Bad timing, Arianna. Revealing that John McCain didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000 is about as damaging to the Arizona Republican's presidential campaign as exposing him for loving his mother. Not only are the Republican primaries over, but the man the McCains supposedly refrained from casting ballots for now stretches to grasp a 30 percent approval rating. If Arianna Huffington really wanted to damage McCain's presidential chances, she might have remained mute and let the rest of us go on thinking that McCain had pulled the lever for Bush. But has Arianna ever been one to keep quiet about anything?

"The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency," Huffington contends. "By abandoning his core principles and embracing Bush--both literally and metaphorically--he has morphed into an older and crankier version of the man he couldn't stomach voting for in 2000." The ostensibly scandalized Arianna doth protest too much. It's not as if John McCain is the New-Age-futurist-turned-Gingrich-Republican-turned-Bill-Maher-camp-follower.

I don't know whether Arianna Huffington tells the truth about John McCain. But I hope so. I didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000, either.

You should be congratulated, Dan. I was 13 years old in 2000, so I certainly didn't vote for Bush either, or have any interest in politics at all. However, looking back, it seems to me that the Bush campaign in 2000 was saying all the right things.

What tipped you off?

He said education was his number one federal priority. He didn't believe that nations should have borders and I didn't believe that nations could not have borders. He boasted of being able to provide the free drugs to seniors that Clinton-Gore couldn't. Plus, I had this deja vu-like sense that I had lived through a George Bush presidency before and hadn't quite liked it.

Dan, not to troll here, but you were explaining something yesterday on the Carr show but didn't get to finish with your answer. With reference to the 'new revolutionaries' (ie. the Weathermen), it was asked why most of them were from wealthy privileged backgrounds. You started with something along the lines that they were raised to rule the world. Could I fill in the blanks and say that when they discovered they wouldn't rule the world as their Fathers did, they decided to take a different path? Please clarify.

So I suspect by that explanation you won't be pulling the lever for Juan McAmnesty either?

Yeah, a disproportionate number of the Weathermen, particularly the leaders, came from ultra-wealthy backgrounds. When I asked non-Weatherman SDSers about this, they gave very interesting, and similar answers. Basically, they said that these were people who were raised to believe that they should run the world. The book, at the end of the "Meet the New Left, Same as the Old Left" chapter goes into detail on this.

Thanks. I'll be interested to get the detail on this and other topics covered in the book.

Since Obama's association with Ayers, this stuff has me curious.

Good but short interview. Carr is a master. Those canned questions from the publisher came off as a bit awkward. I can't imagine that Carr wouldn't have kept it interesting and pertinent without them.

Does she say who John McCain voted for?

She says Mrs. McCain wrote in John McCain's name. I don't think she says what John McCain did, but I think it would be consistent with his makeup had he done the same.

I betcha that GW won't vote for McNasty this time around either. No love lost either way.

Wow. Author Dan Flynn on Tuesday; former President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday. Some line up that Carr guy has.

Good thing you two weren't on at the same time.