What was John McCain’s last, most burning question to CEO Tim Cook in yesterday’s Senate panel investigation of Apple’s tax avoidance policies? Check out the video I’ve posted below to see for yourself.

Some people might feel that the 76-year-old chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was experiencing a senior moment when he burst out with this important issue of the day:

“[W]hat I really wanted to ask was why the hell I have to keep updating apps on my iPhone all the time and why you don’t fix that,” McCain (R-AZ) spluttered.

True, McCain seemed to be laughing — and now we’re laughing too — but does it seem a little weird to anybody else that a meeting on accounting practices would end on a humor note?

But other senators on the panel also wanted Apple CEO Tim Cook to hear how they felt about his company’s products. Not everybody wants to be that old guy who fumbles a simple app upgrade.

Sen. Clair McCaskill (D-MO) reportedly gasped, “I love Apple! I love Apple!” Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) revealed that he had an iPad. So does Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). Good, I guess.

But Levin did take time from the Apple product love-in to point out that Apple was exploiting tax loopholes that cost the US treasury billions of dollars every year.

Apple CEO Cook responded by telling Levin that he too would like to see changes in the tax code.

To McCain he said that Apple keeps “improving our products all the time,” which I think we can take as “no” to McCain’s request to halt the upgrades.

Talking Points Memo TV posted the chuckle-worthy outburst:

Will you stand with good old boy McCain to get Apple to stop nagging us to update our apps?

Or will you join me in asking both Apple’s Tim Cook and Sen. John McCain to get off my lawn?

[John McCain photo by Dan Bennett via Wikimedia Commons]

John McCain Asks Apple To Stop Nagging Him To Update Apps [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Internet television streaming service Aereo has received an unlikely ally in US Senator John McCain.

McCain last week introduced a bill that would stop television distributors from bundling unpopular channels with high demand channels. Because of parts of the bill, it has been dubbed the “Aereo provision.”

If you are unfamiliar with the platform, Aereo provides subscribers online access to live broadcast television. The company picked up over-the-air signals by using thousands of tiny antennae. The company then transmits those signals to an online DVR service that is available in large metropolitan areas.

The company was recently sued because it doesn’t pay a licensing fee to Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, and other over-the-air broadcasters. Aereo has so far won two federal court battles in New York.

Following several court decisions, News Corp. President and COO Chase Carey threatened to make Fox TV a subscription-only service.

Responding to Fox’s threats to pull its over-the-air broadcasting, John McCain jumped in to note that Fox is only allowed to operate based on a government license. In exchange for its license, Fox must provide local news, weather, and emergency alerts to customers.

John McCain’s bill essentially says that, if Fox stops broadcasting for free, it will lose its license to air content on broadcast airwaves.

Should Fox decide to push out non-subscribers, it would leave more than 50 million people without service.

While over-the-air broadcasters continue to call the Aereo service a system of piracy, the truth is Aereo takes already free to watch signals and sends them to users over a new signal. The company charges to store a users shows on DVR, but it does not charge a per channel rate. Essentially, Aereo is like buying a DVR for your TV and then recording channels you get for free. It is that train of thought that has lobbied the court system around Aereo and against major over-the-air broadcast channels.

Do you think John McCain is right in supporting Aereo and its efforts to bring over-the-air broadcasts to a viewers computer screens?

John McCain Becomes Aereo’s Big Supporter is a post from: The Inquisitr

The bipartisan Senate proposal to to expand background checks failed 54 – 46 Wednesday, with four Democrats siding with 41 Republicans to oppose the piece of gun control legislation.

All four of the Democrats — Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Heidi Heitkamp, and Mark Pryor — come from conservative states. Three of the four have touch re-election campaigns ahead of them. Had the four senators stood with the rest of their party, the bill would have passed.

“Montana,” Baucus said in explanation for his vote.

Montana is the fourth largest state in size, but just the 44th in population size. This leaves the state with a predominantly rural population, and rural communities see little need for gun control. Nevertheless, Montana’s other Democratic senator, Jon Tester, still voted in favor of the bill. Unlike Baucus, Tester is not up for re-election until 2018.

Senator Begich of Arkansas offered poor timing as his excuse.

“It’s dangerous to do any type of policy in an emotional moment,” Begich said. “Because human emotions then drive the decision. Everyone’s all worked up. That’s not enough.”

Begich is a first-term senator up for re-election in Alaska. He had also voted against allowing the bill to enter debate in the first place.

Mark Pryor of Arkansas is also facing re-election. He expressed his opposition before the vote.

“I oppose the Manchin-Toomey amendment,” Pryor said. “Instead, I will support the Grassley amendment that enforces the laws we already have on the books. As I’ve said before, I believe we need to deal with the real issues behind gun violence, and that includes mental health and school safety. The Grassley amendment accomplishes this while protecting the rights of law-abiding Arkansans.”

Heitkamp of North Dakota is not up for re-election, but she barely won last November. Her state is deeply conservative, and she won by fewer than 3,000 votes.

“This conversation should be about what is in people’s minds, not about what is in their hands,” Heitkamp said before the vote. “I commend Senators Manchin and Toomey for working so hard to bring a serious bill to the floor. However, in its current form I do not see a path for my support. I’ve thought long and hard about this, I’ve taken the tough meetings, and I’ve heard overwhelmingly from the people of North Dakota; and at the end of the day my duty is to listen to and represent the people of North Dakota.”

Both Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, a Republican, maintained ‘A’ ratings from the NRA. On Wednesday night, the NRA threatened to lower the ratings of any politician who voted in favor of the legislation. The organization releases these ratings during election season, giving them significant power to sway politics among both Republicans and Democrats in moderately conservative states.

Four Republicans crossed the aisle to vote in favor of background checks — Pat Toomey, Mark Kirk, Susan Collins, and John McCain — but their support was not enough to make up for the Democratic defectors.

Even if the bill had passed the Senate, gun control legislation faces a much steeper challenge in the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a sizable majority.

Why These Four Democrats Voted Against Background Checks is a post from: The Inquisitr

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is increasingly aggressive and unpredictable these days, but one lawmaker seems to think the only thing the dictator is accomplishing is making a fool of himself.

Arizona Senator John McCain told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren that if North Korea decides to launch a test missile, the U.S. will swat it out of the air to prove a point. “We show young Kim Jong Un that we can take out his capabilities. We can show that to him.”

McCain did admit that dealing with North Korea is “dangerous business,” but doesn’t seem terribly threatened by Kim Jong Un’s threats.

“This guy [Kim] is a clown. He’s a fool, so was his father and so was his grandfather. But they do have nuclear weapons. They do have missiles… in caves is artillery which can be fired before we can take them out,” McCain said.

Though McCain didn’t seem worried about the U.S. in the event of an attack from North Korea, he did show concern for our allies in the area.

“There’s a city of Seoul with millions of people. This is very dangerous business. Now logically, would he ever contemplate such a thing? I think it’s pretty clear this guy and his father and grandfather didn’t think like us.”

McCain also opined that the key to keeping North Korea well-behaved is China, but he didn’t go into detail about what the country should or could do.

“The key to this is China. The Chinese can control what the North Koreans do,” he said.

In recent weeks, President Obama has received criticism for proposed cuts to the U.S. defense budget, what with North Korea threatening military action against the country and her allies.

Rep. Buck McKeon told CNN on Friday that another $150 billion cut from defense is unimaginable, especially when the president knew of the threat North Korea posed before he introduced the proposed cuts.

“No one really understands what’s in the mind of this new dictator there. So we have to be totally prepared to handle any situation,” he said.

“This is the steepest cut ever in our defense and our national security. And we’re doing it at a time when we’re in a very precarious situation all around the world,” added the House Armed Services Committee chairman.

What do you think? Should the U.S. be considering cuts to defense as North Korea becomes increasingly hostile? Does Kim Jong Un really pose a threat? Sound off!

[Image via: Alan Freed / Shutterstock.com]

John McCain Calls North Korean Dictator A ‘Clown’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is one of the Republican Party’s most prominent 2016 presidential hopefuls, and the young senator is now throwing all his weight behind an immigration reform proposal that could damage not only his appeal but the entire Republican Party brand.

That’s if Rubio fails. If Rubio succeeds and plays a key role in passing bipartisan immigration reform, it could go a long way towards determining who the Republican Party nominee for president in 2016 will be.

Marco Rubio is part of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” lawmakers tasked with presenting a bipartisan approach to comprehensive immigration reform.

Members of the Gang of Eight include Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Dick Durbin of Illinois.

John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Jeff Flake of Arizona join Marco Rubio on the Republican side.

The Gang of Eight announced Tuesday that they would be ready to present a bill this week, but the unveil has been pushed back to next week. The Senate is wrestling with comprehensive immigration reform at the same that gun control proposals are being brought forward.

Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, joined West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin in presenting a background checks bill Wednesday that is sure to be the first of many amendments brought to the Senate floor.

Politico reports that Rubio has launched a lobbying campaign to convince conservatives concerned about creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that his plan will be tough on the border.

Marco Rubio’s commitment to immigration reform isn’t a complete surprise. Schumer shared with Hot Air that Rubio has put a great deal of effort into producing a solid bill.

“He’s very fact-based, and he’s gotten his way a good percentage of the time,” Schumer said. “He’s persuaded people to his point of view a good part of the time. He comes prepared with facts, and if he doesn’t know something, he’ll ask the staff in the room. He’s not afraid to admit what he doesn’t know.”

Marco Rubio is one of three Cuban Americans in the senate and viewed as a strong candidate at a time when the Republican Party is hoping to woo the Hispanic vote. He was chosen to give the Republican response to the State of the Union, and though he gave fodder to comedians by reaching for a water bottle during his speech, it was far from the embarrassment that was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s response in 2009.

Marco Rubio is currently 41 years old, meaning he would be even younger in 2016 than Barack Obama was when he became president in 2008.

If Marco Rubio becomes the public face of an immigration reform bill that attracts the ire of conservatives or fails to go far enough, it could damage the Republican brand either among conservatives or among everyone else, and Rubio could be the easiest face to blame.

But if the gambit works, and Marco Rubio finds himself playing a leading role in passing the first substantial immigration reform bill in decades, the Republican Party may have a young face to run at the top of the presidential ticket in 2016.

[Image by Gage Skidmore [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons]

Marco Rubio For President In 2016? Not If Immigration Reform Fails is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Gang of Eight senators intend to propose comprehensive immigration reform legislation on Thursday, presenting Congress with a bipartisan bill that may actually stand a chance of getting passed.

A member of the group told The Hill that the bill is virtually complete. The plan is to bring the bill to the floor this Thursday, but there is a chance the bill could slip into next week.

“There’s a tentative agreement on a number of things, and we’re waiting to see if it can get wrapped up,” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California told reporters gathered outside of the Senate chamber today. Feinstein has led the effort to negotiate agricultural visas, a key issue in the upcoming bill. The Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO came to an agreement on a guest worker program last month that played a large role in the debate.

Members of the Gang of Eight include Republican Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

On the Democratic side, there are Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Durbin and Menendez sponsored the DREAM Act in 2011, which would have granted citizenship to students who came to the US as children, passed a background check, and completed either two years of college or military service. The bill was ultimately killed by a Republican filibuster.

Rubio has reportedly put a great deal of effort into producing a quality bill.

“He’s very fact-based, and he’s gotten his way a good percentage of the time,” Schumer said told Hot Air. “He’s persuaded people to his point of view a good part of the time. He comes prepared with facts, and if he doesn’t know something, he’ll ask the staff in the room. He’s not afraid to admit what he doesn’t know.”

The blog reports that some conservatives are concerned by the roles played by John McCain and Lindsey Graham in drafting the legislation, two of the more moderate Republicans in the Senate. Conservatives have opposed comprehensive immigration reform out of concern that undocumented immigrants should not be rewarded for, as conservatives frame the issue, breaking the law. The upcoming bill will place such immigrants on a 13-year path to citizenship if passed.

“All of us have said that they’ll be no deal until the eight of us agree to a big, specific bill, but hopefully we can get that done by the end of the week,” Schumer said on CBS’s Face the Nation.

The Gang of Eight originally planned to unveil a comprehensive immigration reform bill in March, but assuming all things go according to plan this time, better late than never.

Senate Gang Of Eight Completes Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill is a post from: The Inquisitr

Democratic strategist James Carville is lending his support to a super PAC aiming to lure Hillary Clinton into running for president in 2016. Carville is the highest profile Democrat to commit himself to the cause.

Carville (pictured below) is a longtime friend and supporter to the Clinton family. He was an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008 and ran former president Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, turning the Arkansas governor into the reason the first President Bush only served one term. His role in the campaign was documented in the Academy Award-nominated film, The War Room. Ever heard the phrase, ‘It’s the economy, stupid’? Carville helped make those words famous.

Now Carville is throwing his support behind the Ready for Hillary PAC and will urge other other supporters to do the same. The Washington Post got its hands on the email due out later today. In it, Carville writes:

“I’m not going to waste my time writing you about how great Hillary is or how formidable she’d be – you know it all already. But it isn’t worth squat to have the fastest car at the racetrack if there ain’t any gas in the tank — and that’s why the work that Ready for Hillary PAC is doing is absolutely critical. We need to convert the hunger that’s out there for Hillary’s candidacy into a real grassroots organization.”

The Hill reports that the Ready for Hillary PAC formed back in January, spearheaded by Allida Black and Judy Beck, two Clinton supporters who helped her raise more than $100,000 in 2008. The group already had 50,000 Twitter followers and 30,000 Facebook fans at the time. Many Democrats jump at the chance to see Clinton run for president.

Clinton will be 69 in 2016, nearly a decade older than she was when she ran in 2008. That is older than most presidential candidates, though John McCain was a whopping 72 years old when he ran against Barack Obama. If victorious, Clinton would become president in 2016 at the same age as Ronald Reagan, and many would say he did just fine.

[Featured image by English: Glenn Fawcett (www.defense.gov) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons]

[Image of James Carville by The Office of James Carville. [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons]

Hillary Clinton For President In 2016? One Top Democratic Strategist Says Yes is a post from: The Inquisitr

Arizona Senator John McCain and Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse arrived in Mali Tuesday, kicking off a two-day trip to assess the country’s fight against terrorism. McCain has tweeted numerous photos of his time on the ground thus far.

The two senators arrived in Bamako, Mali’s capital, and met with the country’s acting President Dioncounda Traore (pictured above) and interim Prime Minister Diango Cissok. The US cannot offer direct assistance to Mali until an election takes place establishing a new government and urges the protection of human rights. Elections are scheduled to take place in July.

Mali is a landlocked country in West Africa with a population of over 14 million. Rebels took control of the northern half of Mali by April of last year and declared the secession of a new state. The French staged a military intervention at the beginning of this year, and Mali has since restored most of its territory.

France’s military efforts are now entering into their third month. McCain pledged further US assistance to the French mission, including equipment, training, and technology. The US has used drones to monitor the situation and provide intelligence to French forces.

McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for six years who went on to become a politician, first entering the House of Representatives before going on to win four terms in the Senate. He won the Republican nomination for president in the 2008 campaign but lost the general election. He has advocated for a strong US military presence around the world and champions the need for the US to fight for freedom on behalf of less powerful nations.

Since arriving in Mali, McCain has sent out several tweets praising the interim leadership in Mali…

Good meeting w/ PM Sissoko, a Malian patriot who understands that #Mali must have free & fair elections this year twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/…

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) April 2, 2013

…and the competence of France’s forces.

Impressive briefing w/ French Commander & troops in #Mali – honored to meet heroes who’ve saved thousands of lives twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/…

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) April 2, 2013

McCain has also expressed the need for freedom of the press in the war-torn African country.

Lively discussion w/ reporters in #Bamako. Ensuring press freedom is indispensable to #Mali‘s democratic development twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/…

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) April 2, 2013

Whitehouse’s twitter feed has been mum about the trip to Mali. Instead, the senator has sent out tweets regarding the BRAIN initiative announced by President Obama earlier today.

While the US is supporting efforts to stabilize Mali, neither McCain nor Whitehouse have pushed for a stronger American presence on the ground.

[Featured image by DioncoundaTraore2012 (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons]

Senators McCain, Whitehouse Visit War-Torn Mali, Tweet Photos is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain appeared on State of the Union on Sunday where he confirmed that Chuck Hagel will likely be confirmed as Secretary of Defense within the week.

According to McCain:

“I don’t believe Chuck Hagel, who is a friend of mine, is qualified to be secretary of defense. But I do believe that elections have consequences, unfortunately, and the president of the United States was re-elected.”

Senate members will vote again on Tuesday to determine if the Republican filibuster of Hagel’s nomination should come to an end. Two weeks prior, the nomination fell 60 votes short to end the debate.

After the Republican party managed to filibuster Obama’s nomination, he took to Google+ Hangouts to discuss the situation:

“What seems to be happening — and this has been growing over time — is that the Republican minority in the Senate seems to think that the rule now is that you have to have 60 votes for everything. Well, that’s not the rule. The rule is that you’re supposed to have a majority of the hundred senators vote on most bills.”

Hagel will likely be confirmed but receive only a handful GOP votes.

According to John McCain:

“I believe that when the questions are answered, and I believe they will be this week, that the president deserves an up or down vote.”

McCain isn’t the only person worried about Chuck Hagel’s nomination. Last week, 15 GOP members sent a letter to President Obama begging him to withdraw Hagel from consideration.

Chuck Hagel had previously aligned himself with the Republican party, serving as a GOP senator for Nebraska.

Attacking Hagel over his nomination shouldn’t come as a surprise. Despite his GOP classification in Nebraska, Chuck Hagel quickly realigned his political support. Hagel sparred with George W. Bush over the war in Iraq, avoided support for Senator John McCain during the 2008 presidential elections, and eventually endorsed Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey in last year’s Nebraska Senate race.

Hagel, 66, currently serves as an intelligence adviser for the White House. Upon his confirmation, Hagel will replace the eager to retire Leon Panetta.

McCain also attacked President Obama’s nomination of  John Brennan for CIA director. According to McCain:

“Mr. Brennan said he was opposed to waterboarding and torture, but at the same time he has said it has saved lives. I would like to know what lives were saved because the information I have is it saved no one’s life. In fact, it was a lot of misinformation.”

Going on the offensive against McCain’s attack of Brennan was Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. McCaskill told Fox News:

“The president wants him in the room as he’s making important decisions. There’s no question about his integrity of character. I think the president deserves to have the Cabinet he wants as long as the person is qualified.”

McCaskill added:

“He’s qualified, and I think it’s despicable how his character has been impugned by some people through innuendo and inference.”

Here is John McCain on State of the Union:

Do you think Chuck Hagel will be confirmed in the next week?

John McCain: Chuck Hagel Will Be Confirmed This Week is a post from: The Inquisitr

The mother of a Colorado shooting victim blasted John McCain for his comments on gun control.

Caren Teves was the mother of a victim in the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting in July where James Holmes opened fire on the audience of a Batman film. Thursday, Teves said that Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) had given a shameful response to her question about gun control earlier in the day. John McCain apparently told her that she needed some “straight talk.”

According to the Huffington Post, Senator John McCain said:

“I can tell you right now you need some straight talk. That assault weapons ban will not pass the Congress of the United States.”

According to an interview with Talking Points Memo, Caren Teves said:

“I was very surprised that a senator, who has been in office for over 30 years, would address a grieving mother, who just lost her son exactly seven months prior — yesterday was the 20th, I lost my son on 7-20-2012 — to tell me that I needed ‘some straight talk.’ … It takes a lot for me to just get out of bed every morning. I mean, this is still so new and so fresh, that my son was murdered. And I just expected a little more respect from someone who’s been in office over 30 years, and his staff. Between that and the form letter that we received, it’s just, it’s appalling.”

John McCain seemed agreeable to discussing the merits of an assault weapons ban in the wake of the Aurora shooting. When said bill came to light after the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, however, McCain seemed to just turn right around and oppose it in response to the mother of a Colorado shooting victim.

How do you think Senator John McCain should have responded to the mother of a Colorado shooting victim?

John McCain: “Don’t bug me about the 12 people killed in Aurora. I need answers about the 4 killed in Benghazi!” tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/mccain…

— The Daily Edge (@TheDailyEdge) February 22, 2013

Gun Control: Mother Of Colorado Shooting Victim Blasts John McCain is a post from: The Inquisitr

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday, February 20 indicated that a majority of US citizens want illegal immigrants deported.

Approximately 53 percent of those surveyed said they were in favor of deportation, Reuters stated, with 30 percent saying they favored doing so “with some exceptions” while 23 percent preferred the action for all immigrants.

Thirty-six percent were opposed, with 31 percent stating they wanted “most” and 5 percent preferring “all” immigrants to stay in-country and be afforded a path to citizenship as President Obama has proposed.

The results highlight the tough fight ahead on immigration reform between a Democratic party that captured an “overwhelming” majority of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 general election and a Republican party that feels compelled to reach out to them, according to Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

And for Republicans like Florida Senator Marco Rubio, the efforts of President Obama are getting in the way. In a Sunday, February 17, press release, Rubio said the Obama plan would “further undermine the American people’s confidence in Washington’s ability to enforce our immigration laws and reform our broken immigration system.”

However, that doesn’t mean naturalization is dead in the water. In fact, naturalization supporters received a boost of sorts on Wednesday from Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican, according to CBS.

“There are 11 million people living here illegally. … We are not going to get enough buses to deport them,” McCain told an angry forum, adding that “any path to citizenship must require immigrants to learn English, cover back taxes, and pay fines for breaking immigration laws.”

Do you believe illegal immigrants should face deportation or be provided a pathway to citizenship?

[Image via Juan Camilo Bernal / Shutterstock.com]

Poll: More Than Half Of US Citizens Want Illegal Immigrants Deported is a post from: The Inquisitr

Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as President Obama’s defense secretary appears to be only a matter of time. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) both went on the Sunday morning talk shows and appeared to pave the way for a filibuster of the nominee to end.

If true, this would be the end to the only time a cabinet appointment had ever been filibustered. The former Republican Senator from Nebraska  has seen votes on his confirmation postponed several times, both in the committee and then when the nomination came to the floor.

Chuck Hagel’s confirmation for new post on the cabinet has been on unsure footing right from the beginning. Once a friend of Senator Hagel’s, McCain grilled the nominee at his confirmation hearing on subjects ranging from the surge in Iraq to comments Hagel made about Israel while he was still in the Senate.

According to The Guardian both McCain and Graham had gone on talk shows this morning and both said that it was time to stop blocking the nomination. Graham said that Hagel has “disavowed” the comments about Israel that troubled Graham so much.

According to the New York Daily News, the confirmation might be unblocked but neither McCain nor Graham are likely to vote for Hagel. On Meet the Press, McCain made it quite clear he didn’t believe that former Senator Hagel was the right choice for Defense Secretary

“No, I don’t believe he’s qualified,” McCain said, “But I don’t believe that we should hold up his nomination any further, because I think it’s (been) a reasonable amount to time to have questions answered.”

Is the Chuck Hagel confirmation all but a certainly now? Or will Republicans find enough Democrats that aren’t sold on the nominee to finally vote the man down? Will Hagel be a poison pill to the Obama administration no matter whether he’s confirmed?

Chuck Hagel Confirmation For Defense Secretary Appears To Be Back On Track is a post from: The Inquisitr

Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal have responded to accusations that their film Zero Dark Thirty, which traces the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden, endorsed torture by including scenes of waterboarding and other abuses.

The pair addressed the issue as Zero Dark Thirty triumphed at the New York Film Critics Circle Awards held last night at the Crimson Club in Manhattan.

Winning NYFCC’s top trio of awards for Best Film, Best Director and Best Cinematography, following its limited release on December 19 the film has received not only accolades but criticism from politicians and media voices, notably Naomi Wolf who compared Bigelow with Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl, The Guardian reports.

Last week, Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, and former Republican US presidential candidate John McCain, suggested Bigelow and Boal endorsed the use of torture by depicting “enhanced interrogations” of CIA detainees as playing a role in producing a breakthrough during the hunt for bin Laden.

The committee has now launched a probe to investigate whether Bigelow and Boal were granted “inappropriate access” to classified CIA material and whether or not CIA contacts intentionally misled them, said Reuters.

Last night, Bigelow and Boal said they stood by their work and offered a defiant response to their critics.

“I thankfully want to say that I’m standing in a room of people who understand that depiction is not endorsement, and if it was, no artist could ever portray inhumane practices; no author could ever write about them; and no film-maker could ever delve into the knotty subjects of our time,” said Bigelow as she accepted the Best Director award.

Accepting the Best Film award, Boal referred to the cases of two CIA agents who have either been jailed or are currently facing prison following torture charges, observing:

“There’s been a lot written about this movie … Let me just say this: there was a very interesting story on the front page of the New York Times today by Scott Shane, about a CIA agent who is now facing jail time for talking to a reporter about waterboarding.”

He added:

“In case anyone is asking, we stand by the film. I think, at the end of the day, we made a film that allows us to look back at the past in a way that gives us a more clear-sighted appraisal of the future.”

Starring Jessica Chastain and Joel Edgerton, Zero Dark Thirty topped up its bulging awards count with more wins at the Vancouver Film Critics Circle awards last night and Alliance Of Women Film Journalists awards. Also nominated for four Golden Globes and widely considered to be a front-runner at this year’s Academy Awards, last word should perhaps go to Mark Boal who stated the obvious in an after-awards interview with The Hollywood Reporter:

“I think [the senate committee] have a job to do, and it’s very different from my job. It’s a movie. I’ve been saying from the beginning it’s a movie. That shouldn’t be too confusing. It’s in cinemas, and if it’s not totally obvious, a CIA agent wasn’t really an Australian [Jason Clarke] that was on a lot of TV shows, and Jessica Chastain isn’t really a CIA agent; she’s a very talented actress. But I think most American audiences understand that.”

Zero Dark Thirty is set for wide release on January 11 in the UK and January 25 in the US.

Kathryn Bigelow And Mark Boal Defiantly Defend ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ Over Torture Row is a post from: The Inquisitr

Three US senators have written a letter to Sony Pictures’ boss Michael Lynton regarding the torture scene in Zero Dark Thirty, which hit select theaters Wednesday.

In the letter, obtained by Deadline, John McCain, Dianne Feinstein, and Carl Levin called the film “grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Usama bin Laden.”

The senators continued, “Zero Dark Thirty is factually inaccurate, and we believe that you have an obligation to state that the role of torture in the hunt for Usama Bin Laden is not based on the facts, but rather part of the film’s fictional narrative.”

The letter then detailed the ways in which the film was incorrect, saying that the CIA didn’t learn about the bin Laden courier from “detainees subject to coercive interrogation techniques.” The CIA learned the information “through means unrelated to the CIA detention and interrogation program.”

Sony referred to a statement by screenwriter Mark Boal and director Kathryn Bigelow released last week. The statement read in part:

“We depicted a variety of controversial practices and intelligence methods that were used in the name of finding bin Laden. The film shows that no single method was necessarily responsible for solving the manhunt, nor can any single scene taken in isolation fairly capture the totality of efforts the film dramatizes.”

Bigelow, Boal, and actress Jessica Chastain have all come to the film’s defense in the days and weeks leading up to its release. Bigelow said she wished the waterboarding torture that took place “was not part of our history, but it was.” Boal said he hoped that people would be able to watch the film without any preconceptions that it is “pro-torture.”

The letter ended with a plea that Sony correct “the impression that the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation techniques led to the operation against Usama Bin Laden.” Considering the film has already been released, it is too late for Lynton, Bigelow, and all involved with the project to make any changes, and they all seem to be staunchly standing behind the depiction of the torture scenes.

Do you think Sony, et al, are obligated to correct how they depicted the gathering of intelligence leading to Osama bin Laden’s death?

US Senators Tell Sony ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ Is ‘Grossly Inaccurate’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Senate rejected a United Nations treaty aimed at banning discrimination against individuals with disabilities on Tuesday. The treaty fell five votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary to pass in a 61 to 38 vote.

John Kerry, an advocate for the treaty, said in a statement following the vote’s outcome: “This is one of the saddest days I’ve seen in almost 28 years in the Senate. It needs to be a wakeup call about a broken institution that’s letting down the American people. We need to fix this place.”

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities calls for participating countries to guarantee equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in regards to education, healthcare, and more. The treaty was based largely on the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and was negotiated by President George W Bush in 2006. It has since been signed by President Obama, and 126 other countries have ratified the treaty.

John Kerry (D-Mass) and John McCain (R-Ariz) stood side by side on Monday, imploring the Senate to pass the treaty in the next day’s vote. Former Senator Bob Dole, along with wife Elizabeth, attended the vote on Tuesday to urge the treaty’s ratification. The former senator watched from his wheelchair as members voted from their desks instead of walking to the podium, as is customary.

Many Republicans, however, have been vocal in their opposition to the treaty. They accounted for many of the 38 opposing votes. Republicans claim the treaty gives too much power to other nations and infringes upon US sovereignty.

“I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society,” Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said on the Senate floor.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) added, “I and many of my constituents who home-school or send their children to religious schools have justifiable doubt that a foreign body based in Geneva, Switzerland, should be deciding what is best for a child at home in Utah.”

Rick Santorium, a former Pennsylvania senator and presidential candidate, has taken up opposition to the treaty, stating that it is an “egregious move to deny parents of children with disabilities the right to do what they think is in their child’s best interest.”

McCain joined with Kerry in stressing the importance of the treaty to disabled veterans abroad. “We need to step up and do the right thing for Bob Dole and the rest of our U.S. veterans,” McCain said Monday.

Senate Doesn’t Pass Disabilities Act: ‘One Of The Saddest Days,’ Says John Kerry is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sen. John Kerry was called “Mr. Secretary” by Sen. John McCain during a good-natured jibefest, but the Dem can give as good has he gets and managed to get a shot back and the fellow former Presidential hopeful and Republican leader.

Sens. Kerry and McCain both have been the losing candidate in recent presidential elections and know well the sting the Mitt Romney is feeling right now — it’s a bipartisan, across the aisle pain.

But when Sen. John Kerry was called “Mr. Secretary” at a news conference today, the jibe was more a friendly joke than an insult.

Kerry and McCain were present together at conference to discuss a disabilities treaty, McCain quipped, ‘‘thank you very much, Mr. Secretary,” ribbing his friend and political rival over the rumor that Kerry may replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State rather than the currently discussed (and heavily disputed by McCain) Susan Rice.

After Kerry was called “Mr. Secretary” by McCain, the former Dem presidential hopeful quipped back “thank you very much Mr. President.”

It was a bilateral, bipartisan burn that was chronicled on Twitter by Foreign Policy writer Josh Rogin, who tweeted:

Kerry introduces McCain at presser. McCain says, “Thank you very much Mr. Secretary.” Kerry turns beet red.

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) December 3, 2012

Kerry quips back at McCain, “Thank you very much Mr. President… This is what happens when two losers get together.” Crowd laughs heartily

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) December 3, 2012

McCain and Kerry were both advocating for the treaty, a cause which has become more discussed in recent days due to the chronic illness of Bob Dole. Opponents of the legislation include the right-wing lobby The Heritage Foundation, criticism Kerry addressed when he said:

“Anyone who suggests that this committee is a threat to American sovereignty is simply not telling the truth … This treaty does not require one change in American law. This treaty does not require or permit anybody to go to court in America. It merely sets a standard in the rest of the world to lift up their treatment of people with disabilities… What it does is make it easier for Americans with disabilities, for veterans with disabilities, to travel, work live, study, and visit overseas. That’s all it does.”

McCain concurred, saying:

“It is not an infringement on American sovereignty. Actually, it is an expansion of the American example and the American ideal throughout the world.”

You can watch John Kerry get called  ”Mr. Secretary” by John McCain, below.

John Kerry Called ‘Mr. Secretary’ By John McCain, ‘Two Losers’ Laugh is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | Republicans are beginning to say that it is their “patriotic duty” to violate Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge in order to avoid the Fiscal Cliff. According to Fox News, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is among the latest Republicans to be added to this list, saying on Sunday that he wants to close so-called tax “loopholes” to raise revenue instead of raising the $250,000 top marginal tax rate. Like Lindsey Graham (R-SC), McCain’s loopholes would include deductions on charitable donations and on mortgage interest, which primarily affect ultra rich investors. But what if instead of complicating the tax code further Congress were to create a new tax bracket for the ultra rich?

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist often points to Reagan when calling for lower taxes and spending cuts. He claims that “tax hikes are what politicians do when they don’t have the determination or the competence to govern.” On the other end of the spectrum you have those like Joe Scarborough who says that low tax rates for the rich are “immoral.” Keep in mind that the goal is to avoid the fiscal cliff and prevent an economic meltdown that could affect the poor and middle class, especially in Democratic states.

But just who is this rich we’re talking about taxing more? One factoid to keep in mind is that even if individuals earning more than $200,000 were taxed at a 100 percent tax rate the increase in revenue would come to $1.27 trillion, or just 77 percent of 2011′s deficit.

Are the rich the top ten percent of income earners? That can’t be since that would include a Minnesota policeman married to an executive level secretary, each making $56,000 a year and filing a joint tax return. The one percent has been maligned much lately in the press, but they don’t make as much as you might think. (It helps to visualize this economics information.)

For 2009, according to US News to be included in the top one percent you had to report an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of just under $344,000. That same year, the top one percent paid 37 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent paid 70 percent, and those in the top half paid almost 98 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the bottom half paid about 2 percent. In fact, 47 percent of households pay no federal income taxes (which is where Romney derived his 47 percent comment).

You also have to keep in mind that federal taxes are levied uniformly. So someone struggling to get by in New York City might be making six figures easily whereas someone living large in the south could live off half of that amount. The other major factor is that the US Dollar is devaluing fairly rapidly due to the Federal Reserve’s plan for quantitative easing, also known as QE3. It might not be too long before the cost of living rises to the point that a larger percentage of the US population is making more than $250,000. Sure, Congress might lower the taxes on us new “rich” at that point in the future, but do you want to risk that?

Because of these reasons I say keep the $250,000 tax bracket where it is. Instead, if Republicans are going to cave they should consider creating a new top-bracket marginal income tax rate specifically designed for the ultra rich. Once you reach this level of income there tends to be a sudden jump in income levels, a divide between the upper middle class and the true rich. We’re not talking about the one percent…we’re talking like 0.1 or 0.01 percent here. So I would suggest making this figure fairly high. I also agree with the newest version of the Buffett Rule, which proposes a minimum tax percentage that can’t be chipped away at by tax write-offs, but honestly that’s a drop in the bucket since it’s only expected to bring in $3.2 billion a year.

Secondly, the tax code probably should be revised to take into account small businesses. Small businesses account for 99.7 percent of employment in the US and create more than 50 percent of GDP. Because 48 percent of small business income flows through to personal income taxes I say that the tax code needs to make a distinction and create a separate tax bracket specific to those 48 percent.

If Congress does decide to keep the tax brackets as they are the only way Republicans should cave in is if the extra percentage of revenue is declared by law to be only for paying off the national debt. Historically, this only makes sense. Congress has a history of raising taxes to fix their budget woes by increasing revenue only to increase their spending beyond the new revenue increase. This happened under both Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior, where a Democratic Congress made promises they never kept.

At the beginning of his presidency, you may be surprised to learn that Ronald Reagan initially allowed a bipartisan Congress to raise taxes to pay for government-run health care. But many taxes were slashed during the Reagan presidency. The top-bracket marginal income tax rate was one of them, going from a whopping 70 percent all the way down to 28 percent, just to be bumped back up shortly later. Under Bush Senior the Democratic Congress promised to cut spending if taxes were increased by that did not happen.

So McCain may have joined the new Republican bandwagon for violating the no new tax pledge but it does not appear like Congress is much closer to avoiding the fiscal cliff. Unfortunately, both parties are bickering over changes that won’t fix the overall budget problems instead of fixing their spending addiction. What new ideas do you think both parties should consider for avoiding the fiscal cliff and solving the deficit/debt problem?

McCain Violates Pledge For Fiscal Cliff: Republicans Should Create Ultra Rich Tax Bracket [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, confirmed Sunday that she is initiating a review of “talking points” related to the attack in Benghazi on September 11 after what she says is heavy “politicization” of remarks made by US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in the wake of the attacks.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein spoke about Susan Rice having come under attack after the situation in Benghazi on Meet The Press, noting that the Ambassador had come under heavy criticism from the right — ostensibly due to dueling narratives about the Benghazi attack and ongoing allegations that the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up after the fracas left four Americans dead, including Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens.

Much of the brouhaha to which Feinstein refers was sparked after Rice said on Face The Nation:

“… based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy – sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.”

Dianne Feinstein says Rice was speaking based on approved, unclassified “talking points” for which she was debriefed and that the Ambassador was unable to disclose further information publicly on the open investigation.

As Rice comes under fire in the attack’s ensuing narrative war, Feinstein explained Sunday:

“She could speak publicly only on unclassified speaking points. I have some concern with those speaking points … We gave the direction yesterday that this whole process is going to be checked out. We are going to find out who made changes in the original statement. Until we do, I really think it’s unwarranted to make accusations.”

House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has stated that the “narrative was wrong, and the intelligence was right,” expressing the goal of discovering why the two were seemingly dissonant in the days and weeks after the attack:

“The narrative, as it went from at least the CIA and other intelligence agencies, was accurate … There were some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had. That’s my concern, and we need to say hey, we need to figure out how that happened.”

The debate over the administration’s framing of the attack in its aftermath has been a highly polarized and partisan fight, most heavily during the lead up to the election earlier this month. During an October debate, GOP candidate Mitt Romney challenged incumbent Barack Obama during the second debate, prompting the President to ask moderator Candy Crowley to pull a transcript from the day after the attack during remarks Obama made in the White House Rose Garden.

Romney alleged that President Obama had failed, as had his administration, to refer to the incident as a terrorist attack, and, during the speech, the President had indeed called the Benghazi incident an “act of terror.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has compared the pillorying of Rice to previous situations during which a political figure was attacked due to the talking points she was given, countering that Sens. Lindsay Graham and John McCain, who are heavily attacking Susan Rice, had come to the defense of Condoleezza Rice:

“Eight years ago when President Bush suggested Condoleezza Rice for secretary of State, some people said, ‘Well wait a minute, wasn’t she part of misleading the American people about intelligence information that led to our invasion of Iraq?’ And it was Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham who stood up and said, ‘Don’t hold her accountable for the intelligence that was given to her.’”

McCain himself has been criticized for strongly attacking President Obama (to whom he lost the presidential election in 2008) over the Benghazi attacks when he himself “forgot” an important briefing on the Benghazi situation in order to attend a press conference about Benghazi.

Feinstein also confirmed Sunday that much of the information Susan Rice has been criticized for keeping under wraps had, at the time she spoke, not been “cleared for public review.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Defends Susan Rice On Benghazi ‘Talking Points’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain got a little testy with a CNN reporter who asked why he skipped a Benghazi briefing to complain about Benghazi in a separate press conference.

Today, the Arizona Senator slammed President Obama over his handling of the Benghazi Consulate attack which resulted in the deaths of four American citizens. In a press conference, McCain and supporters called for a Watergate-style investigation into the Administration’s handling of the situation.

At the same time, a classified Benghazi briefing with high-ranking military and diplomatic officials was being held practically across the hall.

McCain’s absence was clarified as a “scheduling error” by his spokesman. Though McCain isn’t suggesting that he was intentionally shut out of the briefing, he was a little short with a CNN reporter who asked him why he bailed on the meet-up.

“I have no comment about my schedule and I’m not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media,” McCain said.

The reporter asked why McCain wouldn’t comment, causing him to reply, “Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

The CNN reporter asked why McCain would miss a briefing on an issue he was so clearly upset about, causing the Senator to reply, “I’m upset that you keep badgering me.”

Like many, McCain wants answers on the Benghazi attack. There’s a general sense that we’re not getting the whole truth, despite savvy political maneuvering and the embarrassing insistence of some media outlets to “protect” the president.

Still, we have to agree. If you’re more interested in substance than press, you might want to make the classified briefing, Senator.

Here’s the audio of the spat between John McCain and the CNN reporter:

John McCain Snaps On Reporter Over Skipped Benghazi Briefing [Audio] is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain missed a classified briefing on the details of the Benghazi attack on Wednesday.

What was McCain doing during the briefing? According to ABC News, McCain was on the senate floor demanding answers from the White House about the Benghazi attack

Business Insider reports that officials from the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA and the National Counterterroism Center gave a three hour briefing to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. McCain, who is part of the committee, missed the briefing due to a “scheduling conflict.”

While the other members of the committee were being briefed about the situation McCain was criticizing the White House for how it has handled the attack on September 11 in Libya.

McCain said at a press conference:

“More than two months after the Benghazi attack, there are still many unanswered questions … While we await the findings and recommendations of the administration’s internal review of the Benghazi attack, it’s essential for the Congress to conduct its own independent assessment.”

ABC notes that McCain may have received some of the answers he was looking for at the briefing but he probably would not have been satisfied. The top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Susan Collins, said that the briefing only “scratched the surface” of the situation.

Collins said:

“I really wasn’t (satisfied). There are many, many unanswered questions. I feel that we’ve only scratched the surface through the briefings that we had today.”

There are currently four senate committees looking into the Benghazi attack but McCain is calling for an independent group to investigate the situation. Collins, however, disagrees.

Collins said:

“I do not see the benefit of creating a brand new committee when we already have the Senate’s chief oversight committee, plus the Intelligence Committee, examining this very important matter.”

John McCain Missed Briefing While Slamming Obama Over Benghazi Attack is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain doesn’t have any patience for hecklers.

Appearing at a rally Monday for Republican Senate candidate Jeff Flake, John McCain was interrupted when someone from the audience yelled at him, The Huffington Post reported.

McCain responded in a polite but firm manner.

“Ah, there they are,” he said as someone in the audience yelled something that could not be caught on video.

“It’s all right, it’s all right,” McCain told supporters. “That’s right. Listen, even here in this wonderful square, jerks are allowed. They’re allowed.”

But then John McCain showed off his angry side a bit.

“I want to tell you, ‘shut up,’ ” he added, sticking out his tongue. “Anyways — I’m too old to put up with jerks like you.”

John McCain has some experience with hecklers, though not always against him. During the 2008 election, some of his political rallies grew contentious after the addition of Sarah Palin to his ballot fired up GOP voters, with supporters calling out threats and slurs against Obama.

He’s also dealt with hecklers on the 2012 campaign trail too. As The Washington Times noted, John McCain dealt with a Memorial Day heckler in the same fashion, calling a man who interrupted his speech at a Mitt Romney rally a “jerk.”

Despite losing the 2008 election to Barack Obama, John McCain remains a valuable campaign tool for many candidates. In Arizona he has been active for Flake, who is trying to win the seat vacated by GOP Senator John Kyl. Despite being a onetime opponent to Romney in the 2008 Republican Primaries, McCain has also been a strong supporter of this year’s GOP candidate.

John McCain Tells Hecklers To Shut Up While Campaigning For Senate Candidate is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain blasted Colin Powell after his endorsement of President Barack Obama, saying that Powell was the main reason the United States attacked Iraq during the Bush administration.

McCain sat down for an interview with The National Review on Friday, saying:

“Colin Powell, interestingly enough, said that Obama got us out of Iraq. But it was Colin Powell, with his testimony before the UN Security Council, that got us into Iraq.”

The news site also asked about John Sununu’s reaction to Powell’s endorsement (suggesting it may be racially motivated) McCain answered, “He retracted those comments this morning.”

The Huffington Post notes that McCain went on to say:

“All I can say is that Gen. Powell, you disappoint us and you have harmed your legacy even further by defending what has clearly been the most feckless foreign policy in my lifetime.”

While John McCain may slam Colin Powell for helping the US invade Iraq, it is worth noting that McCain voted in October 2002 to authorize force in Iraq. He was also an early proponent of attacking the Middle Eastern country. On October 18, 2001, McCain spoke about what would come next after Afghanistan, saying:

“The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.”

Powell made his speech to the UN Security Council in 2003 about Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction. It lent significant credibility to invading the Middle Eastern nation. Powell has since spoke about the now-infamous speech, saying it was a “blot” and a “failure.”

Do you think that John McCain should criticize Colin Powell for his Obama endorsement and for his UN speech advocating war in Iraq?

John McCain Blames Colin Powell For Second Iraq War is a post from: The Inquisitr

Senator John McCain called Mitt Romney’s decision to have rocker Meatloaf perform “America the Beautiful” at a Thursday campaign stop in Defiance, Ohio a “bad idea.”

The Republican Senator was confronted by TMZ Friday and exclusively spoke about the singer’s questionable performance. Telling the site the aging rocker and former Celebrity Apprentice contestant was a bad choice for Mitt Romney’s campaign. TMZ posted video of their conversation with McCain today.

Asking the senator whether it was appropriate for Meatloaf to take artistic license with the song and change the lyrics McCain retorted “Change the song? Or have someone who knows the words?”

Several media outlets have spoken out against Meatloaf’s take on the American classic. NBC News likened it to “screaming” and “wailing.” TMZ said the singer went “completely off the rails.” Our own James Johnson called it a “train wreck of a performance.”

In addition to his baffling rendition of “America the Beautiful,” the singer made several confusing comments about the political race which The Huffington Post points out is a direct quote:

“There has storm clouds come over the United States … There is thunderstorms over Europe. There are hail storms – and I mean major hail storms – in the Middle East. There are storms brewing through China, through Asia, through everywhere, and there’s only one man that on the other night when President Barack Obama, God bless him, said to Mitt Romney, ‘The Cold War is over.”

What did you think of Meatloaf’s performance?

John McCain: Meatloaf Was A ‘Bad Choice’ For Romney Campaign is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain is apparently wistful for the good old days, back when he was tweeting to his BFF Snooki and making fun of Barack Obama with her.

In an interview with MTV News, the Republican Senator from Arizona said that he misses Snooki, who he once shared a series of tweets with bashing Obama. In the interview McCain talked about his wishes for the Jersey Shore star, who has settled down from her hard partying ways now that she has a new baby at home.

“I hope you’re happy,” McCain said in addressing Snooki. “I hope everything’s fine with your baby and I wish you’d get rid of some of those jerks you’re hanging around with.”

McCain then added, “But that just comes from an old geezer that doesn’t understand a lot of that lifestyle.”

McCain’s relationship with Snooki dates back to 2010, when she shared her disdain with Obama’s proposal to put a tax on tanning booths, The Huffington Post noted.

At the time, Snooki said: “McCain would never put a 10 percent tax on tanning, because he’s pale and he would probably want to be tan.”

McCain — or at least a younger, more media savvy member of his staff — responded to Snooki’s comments via Twitter, writing, “u r right, I would never tax your tanning bed! Pres Obama’s tax/spend policy is quite The Situation. but I do rec wearing sunscreen!”

Snooki responded by telling John McCain that she voted for him in 2008 “because he was really cute and [she] liked when he did his speeches.”

John McCain Says He Misses Snooki is a post from: The Inquisitr

US Senator John McCain is slamming President Obama for the current situation with Iran, Syria, and elsewhere, inferring that, while he is not happy with Romney’s sidestepping of world affairs in his presidential campaign, Obama’s current policies are in need of help.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate sat down with the AP in Italy on Saturday, criticizing the man who beat him for not helping rebels in Syria, for abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan, and delaying decisions on Iran’s nuclear program, reports Politico. McCain stated:

“In a way it’s almost like watching a train wreck.”

But at the same time, McCain also had some harsh words for the RND’s failure to mention national security and world affairs. McCain stated:

“The election is about jobs and the economy, but a failed … national security policy over time is going to lead to significant domestic problems. It’s the job of presidents and candidates to lead and articulate their vision for America’s role in the world. The world is a more dangerous place than it’s been since the end of the Cold War, and so I think the president should lead and I think candidates for the presidency should lead and talk about it, and I’m disappointed that there hasn’t been more.”

The Boston Herald notes that John McCain added that sanctions rarely work, and that the red line in Iran should be weapons capability, not the actual creation of them. The former presidential candidate was also happy to discuss how he would have done things differently, also criticizing the current president for pulling troops from Iraq. McCain stated:

“I would have left a residual force of some 20,000 troops in Iraq. Things are unraveling” in a way that threatens to yield a “fractured state” divided among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions, under the sway of al-Qaida, and out of the U.S. orbit — “all the things we predicted would happen if we pulled out completely.”

He was also harsh on Obama’s decisions for Afghanistan, saying that:

“I know that the Afghan people strongly disapprove of a Taliban (return), but I think it’s pretty obvious they know the Americans are leaving and they have to adjust to the post-American involvement environment and that means accommodating the certain forces that they otherwise wouldn’t.”

Do you think John McCain is right to call President Obama’s decisions in Iran, as well as with other foreign policy, a “train wreck”?

John McCain Calls Iran Situation A ‘Train Wreck’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain is thrilled about Mitt Romney’s running mate choice, calling Paul Ryan an “excellent choice,” just like his pick of Sarah Palin four years ago.

McCain was interviewed on “Fox News Sunday,” where he voiced his approval of Ryan, as well as taking a stroll down memory lane, reminiscing on his own campaign four years ago, reports The Huffington Post.

McCain explained how choosing a vice presidential running mate can provide a boost in battleground states. He also took the time to mention his satisfaction at choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate in the 2008 campaign. McCain stated:

“First of all, the selection is made as to who will best help you get nominated and who you believe is best suited for the role of vice president of the United States. At that time — I’m still proud of my running mate. I’m proud of Sarah and her family and I’m proud of the work that we did.”

John McCain added that:

“Many people thought that other people who were being considered might bring home those states into the Romney column. I think this is a pretty bold choice as well. And I think it’s a good matchup because of Paul Ryan’s ability to carry a Romney agenda through the Congress of the United States, and his intimate knowledge of the budget.”

CNN reports that McCain believes Ryan will be perfect in assisting Romney with our nation’s economic problems, because of his extensive background on the House Budget Committee. McCain also believes that Ryan’s experience on Capitol Hill is a perfect balance to Romney’s lack of experience as a Washington insider, adding that, ”I think it’s a good matchup because of Paul Ryan’s ability to carry a Romney agenda through the Congress of the United States.”

On the issues of the economy and budget, John McCain stated that, “There’s nobody that knows these issues better than Paul Ryan.”

John McCain: Paul Ryan ‘A Bold Choice,’ Just Like Sarah Palin is a post from: The Inquisitr

According to former Vice President Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin was “a mistake” to pick for running mate. Considering that Cheney is also offering VP advice to Mitt Romney, it’s safe to say that Palin is probably not on the list.

The Los Angeles Times reports that in Cheney’s first interview since undergoing a heart transplant in March, he stated:

“I like Gov. Palin. I’ve met her. I know her. She’s an attractive candidate. But based on her background, she’d only been governor for, what, two years? I don’t think she passed that test … of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake.”

Cheney, who spoke with Jonathan Karl, served as vice president for President George W. Bush’s eight-year administration, and also advised President Gerald Ford on his running mate selection.

Dick Cheney explained that, on the criteria of the candidate being capable of assuming the presidency, should anything happen, McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin was very poor. The Huffington Post notes that Dick Cheney stated:

“That one, I don’t think, was well-handled. The test to get on that small list has to be, ‘Is this person capable of being president of the United States?’”

Cheney was also able to provide insight into the political gamesmanship behind the VP vetting process. He noted that, while helping both Presidents Ford and Bush with their VP selection, Cheney was called occasionally to ask if he would tell the press they were on a list of potential vice presidential candidates.

Why? Because being on the elusive list of possible VP candidates would help them do better in other competitive races. Occasionally, Cheney would agree, but stated, ”But that was the big list. It was easy to get on the big list.” The second, shorter list, however, contains those who are actually being considered for the candidate’s running mate.

What do you think of the admission by Dick Cheney that Sarah Palin was “a mistake” in the 2008 Presidential election?

Dick Cheney: Sarah Palin VP Pick Was ‘Mistake’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

After former presidential wannabe Michele Bachmann claimed that Huma Abedin, a top aide within the U.S. government, has ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, Republicans all over the country have spoken out condemning Bachmann’s attacks and defending Abedin’s reputation.

Weird, right?

Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (also wife of disgraced pol Anthony Weiner), was singled out in a report that Bachmann, along with four other conservative lawmakers, submitted to five federal agencies warning that the Muslim Brotherhood could be attempting an infiltration of the U.S. government. Senator John McCain was the first Republican to step out in defense of Abedin, calling the report an ” unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman,” on the Senate floor, but he’s far from being the last Righty to condemn Bachmann’s tasteless attack.

House Speaker John Boehner has also rushed to the defense of Abedin, warning lawmakers against making serious reputation-tarnishing allegations without hard evidence to back them up, reports the Huffington Post. “From everything that I do know of [Abedin], she has a sterling character and I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous,” he said. Bachmann’s former campaign chief harshly condemned the former presidential contender in an op-ed contributed to Fox News.

Florida Repub. Marco Rubio also condemned Bachmann’s attacks, albeit in a much more tactful way, telling NPR that, “I can tell you that I don’t share the feelings that are in that letter,” he continued, “And in fact, I’m very very careful and cautious about ever making accusations like that about anyone.”

We’ve even got Republicans taking to Twitter to defend Abedin!

Rep. Bachmann’s accusations about Sec. Clinton aide Huma Abedin are out-of-line. This kind of rhetoric has no place in our public discourse

— Scott P. Brown(@ScottBrownMA) July 18, 2012

For her own part, Bachmann maintains that this is all just a great big misunderstanding and that her letters are being taken out of context. She released a statement Wednesday, saying:

“I encourage everyone, including media outlets, to read them in their entirety,” continuing, “The intention of the letters was to outline the serious national security concerns I had and ask for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical group’s access to top Obama administration officials.”

Whether or not that’s true, who knows. You can let us know what you think in the comments.

Still, it’s always interesting when one party overwhelmingly steps out in defense of someone across the aisle.

Republicans Rush To Defend Huma Abedin From Michele Bachmann is a post from: The Inquisitr

Have you been wondering why GOP presidential candidate hopeful has yet to release his tax returns (aside from 2010 and 2011), even though he is being pressured by Democrats as well as Republicans to do so?

With President Obama releasing all of his tax returns since 2000, and news that McCain’s campaign was privy to over 20 years of Romney tax returns when they vetted him for vice president in 2008, it is confusing why he still refuses to make them public.

ThinkProgress reports that Romney’s response when asked his reasons for keeping his tax returns private is that he is “simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about.”

The refusal to give in could cost him in the long run though, as a poll released on Tuesday notes that about 56 percent of all voters want him to release the returns. Also, as George Will, a long-time conservative commentator and Washington Post columnist, stated:

“The costs of not releasing the returns are clear, therefore he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

Joshua Green with Bloomberg Business Week has a theory for why Romney may be hiding those tax returns, specifically the one from 2009. Green writes that he recently had dinner with a few private equity executives, and quizzed them on their theories about Romney’s tax returns.

While he assures readers that he has no idea what could be in those returns, they suggest that Romney may not have paid any taxes in 2009. He explains by saying:

“When the stock market collapsed in 2008, the wealthiest investors fared worse than everyone else…the “ultra-rich”—those with fortunes of more than $30 million—fared worst of all, losing on average about 25 percent of their net worth. ‘There was really nowhere to hide as an investor in 2008,’ Merrill Lynch’s president of global wealth management pointed out in 2009. ‘No region ended the year unscathed.’”

Since Romney is one of America’s “ultra rich,” he probably suffered significant losses in 2008, which would have ended in him paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009, a factor that Green states “would be politically deadly for him.” This is just a theory though, since the documents have not been made public.

Joe Weisenthal with Business Insider agrees that Green’s hypothesis could be correct, though disagrees on the idea of it being “politically deadly.” He has another theory as well, saying that perhaps instead of suffering losses, Mitt Romney instead made a “windfall profit” in 2008-2009, possibly for being a part of a fund that was short housing, or even bet on the bank bailouts. Weisenthal assures, however that it is, “100% speculation, but it would also be the kind of thing that would be deadly (probably more deadly than $0 taxes). It also would have been somewhat unplannable.”

Whatever the reason Mitt Romney refuses to make more of his tax returns public, one thing is for sure–the longer he holds out on doing so, the more speculation there will be for why.

Why Mitt Romney’s Not Releasing His Tax Returns, Despite Pressure From Both Sides is a post from: The Inquisitr

Republican Senator John McCain put to rest rumors that Mitt Romney‘s tax returns may have factored into the 2008 elections when McCain decided to pick Sarah Palin instead of Romney as his VP running mate.

Romney, who made his own short run for president in the 2008 GOP primary, supposedly provided McCain’s team with over 20 years of tax returns as part of the vetting process for the presidential hopeful’s vice presidential slot, which is significantly more than he has made public, according to CNN.

On Tuesday, McCain rejected the notion in an interview with Politico, and even grew angry at questions over his choice to pick Palin instead of Romney. McCain stated when the magazine asked him if tax returns disqualified Mitt Romney during the vetting process:

“Of course not. I don’t know what depths these people won’t reach. Obviously, it’s just outrageous. That’s just outrageous. It shows the – it’s so disgraceful for them to allege something that they have absolutely no knowledge of.”

When they asked why John McCain chose to go with Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney, the Republican Senator responded:

“Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. … Come on, why? That’s a stupid question.”

The Huffington Post spoke with Steve Schmidt, who was McCain’s top 2008 campaign strategist. He also stated the same thing, that Romney’s taxes had nothing to do with the decision to pass him over. Schmidt stated:

“I get the political hyperbole and all, but that’s not the way the decision was made. We never sat around having a discussion about Mitt Romney’s taxes through the prism of a liability if he were chosen.”

Schmidt did admit, however, that Mitt Romney’s wealth was a possible problem to the McCain 2008 campaign. He explained:

“Senator McCain got caught flatfooted answering a question about how many houses he owned. In fact, they were Cindy McCain’s properties, but that distinction was lost in the political optics and we knew it would be a big liability that the presidential and the vice presidential candidates together owned more than a dozen homes. It was like something out of a ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit. I mean, come on.”

What do you think of John McCain’s decision to pick Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney in 2008, despite the fact that McCain is now fully endorsing Romney in the coming election?

Check out the video below to see who John McCain thinks Mitt Romney should pick as his VP:

John McCain: Sarah Palin Was ‘Better Pick’ For VP Than Mitt Romney is a post from: The Inquisitr

Senator John McCain is slamming President Barack Obama for his claims that the series of national intelligence leaks did not come from within the White House administration.

When asked whether the President knew directly that the leaks were coming from within, McCain responded to CNN, saying:

“I have no idea whether the president knew or did not know. I have never alleged such a thing.  But I have alleged that if you look at the information that’s been leaked, again, that information in the book says that several officials said that they had to remain anonymous who gave this information because they would lose their jobs. Well, why would they possibly lose their jobs if they weren’t leaking information that has to do with national security?  So, I mean, it’s obvious on its face that this information came from individuals who are in the administration. The president may not have done it himself, but the president is certainly responsible as commander-in-chief.”

President Obama denied that the leaks came from the White House and called the claims “offensive” in regards to whether they were purposefully leaked to make him look strong on national security.

Demanding an investigation, Republicans are seeking an independent counsel to review the case and determine the facts.

“If it is — and it certainly is — the most egregious breach of intelligence in anybody’s memory, that certainly requires a special counsel who is completely independent,” McCain said.

California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein insists that if an investigation is prompted then it must be after the initial probe findings before they discuss an independent counsel to investigate.

“The investigation has to be nonpartisan, it’s got to be vigorous and it’s got to move ahead rapidly,” says Feinstein.

Below you can find President Obama and Senator John McCain’s remarks to CNN regarding the leaked information.

John McCain Pummels President Obama As He Denies Intelligence Leaks [VIDEO] is a post from: The Inquisitr

There is a light for Mitt Romney at the end of the tunnel.  This past month Mitt Romney, The Romney Victory Fund and the Republican National Committee raised more than $76.8 million dollars in May.  All together the three organizations have more than $107 million dollars cash on hand. President Obama and the Democrats raised about $17.6 million dollars less during the same time period.

It has widely been assumed with President Obama’s massive fundraising abilities that he would enjoy a nice advantage in cash on hand for at least the opening months of the campaign.  Romney is on track to close that gap much earlier than originally thought.

Romney’s massive May is in addition to the more than $40 million dollars that he brought in April.  Romney’s campaign has more than $61 million dollars cash on hand.  The Romney Victory Fund is a joint fundraising organization between the Republican National Committee and The Romney Campaign.  The Victory Fund allows donations up to $75,000.

To show the true depth of Romney’s fundraising ability, during May of the 2008 campaign John McCain had barely raised more than $20 million dollars.

Romney’s campaign said that 93% of the money raised was from donations of less than $250.  These donations only accounted for $12 million out of the $76 million dollars raised.

While the conventions have not yet been held Romney is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party to face President Barack Obama in November.  President Obama has said that his goal is to raise and spend more than $1 billion dollars to ensure that he wins reelection.

Romney Raises $17.6 Million More Than Obama in May is a post from: The Inquisitr

Senator John McCain called President Obama out on Tuesday for not doing more to stop leaks by top government officials to news outlets, which talk about key national security decisions, arguing that these leaks are helping to bolster Obama’s reelection efforts.

The Arizona senator remains a huge critic of the president’s foreign policy, stemming from the 2008 presidential race, according to The Washington Post. He stated during a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday that:

“With the leaks that these articles were based on, our enemies now know much more than they even did the day before they came out about important aspects of the nation’s unconventional offensive capability and how we use them. Such disclosures can only undermine similar ongoing or future operations and, in this sense, compromise national security. For this reason, regardless of how politically useful these leaks may be to the president, they have to stop.”

John McCain cited a few articles during his speech including, according to The Associated Press:

“Obama secretly had ordered the use of a sophisticated cyberweapon, known as Stuxnet, to attack the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities. The senator also cited published reports about the drone campaign against terrorists.”

The Washington Post reports that John McCain’s second argument, besides the timed reports helping to supplement the current president’s re-election, is that:

“Our enemies now know much more than they even did the day before they came out about important aspects of the nation’s unconventional offensive capability and how we use them.”

Do you think that Senator John McCain is right to ask for a special committee to discover and stop the security leaks in the White House?

John McCain Calls On President Obama To Plug Intelligence Leaks is a post from: The Inquisitr

Andrew Moss, the CEO for Aviva, Britain’s largest insurer, has resigned suddenly, following a shareholder revolt over executive pay and compensation.

The company gave no further explanation as to why the decision was made by Moss, who was first promoted to CEO in 2007. The decision comes just one week after shareholders voted against the companies suggestions for executive pay and bonuses.

Barrie Cornes, analyst at Panmure Gordon & Co, suggested that:

“We suspect that the latest batch of negative headlines over the Remuneration Report at the AGM was the last straw and Moss had to go. Few will shed any tears given his handling of the business over the last few years which have seen the shares massively underperform the sector.”

In a statement by the company, Aviva announced that John McFarlane, its chairman-designate, will step in as interim CEO, and “will immediately assume the task of improving the delivery of shareholder value by the group.” They went on to say that:

“He does not underestimate the significance of the challenge but is optimistic of the right result.”

Following the appointment, interim-CEO McFarlane stated that:

“My first priorities are to regain the respect of our shareholders by eliminating the discount in our share price and to find internally or externally the very best leader to be our future CEO. I will meet all of the major investors over the coming days and weeks.”

Andrew Moss is not the first CEO to resign in recent weeks, as David Brennan recently announced his resignation as CEO of popular drug maker AstraZeneca. Also, Sly Bailey has decided to leave newspaper publisher Trinity Mirror at the end of 2012. Both companies have disappointed shareholders with declining stock prices, much like Aviva.

Check out more information about another Aviva shake-up here:

Andrew Moss, Aviva CEO, Resigns After Shareholder Revolt is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain Tells A Funny, Suggests Sarah Palin For VP is a post from: The Inquisitr

In 2008 when John McCain was running for President, the governor of Utah took a huge risk by endorsing the Arizona Senator over fellow Mormon and Salt Lake City Olympic Chairman Mitt Romney.  This year when Huntsman staked his whole campaign on New Hampshire, McCain endorsed Romney two days before the primary.

Huntsman called McCain’s endorsement a “Petty Betrayal”.

In the new e-book “Inside The Circus,” released Tuesday, Huntsman and his wife talked about how disappointed they were with McCain and Huntsman even took the Senator to task for it.

Huntsman said,

“I wrote John a note [by email] after that and I said, ‘You know, for a guy who paid a huge price in my state to support you, the least you could have done-I don’t care if you support Romney, that’s great-but just to have given me the dignity of waiting until after the New Hampshire primary,’”

McCain’s response, was really long and in depth, he only said,

“I didn’t mean to offend. I hope your family is well.”

Despite declaring that his New Hampshire showing was a “ticket to ride,” Huntsman left the race only days after a distant third-place finish in the state. The exit capped a difficult campaign for Huntsman, and the book shows that he was never comfortable with the demands of consultants he described as “the demise of good politics.”

Jon Huntsman left a post as President Obama’s Ambassador to China to run for the Republican nomination.  His campaign was widely hailed by pundits but largely ignored by the general population.

Jon Huntsman: McCain Endorsement of Romney Was A “Petty Betrayal” is a post from: The Inquisitr

A big-name Republican senator said that the US should start organizing airstrikes against Syria in order to force President Bashar Assad out of power. You know him, I know him. 2008 presidential hopeful John McCain.

Granted, Syria has not been what you might call “cooperative” lately with, well, pretty much anyone. The violence, particularly in the city of Homs, has been decried by the Obama administration and its European and Arab partners. Sen. John McCain made his plea on the Senate floor, coincidentally as the US and European governments pleaded with Vladimir Putin of Russian to renege his anti-interventionist stance on Syria.

“The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower,” McCain said. “The United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces.”

McCain’s comments are pulling double duty here. Not only are his words a veiled criticism of the Obama administration, as the senator has said before that the president is too soft on Assad, they are also a war cry for international military intervention in the middle east. McCain and his party’s senior member on the Senate Armed Services Committee have also opined that the US should change its policies, starting with the arming Syria’s rebels and spearheading a military effort to support them.

If McCain’s wishes are granted, we could be looking at the globalization of the War on Terror.

How many wars do you think we need to get wrapped up in?

John McCain: Let’s Bomb Syria is a post from: The Inquisitr

Texas Governor and GOP Presidential hopeful  Rick Perry accused the Obama administration of “over-the-top rhetoric” and “disdain for the military” for what they have said about the video with shows four US Marines urinating on dead Taliban soldiers.

Perry, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union said the marines involved should be reprimanded but not prosecuted on criminal charges.

He was quoted as saying,

 ”Obviously, 18 and 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often. And that’s what’s occurred here. What’s really disturbing to me is the kind of over-the-top rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military.”

Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate armed services committee, and 2008 presidential candidate expressed a concern that the images could damage the ability of the US military to win the war.

He said to the same CNN program,

“The Marine Corps prides itself that we don’t lower ourselves to the level of the enemy. So it makes me sad more than anything else, because … I can’t tell you how wonderful these people [marines] are. And it hurts their reputation and their image.”

Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, and President Obama have both demanded swift and severe punishment for the Marines if found to have committed the act.  Panetta said the video could be used by the Taliban to undermine Afghan peace talks.

The video in question shows the four marines standing over three obviously dead Taliban soldiers.  After two of them urinate on the bodies, one says “how you feeling now buddy?”.

Desecrating the dead is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

How do you feel about the video of US Marines urinating on the Taliban dead bodies?

Watch the video here.

Rick Perry Slams Obama Over Afghanistan Video is a post from: The Inquisitr

Senator John McCain has stepped up to endorse Mitt Romney for the role of 2012 Republican presidential nominee four years after McCain lost his own election battle to President Obama.

John McCain headed to New Hampshire to offer his endorsement ”to make sure we make Mitt Romney the next president of the United States of America.”

You may recall that John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney fought a hard battle for the GOP endorsement in 2008 and when he lost it was Romney endorsing McCain for the same role.

The John McCain endorsement of Mitt Romney comes just hours after Romney won the Iowa Caucus by a mind-boggling low eight votes.

Having McCain on his side could be a big positive factor for Romney in New Hampshire since the Senator has plenty of experience campaigning in the region following his 2000 and 2008 presidential bids.

The New Hampshire primary will take place new Tuesday and Mitt Romney is polling with a substantial lead at this point, then again he was in Iowa for some time as well.

In his endorsement of Mitt Romney Senator John McCain said:

“He will lead from the front as Ronald Reagan did, not from behind as this president [Barack Obama] does.”

McCain did not explain exactly how Mitt Romney will be like Ronald Reagan, I’m guessing by giving more to the rich in the hopes they’ll give some back to the poor. I don’t know if that’s quite possibly the worst comparison to make when the middle class in America is vanishing but it’s probably not the best choice in statement.

Do you believe that the John McCain endorsement of Mitt Romney will make a difference not only in the GOP primary but also in a potential showdown with President Obama?

John McCain Endorsed Mitt Romney After Iowa Caucus Victory is a post from: The Inquisitr

Mitt Romney is on the defensive with his plans to cut government spending.  The Massachusetts Republican had to tell an audience in Iowa that “We are not going to kill Big Bird” when asked about his spending plans, according to the Huffington Post.  Romney wants Sesame Street and other public programming to be paid for by advertisements and not the taxpayers.

He also signaled that under his administration, the National Endowment for the Arts would also be cut, asked to survive on private donations and not taxpayers dollars.

Romney made a statement that basically spells out how he views every program in America.

“My test is, is a program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?”

Democrats were looking at his proposals to defund the arts with a bit a skepticism, as the National Endowment for the Arts and National Public Radio have long been a desired treat on the Republican Chopping block.

“The GOP should be less preoccupied with silencing cookie monster and more focused on reviving the economy,” replied Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.).

in 1995, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, Lowley had invited Bert and Ernie to testify before Congress when Gingrich tried to cut their funding then.

Romney says that when he is President he will cut $500 billion dollars a year from the federal budget by the end of his first term.  While this would be a drastic cut, it still would more than a trillion dollars a year short of a balanced budget if spending continues at its current levels.

Since losing to John McCain in the 2008 Republican Primary, Mitt Romney has been running an aggressive campaign to become the nominee to face President Barack Obama in 2012.  He is currently polling second in most key battleground states.

Watch a video of Romney telling the Iowa crowd his plans for Big Bird.

Mitt Romney: “I Am Not Going To Kill Big Bird” [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Militant conservative Ann Coulter isn’t one to mince words.

Author of a series of books with increasingly alarming titles accusing the left of everything from godlessness to treason, Coulter isn’t above using strong language to get her point across. So when the flaxen-haired GOP-atrix appeared on Joe Scarborough’s Morning Joe on MSNBC Tuesday, it wasn’t technically very surprising a large portion of her unvarnished opinion about some fellow Republicans was bleeped or muted- making the gist of her complaints unintelligible.

The audible portion of Coulter’s comments Tuesday morning went something like this:

“I’d rather have [?] McCain was consistent, he was [?] we have Romney and Gingrich [?], …what did I say? Douchebag?”

Which kinda reads like GOP Mad Libs! (Amusingly, the “douchebag” at the end wasn’t censored.) So later in the day, Coulter appeared on left-leaning Joy Behar’s show, and clarified her remarks about McCain, Romney and Gingrich. Coulter explained:

“I said ‘dickweed,’…They were talking about the lack of consistency, people complain about it with Romney…and I was just making the point, I don’t think consistency is the most important value. And you know, look at John McCain, he was consistently a dickweed.”

Lefty Behar and the conservative pundit then discussed whether Behar’s show had been cancelled due to a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and Coulter admitted that she appreciated Behar’s show and would miss it when it departs from the airwaves. Coulter lamented that Behar’s show was one of the few of its kind where she could avoid news about Casey Anthony, who Coulter dubbed a “white trash bimbo.”

Ann Coulter Clarifies: Dickweed, Not Douchebag in Rant on ‘Morning Joe’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Apparently, it’s been NBC’s mission of late to recruit as many high-profile contributors as possible, preferably those who happen to be sons or daughters of notable politicians.

The latest to join MSNBC’s roster of contributors is Meghan McCain, the company announced on Monday. McCain was a frequent guest on the network for the past two years, but now she’ll be a paid, regular contributor on MSNBC.

“It’s a unique opportunity to share my perspective as a Republican on a network I respect and have built a relationship with over the past two years,” McCain said in a statement.

McCain is the second daughter of a politico to join the network in under a month. Just last week, NBC announced that Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, signed on with the network. Clinton will be working on “NBC Nightly News” and will be acting as a correspondent on Brian Williams’ newsmagazine, “Rock Center with Brian Williams“.

Back in 2009, it was announced that then-27-year-old Jenna Bush Hager, daughter to George W. Bush and Laura Bush, signed on with TODAY as a correspondent.

McCain is a frequent contributor at The Daily Beast. She also has a memoir out, “Dirty Sexy Politics“, and a children’s book, “My Dad, John McCain“.

Do you welcome McCain as an MSNBC contributor, or do you think her hiring smells of nepotism?

[Image credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson]

Meghan McCain signs on as MSNBC contributor is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain has taken a hard line stance against Libya’s Moammar Ghadafi over the last several months but that wasn’t always the case, according to a cable released by WikiLeaks, McCain at the urging of Moammar’s fifth son and national security adviser promised to provide the regime with military supplies, including new aircraft as late as 2009.

According to Politico, while McCain wasn’t alone during that meeting, with Senators Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman it was McCain who did most of the negotiating.

During his talk with Moammar’s son he did say Libya needed to give up weapons of mass destruction, but also said ties with the US were strong and he went on to thank Libya for their hard stance on terrorism.

For his part Lindsey Graham tried to cover up the meetings discussion in May, noting that the talks didn’t go anywhere:

“We never did anything,” he said. “I didn’t feel comfortable pushing the Pentagon to provide military aircraft to Libya. None of us did.”

It’s not the first time the U.S. would have armed someone who eventually became an enemy of their own state, CIA operatives and other members of the armed forces helped train Osama bin Laden and his men before they turned from allies to enemies of the United States.

More documents from the Wikileaks file dump could shed more light on how the situation progressed, however with 250,000 files to search through, those details could be slow to arrive.

WikiLeak: John McCain Sided With Moammar Gadhafi is a post from: The Inquisitr

Akon’s threatening to move back to Africa, kind of like how Seal and Heidi Klum are saying they’ll leave, but with less panache because (let’s face it) he’s not as popular as he thinks. He spends way too much time attacking his own fans to get much sympathy from us, but the threat is there nonetheless:

“If he [Obama] doesn’t get into office, I’m gonna change my citizenship,” he said. “I’m moving back to Africa. You can hold me to that. I’m afraid to live there if he [McCain] is President. The decisions he makes scare me: he’s making selfish decisions, he’s doing whatever it takes to get into office.”

Akon had a few choice words on Sarah Palin in the same interview with The Guardian, commenting that “she’s definitely going to be president” because McCain won’t make it “eight years.”

Unfortunately, Akon is unable to vote due to a previous felony conviction. Perhaps that’s why he’s making up for it by being extra vocal this time, because, as The Guardian noted, he “does not have a track record of speaking out on politics.”

Akon Will “Move Back to Africa” If McCain Wins is a post from: The Inquisitr

The virtual world’s election poll, a survey of more than 37,000 respondents, revealed that 72 percent of teens and young adults would like to see Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.

This year’s election was a natural fit for the launch of the According to Teens Report,” said Scott Kinzie, VP of creative and user experience at Gaia Online. “At Gaia Online we have the unique ability to tap millions of Gen Yers and we believe it’s imperative to understand what’s guiding the youth vote. With this new survey program we’re hoping to serve as a trusted source on all things teen, helping relevant parties better understand this often misunderstood generation.”

If only these teens and young adults leave Gaia Online for a few precious minutes and help in educating the real world of the importance of this election…

If Gaians can only vote is a post from: The Inquisitr

Although Obama had a substantial lead in all parts of the world, the margin was less pronounced in some regions. Europe, North America, and Africa were most strongly pro-Obama (at 87%, 87%, and 88%, respectively), followed by Asia (83%), Latin America (81%), and South Asia (85%). The region that was most sympathetic to Senator John McCain was the Middle East– where only 58% supported Obama compared to 25% support for McCain.

The survey was representative of approximately 25,000 respondents from 192 countries. The survey was conducted in eight languages, including English, Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Japanese, Thai, and Chinese. Out of all survey participants, 59% were male and 41% were female.

Meanwhile, MySpace revealed that its own survey showed that 60 percent of its eligible voters prefer Senator Barack Obama while 34 percent goes for Senator John McCain.

But again, as lessons of election history have taught us, anything can happen as the race tightens.

Obama wins in hi5.com and MySpace is a post from: The Inquisitr

The new ColbertNation.com is the hub for all things Stephen Colbert featuring links to every Colbert related gossip online. It is the best place to stay up-to-date on all the latest news and buzz about the show. On the home page, users can find information about upcoming guests, special events and on-air stunts like the “Green Screen Challenges.” The homepage also includes an area called “State of the Nation” which not only reflects site activity like the most recently posted videos, but gives users updates on everything happening in Colbert’s world on and off the show.

“I’m thrilled with our new web site. I only wish John McCain knew how to get there,” Colbert said.

Colbert must be out of touch with technology news. He was obviously not informed that John McCain helped in creating the miracle called Blackberry.

Comedy Central Launches ColbertNation.com, the Home of the True Maverick is a post from: The Inquisitr

Some one doing the graphics for CBS News may have decided to have a some fun September 15, sneaking in a three eyed smiley face at the end of a quote from the New York Times lashing Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s hiring practices.

The smiley appears directly after the line “including the head of the division of Agriculture who cited her childhood love of cows…” per the pick above.

The full video below. The smiley appears at 1:04 and is visible until 1:13 in the clip.

Update: someone has pointed out that this could simply be a juxtaposition of the CBS watermark and the dots at the end of the quote. Could well be, although part of the logo disappears in the shot to make the smiley face when we can see the full logo before and after, demonstrating that either magically, or by human intervention, we get a three eyed smiley face. Either way though, it certainly looks funny, and three eyed smiley fans will be happy with the end result

CBS sneaks three eyed smiley into Palin report? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon series had a problem, he couldn’t find independent advice on which Presidential candidate has the best economic policies for America. As Adams notes “for once I asked not what my country could do for me” and instead commissioned a survey of over 500 economists to give him the answer.

Democrats will be pleased to learn that 59% of the economists surveyed say Obama would be best for the economy long term, with 31% picking McCain, and 8% saying there would be no difference.

Adams though takes the figures further. 48% of economists surveyed were declared Democrats vs 17% republicans, so naturally there is a bias in the results. 88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of Republican economists pick McCain. Independent economists lean toward Obama by 46% compared to 39% for McCain.

On 13 key issues, the economists favor Obama on 11 of the top 13 issues, but among independents 54% believe that in the long run there would either be no difference between the candidates or McCain would do better.

Adams conclusion: “Many of you will wonder how reliable economists are. In my view, if an economist uses a complicated model to predict just about anything, you can ignore it.”

The full details on the Dilbert site here.

Dilbert creator commissions survey on who would best run America is a post from: The Inquisitr

Barley Political takes on VP season with the same zeal as it did with Obama Girl. Stick with the video, it improves as it goes along.

VP Hopefuls Call Senator Obama is a post from: The Inquisitr