHY Not pay burglars?

l.t. Dravis

WALL STREET/WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, September 22, 2008 – Don’t mean to be nosy, but how much did you make last year?

Did you pull in anything close to $400,000.00?

Why do I ask?

Because that’s the amount of money John McCain wants to take out of our pockets to pay each CEO of each Wall Street firm as part of the $700 billion (or more) Wall Street bailout.

If I could interview Senator McCain, I’d open with, “Come on, Senator McCain . . . on your idea to compensate Wall Street senior executives as part of the bailout . . . you can’t be serious!

“You’re talking about giving $400 grand to each of the same people who caused the Wall Street crisis!

“This is nearly as unbelievable as the statement you made a week ago today when you told us that the fundamentals of the economy were good - barely about 24 hours before the Wall Street meltdown!

“Senator McCain . . . if you sincerely believe that taxpayers should spend up to $400,000.00 per person to reward or pay-off or support the people who brought down Wall Street, I wonder, would you advocate that victims pay burglars for their creativity, time, and efforts?

“Though you’ve tried to distance yourself from George W. Bush, you’re obviously in lockstep with the Bush administration’s press release today that criticizes any plan to limit compensation for those inept, greedy executives.

“Do you have any idea how much in bonuses these people paid themselves in just the past year?

“If you’re not up to speed on this, Senator, permit me to tell you that ABC News reported that CEOs employed by Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley paid themselves nearly $40 billion in ‘bonuses’ last year.

“And the $40 billion in bonuses these people paid themselves came out of the nearly $75 billion lost by shareholders in those companies in 2007.

“Do you think these same CEOs spent the $40 billion they collected last year and now need another $400,000.00 to tide them over until they can get jobs with the Department of Treasury as ‘consultants’ hired to tell the government how to ‘manage’ billions of dollars worth of worthless securities?

“Now, it isn’t like I’m making any of this up . . . I’m simply reacting to your words at a campaign stop today when you said, My friends, the top executives are asking for two and a half billion dollars in bonuses after they ran the company into the ground! The senior executives of any firm that’s bailed out by the treasury should not be making more money than the highest paid government official. We should have that criteria (sic).

“Since the highest paid government official is George W. Bush and we taxpayers pay him $400,000.00 a year to do whatever he does, it is reasonable to deduce that that is the compensation package you want to hand over to a bunch of inept Wall Street bigwigs.

“Thank you, Senator McCain, but no thanks. We can’t afford to waste our hard-earned or, in this case, our hard-borrowed money, on a bunch of losers, but most of all, we can’t afford to have a man in the presidency who is so willing to throw good taxpayer money after bad.”

To taxpayers, I would say, “This is a bad deal . . . don’t let McCain get away with it. The group who brought down Wall Street should go home, without applause, without notice, and most of all, without taxpayer money in their back pockets. Contact your Representatives and Senators – today – and tell them you don’t buy the McCain's idea to bailout disgraced Wall Street senior executives!”

To burglars, I would say, “Take heart . . . if John McCain becomes President, his kind of ‘change’ could mean a bright future for you.”

And, to you dear reader, I ask, “What do you think?”

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

We want to hear BOTH SIDES NOW© so we can send your concerns to

435 Representatives and 100 Senators until they listen . . . and then, we’ll do it some more

Labels: John McCain

HEY, Sarah . . . what are you afraid of?

By l.t. Dravis

NEW YORK – Wednesday, September 17, 2008 – Is Sarah Palin the real deal or just another mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, self-serving politician who will say or do anything to get elected?

The experts say that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, so let’s look at Palin’s past behavior.

On July 11 of this year, she fired Walter Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner of Alaska.

According to Commissioner Monegan and others in Alaska’s Public Safety Department, the Governor, the Governor’s husband, and some of the Governor’s staff had been pressuring him for months to fire Michael Wooten, an Alaska state trooper who’d been involved in a nasty divorce and custody battle with Palin’s sister.

Monegan believes he was fired because he refused to fire Wooten, saying, “It was a significant factor if not the factor.”

So, the Alaska State Legislature decided to investigate the Governor, her husband, and some of the Governor’s staff members.

If the investigation determines that the Governor is guilty of pressuring Monegan or causing others to pressure Monegan to fire trooper Wooten, she could be charged with abuse of power. If true, beyond the legal ramifications, this past behavior gives us a scary insight into Sarah Palin’s character . . . that the Governor of Alaska would misuse the power of her office to ‘get even’ with a former brother-in-law is reminiscent of another republican politician, Dick Cheney, and his petty peeve against Ambassador Joe Wilson which resulted in Cheney getting ‘even’ with Wilson by outing Wilson’s wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Palin has contradicted herself more than once on the Monegan firing. For example, just after she fired Monegan, Palin said she never pressured him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. Within a month, however, she backtracked on that statement and admitted that some of the people who worked for her and her husband had contacted Monegan twenty-five times or more, to ‘talk about’ Wooten. Since Palin denied knowing anything about any of those contacts, we would have to believe that Palin’s husband would never have talked to his wife about telling Monegan to get rid of Wooten.

In August, Governor Palin publicly committed to fully cooperate with the Alaska legislature in its investigation. “Hold me accountable,” she was quoted as telling the people of Alaska and she agreed to testify.

But then, after having been picked by John McCain to be his running mate, Palin has suddenly reversed course and decided not to cooperate with the investigation.

The Anchorage Daily News, evidently more honorable than the Governor, doesn’t like hypocrisy or deception and said in an Op-Ed piece that since Governor Palin takes every opportunity to tell the public how she honest she is and how she stands for transparency in government, she should honor her original commitment to fully cooperate with the investigation.

But political observers from both sides of the aisle agree that the Governor and the McCain campaign have decided to stonewall the investigation in an effort to prevent the voting public from learning the truth about Palin’s behavior until after they go to the polls on November 4.

Though the investigation is nowhere near being concluded, the McCain campaign has already determined that Governor Palin is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. “The Governor did nothing wrong and has nothing to hide,” the campaign said in an August 29 statement.

Moreover, the McCain campaign, without citing any supporting evidence, claims that the investigation was not initiated by the Alaska State Legislature but was initiated by the Obama campaign. To support its position, the campaign issued the following unsubstantiated accusation: “It’s outrageous that the Obama campaign is trying to attack her over a family issue. As a reformer and a leader on ethics reform, she has been happy to help out in the investigation of this matter, because she was never directly involved.”

So what would she do if she was ‘directly involved’?

Hmmm.

Okay . . . let’s ask a couple of salient questions.

Does Sarah Palin seriously believe that we can’t see that she’s trying to block the investigation because she in fact does have something to hide?

Does the McCain campaign seriously believe that we’ll actually buy the “Obama campaign is trying to attack her over a family issue” line?

Do we really want another double-speaking, innuendo-dropping, hypocritical, self-serving politician to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

And how about John “I approve this message” McCain? He picked Palin and he allows his campaign to come up with lies that insult the intelligence of every voter . . . is this kind of character we want to assume the power of the Presidency?

We’ve already seen this act . . . it’s been running night after night for seven and a half years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Shouldn’t we put up the closing notice on the Palin/McCain act before opening night?

Huh?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Labels: John McCain, Sarah Palin, sleazy politicians

NOTHING Else to talk about but Lipstick on a Pig?

By l.t. Dravis

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Tuesday, September 9, 2008 – Good morning, Senator McCain. With less than sixty days until the election, your campaign has evidently run out of things to say about how your economic policies would be better for America than the policies offered by Senator Obama.

Why do I say that?

Because when Senator Obama commented on your economic policies on the campaign trail yesterday, your campaign didn’t respond by telling voters how your policies will create more jobs, stabilize credit and mortgage markets, help more Americans afford college for their children, encourage new investment in U.S. business, increase savings rates for working folks, revamp our crumbling infrastructure, or eliminate our reliance on foreign oil.

Your campaign chose instead to attack Senator Obama with a distraction wrapped in hypocrisy.

Senator Obama was commenting on how your economic policies are no different from the failed Republican policies that brought the nation to its economic knees when he said, “You can put lipstick on a pig . . . it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change’. It’s still going to stink after eight years.”

Okay.

Obama expressed his opinion about your economic plan.

So what?

No big deal . . . right?

Isn’t that what political opponents do?

They point out what they don’t like about the other candidate’s platform, policies, and ideas.

Isn’t that what you do?

We understand that your campaign would disagree with Senator Obama’s characterization of your economic policies, but why wouldn’t it simply respond by telling us why your economic policies are better than his economic policies?

Your campaign didn’t even bother to disagree with Senator Obama.

Rather, it decided the best thing to do was to organize a telephone conference call with the media to demand an immediate apology from Senator Obama for calling Vice-Presidential nominee Palin a “pig”.

Huh?

Whoa . . . what could possibly have caused your campaign to conclude Obama had called your running mate a ‘pig’?

Obama wasn’t even talking about Governor Palin when he made the comment . . . he was talking about your economic policies.

So, how do you make the connection to Sarah Palin?

By the way, where was your apology after your comments last year on the health care proposal put forth by then First Lady Hillary Clinton in the 1990s? Do you remember how you characterized her health care proposals? In case you’ve forgotten, permit me to remind you that you said, “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Don’t remember hearing that you apologized to Hillary . . . in fact, I don’t remember hearing anyone even ask you to apologize.

In any event, while you’ve recently changed to become the ‘change’ guy, I presume you’re still representing yourself as the ‘straight talk’ guy . . . right?

Okay, so let’s talk straight.

If your economic policies provided viable solutions for the serious challenges that face this nation after eight years under Bush/Cheney and a primarily Republican Congress, your campaign wouldn’t waste America’s time and your money with an ad whining about your supposed indignation over an inane comment about ‘lipstick on a pig’.

Because the ‘experience’ thing didn’t catch on with voters, you’re now trying to sell yourself as the ‘change’ candidate, but after two terms in the house and three terms in the Senate, your record tells us everything we need to know about your interest and ability to ‘change’ anything.

And, when we look closely at the economic policies you’re currently running on, we recognize them as essentially Bush/Cheney policies wrapped in a different logo.

So, it isn’t difficult to understand that your campaign would feel pressured to focus on distractions as opposed to ideas and solutions.

What else can your campaign manager, Rick Davis, and his crew do?

Still, I’m surprised that you would be so obvious about it.

It doesn’t make sense that a campaign so desperate to take away the Obama change mantle would at the same time so obviously play ‘politics as usual’ with phony indignation over nothing.

What if the voting public sees through this charade and comes to recognize what you’re up to?

What if voters begin to see you, your running mate, and your campaign as no better and no different from the Bush/Cheney campaign that smeared you out of the 2000 Republican Primary race with distractions, distortions, and lies?

What if?

Evidently you believe that you and Rick Davis can do to Obama what George W. Bush and Karl Rove did to you eight years ago.

That’s too bad, Senator McCain.

Some of us thought you were better than that.

Guess we were wrong.

Join the conversation about politics from the working person’s point of view, BOTH SIDES NOW style, at http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/

In the interim, if you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Labels: Change we can believe in, John McCain

WE Don't have to get off your lawn, now, do we?

By l.t. Dravis

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA – Tuesday, September 2, 2008 . . . The McCain campaign is getting a little testy these days . . . sort of like the old man who yells at neighbor kids to get off his lawn.

Don’t believe it?

Well, believe this . . . John McCain pulled out of an interview with Larry King because he didn’t like the way CNN’s Campbell Brown interviewed a McCain campaign spokesman by the name of Tucker Bounds.

When you look at Tucker Bounds, you’d think you’re seeing a fairly youthful fellow with a reasonably bright mind who appears to be capable of handling a CNN television interview without the McCain campaign wigging out . . . but you’d be wrong.

So how did Campbell Brown’s interview cause the McCain bunch to take their Larry King marbles and go home?

Brown had been interviewing Bounds about Sarah Palin when she asked, “Tucker, foreign policy experience has been a huge issue in this campaign because you guys made it a big issue, pointing out John McCain has far more experience than Barack Obama and nothing in your view is more important than the campaign. I don’t have to tell you there’s a feeling out there by some that you’re not holding your VP pick to your own standard, the standard you define. So explain to us why you think Governor Palin is ready to be commander in chief?”

Bounds attempted to sidestep the question with, “Governor Palin has the good fortune of being on the ticket with John McCain who there is no question is the most experienced and shown proven judgment on the international state. He understands foreign affairs.”

Campbell Brown is much too smart to let Bounds hide behind John McCain so she went said, “We know all about John McCain, Tucker. I asked you about her. We all know the role of the VP as John McCain defined it is to be able to step into the job of the presidency on day one. I’m asking you about her foreign policy experience.”

Bounds evidently didn’t want to talk about Sarah Palin because he answered, “Yeah, Campbell, there are a number of people supporting Barack Obama’s candidacy and feel he’s experienced enough to take on the oval office. Our feeling is . . . “

Campbell refused to let Bounds slip and slide away. “You’re not answering my question . . . “

But Bounds wasn’t getting it. “Just as much experience as Barack Obama.”

Campbell, ever the professional, kept going for a meaningful answer. “Okay. So does she . . . you . . . what I’m saying is that you set a different standard by arguing how important it was with John McCain. No one’s arguing with you he has much more experience than Barack Obama, so I’m trying to get someone from the campaign to explain to me what foreign policy experience or qualification she has that would allow her to be ready to be commander in chief if something should happen to Senator McCain.”

“Well, Campbell, let me be clear,” Bounds said, proceeding to not be clear. “I don’t think there should be a problem explaining her experience. She has executive state level experience. She’s been in public office reforming Washington. She’s been in executive office longer and in a more effective sense than Barack Obama’s been in the United States Senate. She’s been the commander of the National Guard of the Alaska National Guard that’s been deployed overseas. That’s foreign policy experience.”

Campbell Brown, clearly tired of Bounds’ shameless political spin, said, “If I can interrupt for one second because I’ve heard you guys say this a lot. Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard. Just one?”

Tucker Bounds proved he could dodge a question as good as anyone in the McCain campaign when he said, “Yeah. She’s made . . . any decision she has made as the commander of the National Guard that’s deployed overseas is more of a decision Barack Obama’s been making as he’s been running for the president for the last two years.”

Campbell Brown wasn’t about to join Bounds on his detour so she pressed on with, “So tell me. Tell me. Give me an example of one of those decisions. I’m curious, just one decision she made in her capacity as commander in chief of the National Guard.”

“Campbell,” he said indignantly, “certainly you don’t mean to belittle every experience, every judgment she makes as commander . . . “

“I’m belittling nothing,” Campbell said, obviously surprised he’d taken that tack. “I want to know one judgment or one decision. I want to know what one decision was. I’m not belittling anything. I am curious.”

Bounds came up with, “As she makes a decision how to equip or how to command the National Guard in Alaska, that is more . . .”

“But Tucker,” Campbell interrupted calmly, “those are the Pentagon’s decisions. That’s General Petraeus. That’s the White House.”

Tucker Bounds was lost. “Pardon me?”

Brown attempted to bring him back on track with, “No governor make decisions how to equip or deploy the National Guard. When they go to Iraq, those are decisions made by the pentagon.”

But Tucker Bounds wasn’t interested in coming back on track; he saw an opportunity to distract her and he went for it. “Campbell, on a factual basis, they certainly do. In Alaska, if I have an emergency in your state, the National Guard is under the command of the governor. That is more of a command role than Barack Obama has ever had. I would argue that John McCain and Governor Palin between the two of them have far more command experience in military than either of the candidates on the democratic side.

“I do want to argue this is about the top of the ticket. Ultimately when people go into the ballot box and decided between Barack Obama and John McCain, they will decide between John McCain’s record of reforming Washington and Barack Obama’s rhetoric on the campaign trail, doesn’t have a lot of experience, certainly no command or military experience which both our candidates have. That’s an important distinction I think voters will make the call in November.”

Campbell Brown, clearly recognizing that Tucker Bounds would never give her a straight answer, surrendered with a gorgeous smile. “All right, Tucker. I’m just going to give it to you, baby. We’ll end it there.”

Bounds sighed with relief and simply said, “Appreciate it.”

“I appreciate you coming on and taking time to have this debate,” Campbell said sincerely. “I think it’s important. People don’t know a lot about her. They want to understand her qualifications as much as possible. We’re not beating you up here. We’re not trying to. We’re just trying to educate ourselves and educate our viewers. So I really do appreciate your time and thank you for your time coming on . . . “

That’s the interview that caused the McCain campaign to pull out of the Larry King interview.

Can you believe it?

Here’s how McCain spokesperson Maria Comella characterized the interview. “After a relentless refusal by certain on-air reporters to come to terms with John McCain’s selection of Alaska’s sitting governor as our party’s nominee for vice president, we decided John McCain’s time would be better served elsewhere.”

What?

Come on, Senator McCain, you’re not really going to tell us to get off your lawn now, are you?