Dear George Will- Why Are We to Believe You Now.

Oh, Georgie Boy,

"Unless McCain is president..."?!!!

Clearly, you are the only one here in the "iron grip of cognitive dissonance."

Would have chimed in sooner, but your pundit-dug today has my bile duct working overtime to accommodate my unending spasms of reflexive retching. Liars always make me puke! Especially the boldfaced kind.

Your inane Yeats quote intended to hoodwink the reader with your erudite approbation, lacks both forethought and taste.

Georgie, if you must quote poetry, at least quote an apt remark. Better the 'maverick' Byron than the yawning Yeats.

As Byron remarked in 1816: “Hard is his fate upon whom the public gaze”. Indeed, and for columnists too.

Today's column gives lie to your entire existence. A body of work that is quickly denigrating into disingenuous discourse and outright lies.

YES, GEORGIE, I AM CALLING YOU BOTH A PROPAGATOR OF DISINGENUOUS DISCOURSE AND A BOLD FACED LIAR OF CONVENIENCE.

Your contempt for the reader is beyond the pale.

Apparently you think all readers are context free idiots, fast food drive-thru freaks, incapable of seeing through bunk you proffer.

Are we to believe that the man you once referred to as man "intent on limiting political speech" ("Soft Thinking On Soft Money" Oct. 8, 1999)is best suited to occupy the Oval office?

Are we to believe that the man you once accused of wanting to enlarge "the government in the most dangerous direction, as regulator of political advocacy" is best suited to lead the American people? Are you saying the one you characterized as committed to "limiting political speech" is to be America's logical choice?

In, "McCain's Distortions" (Feb. 14, 2000) you opined that "McCain stresses his character, and his passion for campaign finance reform is supposed to serve as a token of good character" and that he "consistently misrepresents not only his position but current law."
Is such a man really your choice for President in 2008?

Characterizing his 2000 campaign as a "protracted snarl" ("And Now Back to Republican Business" March 9, 2000)that laid bare his "whole" "an angry man" - you added "It is not clear what McCain's philosophy is, other than disdain for "interests" of the "special" sort, but it certainly is not summarized in a smile." Equating him with the angriest president ever elected, Andrew Jackson, you then said he would bring to the "presidency ... brittle temperament". Moreover, while acknowledging "McCain was the most entertaining candidate in memory" you correctly noted that "perhaps there should be some limit to the sovereignty of entertainment values in politics." Plus, as you pointed out, there was the niggling fact that: "ideologically his campaign has been much more a recrudescence of late 19th-century populism than a rethinking of late 20th-century conservatism." And, that his "capacious anger, the targets of which include a substantial portion of his party, is just one reason why Bush will be a stronger general election candidate than McCain would have been."

AHHHH, THE IRONY, - PROVING YOUR OBSERVATIONS TO BE ABSURD ON TWO COUNTS IN ONE QUOTE!

Of course Georgie Boy you didn't stop there in 2000. No you claimed ("Conservatives in a Changing Market" Feb. 2, 2000) that: "It is passing strange to construe McCain's insurgency as an eruption of true conservatism .... McCain's great goal is an unprecedented and probably ... unconstitutional regulation of political speech by individuals, candidates and independent groups. McCain wishes that much criticism of the political class were illegal: "If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads."

In "A Party to Prosperity" (August 18, 2000) you said of Bush: "His conservative goals will be pursued by a strong state, using the tax code to promote particular behaviors..."

WELL, THE LAST FEW DAYS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 'PARTICULAR BEHAVIOUR' HAS ITS DOWNSIDE....

Later that season ("The case for Bush" Nov. 6, 2000) you fawned "The economic case for the [tax] cut is that Bush's advisers, who fortunately include some people capable of bearish thoughts," were not afraid to unleash private capital without restraints. Further, you postulated that; "Bush would work at both ends of the problem to fix the disjunction between the military's declining strength and its increasing tempo of operations." (God, I'm glad that worked out.) "Bush is a modest man with much to be modest about, and that he lacks complexity. But modesty is a political virtue and is especially desirable in the next president,..." MY HOW TIME HAS PROVED YOUR CASE-

But, I digress.

Back to Mccain - Just because you wrong the last time you endorsed a Republican in the midst of an election campaign doesn't mean your wrong this time- does it?

In 2004, you said ("For Bush, it's game time" Feb. 9, 2004) "Republicans are swiftly forfeiting the perception that they are especially responsible stewards of government finances." What has changed?

In light of present circumstances, how can you say McCain best suited to be POTUS?

Especially given that you once accused his desire to win in 2008 ("McCain's media unmasking" April 10, 2006) of inevitably being "bound to require tactics inconsistent with his carefully cultivated reputation for unexampled authenticity" -- to wit your observation: "McCain says, 'I've never voted for a tax increase.' Well, never, if you ignore the huge — $516 billion over 25 years — tax increase in his 1998 tobacco bill. But that was less a revenue measure than an exercise of the McCainian righteousness that has so enchanted many of the people who are now becoming disenchanted" YET "hitherto unenthralled Republicans might suddenly consider McCain as virtuous as he considers himself. For the politically nervous, "virtuous" is a synonym for "electable."

Later that year ("McCain's actions undercut the Constitution"- May 11, 2006) you opined, "Mister Straight Talk is rarely reticent about anything, but is remarkably so about specifics: He says corruption is pandemic among incumbent politicians, yet he has never identified any corrupt fellow senator. - McCain seems to regard unregulated political speech as an inherent invitation to corruption. - If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?"

IS THIS REALLY THE MAN YOU ARE BACKING FOR PRESIDENT NOW???

DOES YOUR FAUX ANALYSIS KNOW NO DIGNITY GEORGIE BOY?

The list of textual "Will-ism's" below hardly leads one to believe that today's column could be founded on anything more than blind ADHERENCE TO PARTISANSHIP:

("For McCain, a Surplus of Irony" May 28, 2006) "In 2008, Republican and Democratic aspirants who depend on taxpayer funding in the primaries will be seen, correctly, as second-tier and likely losers. McCain is neither. He is, however, the person most responsible for the perverse consequences of the government's multiplying intrusions into what should be a free market for political speech."

("Three good options for the Right -March 8, 2007) - "when McCain, who opposed Bush's tax cuts, concludes on the basis of the humming economy that they should be made permanent, this is called pandering." HOW RIGHT YOU WERE!

("Fact-Checking McCain's Straight-Talk" Jan. 18, 2008)- "There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream." - "McCainian intolerance of disagreement"

("McCain in a glass house" Feb. 27, 2008) "McCain, a situational ethicist" whose "certitude is, however, not merely an unattractive trait. It is disturbing righteousness in someone grasping for presidential powers."

Well GEORGIE BOY! Are you trying to tell us that now, all you have said in spewed in the past was wrong. An error in judgment? A 'Will-ian' oversight?

Surely, you must think us idiots!

Again, "“Hard is his fate upon whom the public gaze” - harder still when one's own words give lie to their credibility!

YOU SIR, ARE WITHOUT CREDIBILITY ... DEVOID OF SHAME ... and, WITHOUT INTEGRITY!

Spare us all, so I for one may stop retching.