John McCain, R-Ariz.

Not long afterwards, McCain aides sent out another statement, from campaign manager Shiree Verdone. "Ex-Congressman J.D. Hayworth should immediately apologize and and take down his latest online ad, which is an outrageous offense to John McCain’s lifetime of honorable service to our state and nation, and insulting to Native Americans here in Arizona and across America," Verdone said. "Mr. Hayworth is welcome to debate the challenges facing our state and nation, but this kind of character assassination has no place in the Republican Party, and Mr. Hayworth should ashamed of his campaign for running it."

To be fair, Hayworth's camp says there were two versions of the ad -- one, in which McCain's face was tinted blue, made it a little more clear that he was supposed to be an "Avatar" character, while the one the McCain campaign linked to just looked like he had paint on his face. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers brushed off a question about the movie reference. "Whatever it is, it's insulting!" he e-mailed.

Here's the original version (the all-blue version is at the top of the story):

At any rate, the volume of the response showed how eager McCain's team is to crush Hayworth. The two men didn't like each other much when Hayworth served in the House (and constantly needled McCain over immigration, back when McCain supported reforming the nation's immigration laws), and they don't seem to like each other much in the campaign (in which Hayworth is... constantly needling McCain over immigration). Considering Hayworth trailed by more than 20 points in a poll in January, McCain may be sending him more attention than he needs to at the moment by highlighting the ad.

Meanwhile, Hayworth advisor Jason Rose said the ad was "moving the needle" on fundraising. But in the first hour it was up on Drudge, Rose tells Salon, it brought in about $3,000. Sure, that's only an hour, and McCain may well have helped promote the ad. But at that kind of fundraising pace, Hayworth should be competitive financially with McCain by 2015 -- maybe 2014 if he really steps it up.

As it happens, in order to attend the healthcare summit, McCain had to cancel his other plans for today -- a fundraiser sponsored by BGR PAC, the political action committee run by the lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith and Rogers. And (maybe you can guess where this is going?) in 2006, the last year for which OpenSecrets.com lists records, PhRMA paid the lobbying firm $200,000.

That's not to say the deal PhRMA cut is any less unsavory; McCain is probably right to point out the problem. But he's not quite as pure on the issue as he'd like people -- especially people who vote in Republican primaries in Arizona -- to believe.

You can watch the video below. My favorite part of it, of course, is that it uses footage from an MSNBC appearance Taitz made in a time slot I was originally slated for; I got bumped for her. One of the prouder moments of my life.

[He] said, "People who could not even spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House whose name is Barack Hussein Obama." And then he went on to say that people at the convention should have to pass literacy tests in order to be able to vote in this country, which is the same thing that happened in the 50's to prevent African Americans from voting. It's innate racism and I think it's why young people are turned off by this movement. And I'm sorry, but revolutions start with young people, not with 65-year-old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word 'vote' in English.

John McCain was already on the tea party's shit list (Tancredo actually celebrated his failed presidential bid), and his daughter's irreverent daytime commentary sure won't help him any in that regard. Not that I mind, but it seems the senator is being seriously undermined by his family.

Has anyone else noticed that the once-fierce GOP, which used to be (ickily) considered the "Daddy party," strong enough to protect us (the sexist formulation had Democrats as "Mommy," always wanting to take care of us and wipe our noses), lately seems like a bunch of bed-wetters, afraid to let our Democratic institutions work to keep us safe? We've tried hundreds of terrorists in criminal court and convicted them, and they sit in supermax American prisons. Not one has gotten out to terrorize again. But now Republicans are claiming that the policies pursued by Bush and Cheney regarding criminal trials for terrorists aren't enough. We have to be kept even safer! But if we agree to be terrorized by the thought of using our institutions to protect us from terror, well, haven't the terrorists won? I'm confused.

The administration's decision to put money in next year's budget to fund closing Guantánamo is likewise producing some hilarious moments of hypocrisy. One of the biggest hypocrites is John McCain, who called for the closing of Guantánamo on the campaign trail, in March 2008. That was the McCain of integrity; the former prisoner of war and torture victim who could see that Guantánamo had become a symbol of an America gone wrong, a symbol that was hurting us on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, and among Muslims generally.

Back then McCain wanted to transfer the Guantánamo detainees to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, but a funny thing happened: Both the state's GOP senators, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, said no. Now the plan is to house them in the near-empty Thomson Correctional Facility, 150 miles outside of Chicago. Local leaders are on board, Ill. Sen. Dick Durbin backs the plan -- but it's become controversial, because Obama's behind it.

So now, his Leavenworth plan scotched by members of his own party, McCain is blasting Obama's Thomson plan. "I have always stated that we need a comprehensive plan to close Guantánamo safely and legally," he said in a statement last month. "The Administration still has not crafted such a plan, and I do not think we should transfer any detainees into the United States until such a plan is presented to the American people and approved by the Congress." Of course, part of developing "such a plan" would involve selecting a site for the detainees and getting it ready, which Obama is doing in his budget. He's not shuttling detainees to Illinois this weekend on Air Force One (stopping maybe at the Super Bowl in New Orleans on the way. "Who dat?" indeed).

And while I'm all for the president conferring with Congress, it should be noted that Bush didn't ask Congress for permission to begin to house captured prisoners, with no charges, at Guantánamo. There are two different sets of rules for Democratic and Republican presidents, and of course the media play along. (Glenn captures my MSNBC friends Chuck Todd, Savannah Guthrie and Mark Whitaker chortling and tsk-tsking over Obama's "self-inflicted wound" in doing with Muhammed what Bush did with Moussaoui. They each know better.)

McCain has changed course on two military issues of late, Guantánamo and "don't ask, don't tell." I'm sure it has nothing to do with having a crazy birther challenger from the right, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. I'm sure he's just being all mavericky again.

On MSNBC's "The Ed Show" Tuesday, I got to respond to Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, who was kvetching about Miranda rights for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a New York trial for Muhammed and moving Guantánamo detainees to the U.S. Most of it was standard GOP talking points, but he took a nasty swing at Obama, echoing Dick Cheney's vicious claim that Obama is making the country less safe.

I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm always surprised when these people level what is perhaps the worst charge you can against Obama -- that he's making us less safe -- with absolutely zero evidence. Obama called it "rank politics," but it's worst than usual, because it really is playing politics with American security. Ed Schultz said Barrasso's position "floored" him; I replied we shouldn't be floored by anything anymore, because even formerly sane Republicans will do anything to undermine this president.