Once McCain said game on, I posted this item:

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," John McCain said on Wednesday, explaining his decision to suspend his campaign and not participate in the first presidential debate. A McCain aide told Reuters, "If the package is reached and the country is saved, there will be a debate. But if there's no deal, how can you get on a plane...for a debate?"

On Friday morning, McCain's campaign released this statement:

"He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon."

Note the adjustment in standards. First, the McCain camp said deal or no debate. Two days later, the position was, negotiations are under way so let's debate. Was this change an act of decisive leadership or a necessary political flip-flop? Maybe Jim Lehrer, the moderator of Friday night's debate, can ask him that."

What's kinda amazing--okay, it's not really amazing--is that the McCain camp thinks it can get away with this. Or with
this. Or with its falsehood-ridden attack ads. Or with McCain's new Osama-like stance toward holding press conferences. Or with its claims that Sarah Palin is ready-to-go on Day One. The John McCain of 2000 used to deride the usual BS of politics: spin, stunts, and sleaze. Now he bathes in it. There seems no bottom yet to his descent into situational politics. Forget the debates, I want to see him back on The View defending himself and the campaign he heads.

On the first night of the GOP convention, Fred Thompson, the actor-senator who flopped as a presidential candidate, was given the role of a lifetime. This grumpy old guy was asked to play Marie Antoinette. And he nailed it.

As soon as Thompson hit the podium to give one of the two centerpiece speeches of the night (his co-star was Joe Lieberman), he derided the Democrats for harping on the current economic difficulties, poking fun at them for acting as if the country was in the middle of another "great depression." He didn't accuse them of whining, but he came close, as he hailed the United States as a "prosperous" country. His performance garnered applauds from the delegates, many of whom, playing to type, looked as if they spend more time at the country club fretting about tee times than at the kitchen table worrying about bills.

There are two Americas, it seems. One with concerns about the nation's economy, the other in happy denial. And the latter was in full view at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul. Through opening night, there were hardly any references to the troubles at hand. The convention spent more time celebrating former military heroes and POWs than addressing worries voters might have about the economy, health care, education, climate change or any other issue other than national security. On these fronts, it was as if the Republicans had nothing to say. Thompson tried to get the crowd stirred up over taxes and abortion, but that was so 1980s. Voters viewing the proceedings could be forgiven for wondering, what are these guys going do for me and my neighbors?

That was odd, given that the slogan of the convention is "Country First." What was being placed first by McCain's convention planners was McCain--specifically McCain the POW. This night was not about country; it was not about what can be done to make this country better and stronger; it was not about offering policy proposals that would improve the lives of Americans; it was about promoting a brand: Hero McCain.

After the first night was over, I strolled over to a hotel bar and met up with several journalists and pollster Frank Luntz. Luntz mentioned that in Michigan only 9 percent of the voters believe the country is on the right track. Nine percent? What do the McCainites think the other 91 percent in Michigan are looking to the GOP for? Heroic tales of McCain from 40 years ago? Hagiography?

It was a vapid start to a convention, which will probably end up being dominated by Sarah Palin's acceptance speech, not John McCain's. (Soap opera usually trumps politics.) But Tuesday evening was an example of hollow patriotism. Country First? No, it was McCain First. And a true patriot might consider placing the needs of his fellow countrymen ahead of his own political needs.

In a front-pager on Sunday, The New York Times took on the question, is John McCain a warmonger? The paper did not put it in such an indelicate manner. But that was (and is) essentially the issue at hand. The story reminded readers of McCain's bellicose rhetoric after 9/11. In October 2001, he appeared on David Letterman's show and said that Iraq might behind the anthrax attacks. He also claimed that Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, had met with Iraqi intelligence--even though the evidence at the time was unclear. (The entire charge was eventually debunked by U.S. intelligence.) And on an aircraft carrier in January 2002, he yelled to sailors, "Next up, Baghdad!"

None of this trip down memory lane was surprising, given that McCain months ago was joking about bombing Iran. McCain is a guy who despite his own military service and POW experience has been too eager in recent years to play the war card. Not only was he among those who made false claims about Iraq to win popular support for a U.S. invasion of that country; he seemed eager for the war. The Obama campaign might consider reminding voters of his excessive enthusiasm for military confrontation with Iraq and Iran.

But that's not why I'm writing this posting. What stood out in this article was McCain's response to a query posed to him by the Times. Asked about his support for the war in Iraq, McCain replied via email:

Given Mr. Hussein's history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, "his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously." The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action "to prevent outlaw states -- like Iran today -- from developing weapons of mass destruction."

Okay, when will the war backers stop spinning? As it turned out, Saddam posed no immediate treat to the United States. He was, of course, a problem--but not a threat. And the war did not prevent his outlaw state from developing nuclear weapons because Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons at the time. Saddam's nuclear program was kaput. In fact, the international inspections program that was ended by the U.S. invasion was itself effectively preventing Saddam from developing nuclear weapons and other WMDs.

McCain would not admit that he had gotten Iraq wrong. He said that his pre-invasion remarks about Iraq's WMDs were misleading because of "Iraq's opacity under Saddam." But that's a convenient CYA excuse. The weapons inspectors had gotten it right at the time and were saying there was no evidence of major WMDs in Iraq. McCain, like others legislators (Republicans and Democrats), simply chose not to believe them.

On this crucial issue, there's no straight talk from McCain. Then again, there cannot be. For any admission of error might make it harder for him to rush into the next war.

I'm still on vacation. Posting will suffer for a few more days.