John McCain lied about Katrina votes.

John McCain did it again. This time, he claimed to support every call for an investigation into the Katrina tragedy. But it turns out that he lied because he conveniently forgot that he opposed a Democratic proposal to set up a 9/11-style commission to investigate the causes of the tragedy.

And not only that, he tries to weasel his way out of his vote. Instead of explaining why a Congressional committee was a better idea, he claimed to have supported it all along when he did not. This shows that he was more loyal to the Bush administration than he was to the people of New Orleans.

When confronted about his lies, a spokesman for McCain continued to weasel his way out of the problem. He claimed that McCain was not familiar with the specific votes that he was asked about. This does not pass the smell test, given that John McCain would have been prepped about Katrina before he arrived to New Orleans to give his speech. This shows the incompetence of his team in preparing him for his speeches at best. At worst, it shows that John McCain is every bit the liar that George Bush is, being willing to say anything to get elected.

Now, John McCain says he wants to be different than George Bush. But the problem is, where was John McCain when we needed him? Where was John McCain when George Bush hijacked our school system through No Child Left Behind to give military recruiters the run of the school to sign up bodies to fight his wars in Iraq and Iran? Where was John McCain when George Bush lied to us about Iraq? Where was John McCain when the Swift Boat Liars were attacking John Kerry? The fact that John McCain is part of the same tired old politics as usual. He shows the same kind of disengagement that Bush does. After all, if government is the problem, why should I care if thousands of people are dying in New Orleans? This sort of sick and twisted reasoning is not limited to John McCain, but he has become their standard-bearer.

The fact of the matter is that when it came time to take a stand on the issues, John McCain, with his votes, actively sought to cover George Bush from any kind of blame for this mess. A commission consisting of Republicans Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins was much more likely to whitewash Bush's callous indifference than an independent bipartisan commission like the Iraq Study Group or the 9/11 Commission. So, for all his "straight talk," it turns out that the so-called "straight talk express" is nowhere to be found when his lord and master, George Bush, is to be found. John McCain had a critical choice to make in the 2004 election -- whether to become a true maverick and become John Kerry's vice-president, or to sell out his soul to the Bush administration. He chose the latter.

John McCain has always styled himself as a "maverick." But let us look at that term and see what it really means. Being a maverick means that one must be able to show independence from both parties. Mike Gravel supported impeachment of the President and supported a national sales tax. Say what you will about him, but at least he was honest about his independence. That's a maverick. Russ Feingold has always worked with Republicans in the Senate and taken libertarian stands on the issues, like the Patriot Act, for instance. That's a maverick. Chuck Hagel is a bit of a maverick with his progressive stance on the occupation of Iraq.

As noted above, John McCain says he wants to help New Orleans. That is like Saurman destroying all of Theoden's lands and then turning around and promising to help save him from ruin. But let's just take one of his policies -- his support for the abolition of the Federal Minimum Wage -- and talk about that. What that would do is turn what is left of New Orleans into a grotesque experiment where cheap labor would be widespread -- employers would hire cheap labor and pay them just enough to keep them off the dole and healthy enough to work. People would have nothing to live for; they would have a choice between making barely enough to live and working many hours of overtime and watch their families slowly disintegrate under the strain. He would return this country to the same failed policies that led to the Great Depression, the destruction of small towns all over America, 25% unemployment, and a state of near-anarchy that took years to recover from.

Or let's take another one of his failed policies -- the continuation of the Bush tax cuts as well as the creation of even more tax cuts that would increase the national deficit by $400 billion per year. Whereas John Edwards sought to create One America, John McCain would create two. One that would be able to live the high life, send their children to wealthy private schools, and that would shut themselves out from the rest of the world. The other America would be the have-nots, many of whom have only one viable option -- to sign up for John McCain's wars against Iran and his continued occupation of Iraq. That is the John McCain 25-year Rebuilding Plan -- to turn this country into a place where the only economically viable options are slave labor, signing up for the army, or substance farming.

These grotesque policies have their parallels in history. As the Roman Empire evolved, it became more and more dependent on high taxes, which went to support the army. Consequently, there was never enough for public works, the middle class weakened, and more and more people moved out of the cities and into the country to engage in substance farming. Trade was paralyzed because of rampant piracy on the seas, as many took to crime in order to survive. Eventually, it got to the point where the pay for the soldiers was not enough and they had to desert their posts and engage in substance farming just to survive. The army controlled the government and made and unmade emperors in rapid succession, meaning that there was never any clear or coherent long-term policy. John McCain would follow the same failed policies that brought down the Roman Empire.

A vote for John McCain would be a vote for a third term of Bush. He said that he supported every call for a Katrina investigation. But that is not true -- in fact, he only supported an investigation of Katrina when it did not jeopardize his lord and master, George Bush.