No way.
McSame is the ultimate hypocrite: unlike Cheney or Bush, he has seen combat in war (alebeit imperialist conquest). Yet he has sold out the military to which he (supposedly) holds in high esteem. Typical Republican hypocrisy.
And his accomplice in turning his back on post 9-11 heroes.... Mister Jimmy (Inhofe)
John McCain Adores the War and Ignores the Warriors
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/84010/
"McCain doesn't care if we're in Iraq for a hundred years, but when it comes to the veterans who've served over there, the senator is AWOL. His votes indicate he would rather give tax cuts to the rich than care for wounded veterans. Now that he's the presumptive Republican nominee for president, a coalition of veterans groups, liberal activists, and Democratic PACs have decided to target McCain over his failure to support veterans."
"Veterans groups were unimpressed."
"Sens. McCain, Graham and Burr are shortchanging our veterans and undermining America's heroes as they reach for the American dream," said VoteVets's Soltz. "Frankly, it hurts to have two veterans, like Sens. McCain and Graham treat us like this. We would expect that they would have more honor than that."
So if you vote against an increase in Military expenditures and/or Veterans benefits you are not patriotic? The argument sound familiar, and it's equally bunk when coming from the Republican side.
Not too mention, your source is a joke. Other vexing pieces on your source:
"Did John McCain Call his Wife a C**t?"
"America's University of Imperialism"
"Ignore the Corporate Media Spin, McCain is a Weak Candidate"
"John McCain Adores the War and Ignores the Warriors"
"Will Pot Ever Be Legal in This Schizoid Country?"
"McCain's Sneak Attack on Obama"
"Is There Any Way to Stop Wal-Mart & Co. from Sweatshop Profiteering?"
"McCain's Elitism and the New GI Bill"
"Corporate Vultures Lurk Behind the World Food Crisis"
"John McCain and the Simple Arithmetic of Republican Economic Failure"
"As Election Nears, Supreme Court Upholds Repressive Voter ID Law"
"The Myths and Harsh Effects of Bush's Economic Class War"
- - -
You do know the difference between "news" and "opinion" right? Generally, when one of the subjects is referred to as a failure, a vulture, or other overtures it's not really news.
Did you know that "Liberalism is a form of mental illness" and that it leads to the failure of industry society.
IHateObama.com says so. So it must be news.
Well then, here's more of the same from FOTD!
Friday, May 2. 2008
Fareed Zakaria NAILS John McCain on Foreign
Policy
http://rackjite.com/archives/1484-Fareed-Zakaria-NAILS-John-McCain-on-Foreign-Policy.html
Mccain Vs. Mccain
He seems to think he can magically unite the two main strands in the foreign-policy establishment. He can't.
Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Apr 26, 2008
"Amid the din of the dueling democrats, people seem to have forgotten about that other guy in the presidential race—you know, John McCain. McCain is said to be benefiting from this politically because his rivals are tearing each other apart. In fact, few people are paying much attention to what the Republican nominee is saying, or subjecting it to any serious scrutiny.
On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed.
In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil—but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.
We have spent months debating Barack Obama's suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain's proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.
I write this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. I also agree with much of what else he said in that speech in Los Angeles. But in recent years, McCain has turned into a foreign-policy schizophrenic, alternating between neoconservative posturing and realist common sense. His speech reads like it was written by two very different people, each one given an allotment of a few paragraphs on every topic.
The neoconservative vision within the speech is essentially an affirmation of ideology. Not only does it declare war on Russia and China, it places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale. The approach lacks any strategic framework. What would be the gain from so alienating two great powers? How would the League of Democracies fight terrorism while excluding countries like Jordan, Morocco, Egypt and Singapore? What would be the gain to the average American to lessen our influence with Saudi Arabia, the central banker of oil, in a world in which we are still crucially dependent on that energy source?
The single most important security problem that the United States faces is securing loose nuclear materials. A terrorist group can pose an existential threat to the global order only by getting hold of such material. We also have an interest in stopping proliferation, particularly by rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea. To achieve both of these core objectives—which would make American safe and the world more secure—we need Russian cooperation. How fulsome is that likely to be if we gratuitously initiate hostilities with Moscow? Dissing dictators might make for a stirring speech, but ordinary Americans will have to live with the complications after the applause dies down.
To reorder the G8 without China would be particularly bizarre. The G8 was created to help coordinate problems of the emerging global economy. Every day these problems multiply—involving trade, pollution, currencies—and are in greater need of coordination. To have a body that attempts to do this but excludes the world's second largest economy is to condemn it to failure and irrelevance. International groups are not cheerleading bodies but exist to help solve pressing global crises. Excluding countries won't make the problems go away.
McCain appears to think that he can magically unite the two main strands in the Republican foreign-policy establishment. But he can't. This is not about personalities but about two philosophically divergent views of international affairs. Put together, they will produce infighting and incoherence. We have seen this movie before. We have watched an American president unable to choose between his ideologically driven vice president and his pragmatic secretary of State—and the result was the catastrophe of George W. Bush's first term. Twenty-five years earlier, we watched another president who believed that he could encompass the entire spectrum of foreign policy. He, too, gave speeches that were drafted by advisers with divergent world views: in that case, Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It led to the paralyzing internal battles of the Carter years. Does John McCain want to try this experiment one more time?"
"His speech reads like it was written by two very different people, each one given an allotment of a few paragraphs on every topic." Anyone see the original Frank Sinatra version of The Manchurrian Candidate?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXm7Wd2_tzpw2bFE9Jnx433fnrhgD90G9LKG0
McCain castigates Obama on judges
By LIBBY QUAID – 3 hours ago
"WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) — Republican John McCain criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice, reaching out to the Christian right on one of their chief concerns: the proper role of judges in government.
Conservatives contend that federal judges have upset the constitutional balance of power among the courts, the Congress and the presidency by making far-reaching decisions, such as one in 2005 that let cities seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls.
"My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power," McCain said Tuesday in a speech at Wake Forest University.
McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, promised to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, saything they would interpret the law strictly to curb the scope of their rulings. While McCain didn't mention abortion, the far right understands that such nominees would be likely to limit or perhaps overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
Obama, on the other hand, voted against Roberts and Alito. So did Obama's rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, but McCain focused on Obama.
"Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done," McCain said. "But ... he went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee."
"Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other," McCain said.
Obama's campaign responded that McCain would pick judges who represent a threat to abortion rights and to McCain's own campaign finance reform bill.
"Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
The Arizona senator said his role models interpret the law strictly, paying attention to what lawmakers intended, as opposed to "activist" judges who, by striking down statutes or court decisions, make laws rather than interpret them. "Activist" is a term conservatives use pejoratively to criticize liberal justices.
Yet in the private property case McCain mentioned, the Supreme Court decided to defer to local officials rather than impose their own will from afar. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion, wrote of the high court's "longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."
McCain appeared confused about where he was for a moment Tuesday, saying, "I appreciate the hospitality of the students and faculty of West Virginia," then correcting himself to say Wake Forest as the audience laughed.
By speaking about judges, McCain offered an olive branch to the Christian right, which has been deeply suspicious of McCain.
He has clashed with its leaders and worked against them on issues like campaign finance reform. He also joined the "Gang of 14," a group of senators — seven Republicans and seven Democrats — who avoided a showdown over judges by agreeing to preserve the minority party's right to block President Bush's nominees with the filibuster.
Despite his rocky relations with the right, McCain's record on their top priorities — cultural issues like abortion — is very conservative.
While he did say once in 1999 that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, that amounted to a blip in an otherwise unbroken record of opposing abortion rights for women. McCain has repeatedly voted against federal funding for abortion and has opposed federal Medicaid funds for abortion even in cases of rape or incesT."
I hope Obama wears it like a badge of honor!
McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803494.html?hpid=topnews
"Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks."
Sticky.
Arianna Huffington
What John McCain Told Me, and What it Says About How Far He's Fallen
Posted May 5, 2008 | 04:43 PM (EST)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/what-john-mccain-told-me_b_100183.html
Most Recent News: Brad Whitford and Richard Schiff corroborate my post in Friday's New York Times piece by Elisabeth Bumiller.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/us/politics/09huffington.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1210460939-fFQuVXytIm0PPj1ft/Yh6Q&oref=slogin
Second Update: McCain and Me: Hero Worship Dies Hard (But When It Does...)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/me-and-mccain-hero-worshi_b_100378.html
Update: Through a spokesperson with the colorful name Tucker Bounds, McCain has denied telling me he didn't vote for Bush in 2000. "It's not true," Bounds told the Washington Post, "and I ask you to consider the source."
My sentiments exactly -- because John McCain has a long history of issuing heartfelt denials of things that were actually true.
He denied ever talking with John Kerry about his leaving the GOP to be Kerry's '04 running mate -- then later admitted he had, insisting: "Everybody knows that I had a conversation."
He denied admitting that he didn't know much about economics, even though he'd said exactly that to the Wall Street Journal. And the Boston Globe. And the Baltimore Sun.
He denied ever having asked for a budget earmark for Arizona, even though he had. On the record.
He denied that he'd ever had a meeting with comely lobbyist Vicki Iseman and her client Lowell Paxon, even though he had. And had admitted it in a legal deposition.
And those are just the outright denials. He's also repeatedly tried to spin away statements he regretted making (see: 100-year war, Iraq was a war for oil, etc.).
So, yes, by all means, "consider the source."
Original Post: At a dinner party in Los Angeles not long after the 2000 election, I was talking to a man and his wife, both prominent Republicans. The conversation soon turned to the new president. "I didn't vote for George Bush" the man confessed. "I didn't either," his wife added. Their names: John and Cindy McCain (Cindy told me she had cast a write-in vote for her husband).
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. 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.
McCain's fall has been Shakespearean -- and really hard to watch for those, like myself, who so admired and even loved him. His nobility and his true reformer years have given way to pandering in the service of ambition.
But a large portion of the electorate hasn't noticed the Shakespearean fall. How else to explain The 28/48 Disconnect -- wherein only a die-hard 28 percent of voters still approve of Bush, but 48 percent say they'd vote for McCain, who is running on the "more of the same" platform?
The thing is, these voters clearly still think of McCain as the maverick of 2000, a straight shooter who would never seek the embrace of a man he couldn't bring himself to vote for, nor accept the regular counsel of Karl Rove, the man behind the vile, race-baiting attacks on him during the 2000 campaign.
And the main reason for The 28/48 Disconnect is the mainstream media's ongoing membership in the John McCain Protection Society. They too continue to party -- and report on McCain -- like it's 1999.
Look at the slack they cut him after his infamous stroll through a Baghdad market was revealed as an utter sham. James Frey was eviscerated for far less. Or the slack they cut him after his repeated confusion of Sunni and Shia. Or the slack they cut him when his promise to run a "respectful" campaign ran aground on his sleazy attempt to connect Barack Obama and Hamas.
Every time McCain screws up, the media jump all over themselves to make it better, as if grandpa had said something embarrassing at the dinner table and it needed to be smoothed over as quickly as possible.
The latest example came late last week when the Straight Talk Express hit an oil slick and skidded off the road. Click here for the blow by blow, but, in short, McCain implied that Iraq is essentially a war for oil, then tried to take it back, explaining that he was actually talking about the first Gulf War, then, when pressed, denied that he was actually talking about the first Gulf War.
And, by and large, the media gave him a pass. Chris Matthews called the original war for oil comment "an astounding development," but most everyone else was too busy picking over the bones of the Wright/Obama carcass to give it much play.
Interestingly, McCain's mental meltdown over the reason we invaded Iraq was prompted by a comment from a McCain supporter who said he hoped a group called "Swift Boats for McCain" would be formed to help McCain in the campaign.
The gentleman needn't worry. The group already exists. It's called "the media." And they are very well-funded, and highly motivated. The Swift Boat Media for McCain are, for instance, going to make sure that we hear a lot more about the nuances of Obama's decision to not wear a flag pin on his lapel than about McCain's ideas on a little thing like the Iraq war.
Witness the reaction to McCain's repeated declarations that he thinks we should be in Iraq for "100 years." The DNC had the gall to use McCain's own words in an ad, causing McCain to flip out: "My friends, it's a direct falsification," he said, "and I'm sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion."
So, to review: using a candidate's own words against him is off limits, but making disgraceful insinuations about Hamas and Obama isn't.
But instead of nailing McCain on the "deterioration" of his ethics -- to say nothing of his logic and reasoning -- the Swift Boat Media dutifully repeated his talking points, as in this AP lede claiming, without reservation, that the DNC ad "falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq."
McCain tries to wriggle away from his "100 year" comment by saying that he wasn't talking about a hundred year war, but a very long term commitment of U.S. troops, like we have in Germany or South Korea. Maybe so, but the last time I looked no one was blowing up American soldiers in Wiesbaden.
The New Yorker's Rick Hertzberg, a writer who hasn't drunk the It's Still 2000 Kool-Aid, sums up McCain's Strangelovian "vision": "McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal -- that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."
The John McCain the media fell in love with in 2000 isn't on the ballot in 2008. And the proof has all but jumped up and grabbed the media by the throat: the ring-kiss of "agents of intolerance" Falwell and Robertson; the decision to make permanent tax cuts he twice voted against, saying he could not "in good conscience support" them; the campaign finance reformer replaced with a candidate whose campaign is run by lobbyists and fueled by loophole rides on his wife's jet; the hard-line stance against torture replaced by a vote allowing waterboarding; the guarded-by-a-battalion stroll through the "safe" neighborhoods of Baghdad; the use of Karl Rove as an advisor... and the embracing of the disastrous policies of a man he so abhorred he would not vote for him.
What will it take for the Swift Boat Media to realize that John McCain jumped the shark a long, long time ago? "
It is about time someone informs the American public that Mcnut is corrupt.
May 10, 2008, 6:54 pm
Obama Says McCain's Keating Five Connection Is Not Off Limits
By Jeff Zeleny
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/obama-says-mccains-keating-five-connection-is-not-off-limits/
BEND, Ore. – Senator Barack Obama said today that a scandal from Senator John McCain's past – the Keating Five – was just as relevant to the presidential campaign as questions about who Mr. Obama has associated with over the years.
In a news conference here, Mr. Obama was asked whether his campaign intended to raise the banking scandal from the 1980s, which Mr. McCain has apologized for. Every piece of every candidate's public record, Mr. Obama said, is "germane to the presidency."
"I was just asked previously about a whole host of issues and associations that are a lot more flimsy than John McCain's relationship to Keating Five," Mr. Obama said. "What I said, I can't quarrel with the American people wanting to know more about that and me having to answer questions about it."
Mr. Obama's background, ranging from his longtime pastor to his friendship with former radicals from the 1960s, has been widely debated during the Democratic nominating fight. He said he expected the same level of scrutiny would be applied to Mr. McCain.
The topic was raised briefly during a 20-minute news conference here today. It drew sharp criticism from the McCain campaign, with a spokesman saying: "Apparently, Obama's lively calls for new politics ended today."
"If Barack Obama doesn't have the strength to stand up to his own standards, how is he going to stand up for hardworking Americans?" said Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain.
While the Democratic presidential primary is May 20 in Oregon – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigned here yesterday, former President Bill Clinton arrives tomorrow – Mr. Obama's two-day campaign swing here carried the feel of the opening volley of a general election campaign in a battleground state. Mr. McCain is set to make his first trip on Monday to Oregon, a state that is being targeted by both campaigns.
As he spoke to reporters, with the Cascade Mountains in the distance, Mr. Obama sought to clarify a remark he made the other day when he suggested Mr. McCain was "losing his bearings."
Was that a veiled reference to age? No, Mr. Obama said today.
"His team somehow took this as an ageist comment," he said. "How that was interpreted in that fashion still is not clear to me."
Then, he added: "Last I checked, people lose their bearings at every age."
Perhaps. Yet it was an interesting moment, particularly considering Mr. Obama was not asked here about "losing his bearings" – or age. Mr. Obama raised both topics on his own accord.
McCain's 'Compelling Logic' For Not Talking to Our Enemies
By Don Davis
"I REALLY DON'T HAVE TO; THEIR PAID LOBBYISTS ALREADY WORK FOR MY CAMPAIGN."
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1844
Okay....I'm starting to feel sorry for McCaintgonnawin .....
Obama, McCain Tussle Over Veterans Issues
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/22/obama_mccain_tussle_over_veter.html?hpid=topnews
Obama, McCain Tussle Over Veterans Issues
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) waves upon his arrival on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 22, 2008. (Associated Press)By Jonathan Weisman
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) insisted the Senate's overwhelming passage of his expansion of veterans education benefits had nothing to do with the presidential campaign.
"There is no politics," he said, after 25 Republicans broke not only with President Bush but with presumptive Republican nominee
John McCain (Ariz.) to give the measure a resounding win. "This is taking care of the people who have taken care of us."
But through the prism of the election, the politics were clear, present and vicious.
The Senate today took up and passed legislation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and twin that money with billions in domestic priorities and a new G.I. Bill that promises returning veterans sufficient tuition assistance to attend the most expensive state universities in the nation. McCain skipped the vote in favor of campaigning in California, including attending a fundraiser sponsored by San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos. But his White House rivals, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) were very much present.
"I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country," Obama said on the Senate floor. "But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this G.I. Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans."
"McCain's comeback was withering, a lengthy statement questioning Obama's knowledge of veterans issues and his commitment to national security."
"I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," he said in the statement.
"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," he huffed.
But his opponents stand at the ready. "
nice leadership, Mcaintgonnawin
Quick...someone else comment so the thread isn't just FOTD talking to himself.
FOTD isn't voting for McCain. Therefore, FOTD is anti-veteran and anti-geriatric.
http://judicial-inc.biz/82jjohn_mccain_and_the_uss_forresta.htm
Okay, someone else with time on their hands to search for every possible article available on the net that puts down Obama, SPAM this thread with that. Not that I'm pro-McCain, but come on, if you waste enough time doing so, you can go to every crack pot site out there and eventually find articles that will put every canidate in a poor light. Feeling a thread with a bunch of spam like this is just annoying, and any point you think you might be making gets lost in the redundancy of it all. If you want to make a point on an issue, post ONE time, summerize your points, and link sources (and at least find credible sources). Otherwise you have everyone out there scrolling through it, not even bothering to read every piece of litter that you throw out there, and missing any point you are trying to make.
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
Okay, someone else with time on their hands to search for every possible article available on the net that puts down Obama, SPAM this thread with that. Not that I'm pro-McCain, but come on, if you waste enough time doing so, you can go to every crack pot site out there and eventually find articles that will put every canidate in a poor light. Feeling a thread with a bunch of spam like this is just annoying, and any point you think you might be making gets lost in the redundancy of it all. If you want to make a point on an issue, post ONE time, summerize your points, and link sources (and at least find credible sources). Otherwise you have everyone out there scrolling through it, not even bothering to read every piece of litter that you throw out there, and missing any point you are trying to make.
I agree completely, custosnox. Here at Internet Headquarters, we have a special acronym we like to throw out in threads like these to posters like FOTD:
GYOFB* (//%22http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GYOFB%22)
A little swft boating McCain and all I get is two minor calling outs?
Landslide.....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
A little swft boating McCain and all I get is two minor calling outs?
Landslide.....
the call out wasn't on the issue, but your presentation of the issue. As far as calling landslide, given the fact that these forums are primarily visited by dem's (from what I have seen), then of course you wouldn't get much of a debate on the issue, especially since the hot talk right now are the Primes. Besides, as I said, nobody is going to take even half the time to read your spam as you did tracking it all down.
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
A little swft boating McCain and all I get is two minor calling outs?
Landslide.....
given the fact that these forums are primarily visited by dem's (from what I have seen), then of course you wouldn't get much of a debate on the issue,
That's humorous. This forum is predominantly Republican, Independent and Libertarian, just like Tulsa. Its a rare thing to find folks as liberal as FOTD or even admitting being a Democrat in Tulsa. I would bet there are no more than a half dozen active Democrats on this forum(actually both Democratic registration AND voted Democratic in the recent past.)
Careful calling stuff "facts" based on what you have seen for a short period of time.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
A little swft boating McCain and all I get is two minor calling outs?
Landslide.....
given the fact that these forums are primarily visited by dem's (from what I have seen), then of course you wouldn't get much of a debate on the issue,
That's humorous. This forum is predominantly Republican, Independent and Libertarian, just like Tulsa. Its a rare thing to find folks as liberal as FOTD or even admitting being a Democrat in Tulsa. I would bet there are no more than a half dozen active Democrats on this forum(actually both Democratic registration AND voted Democratic in the recent past.)
Careful calling stuff "facts" based on what you have seen for a short period of time.
I did say from what i've seen. Most of the posts I've seen on the political forums tend to have a democratic stance on things. This would lead me to belief (perhaps quiet erroniously)that dems are in the majority here. However, I did not take into account that with the primaries going on, with the republicans done with, that it would be mainly democrats that would be paying more attention to these forums, thus giving the illusion of a higher Dem count. I have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future, and I will always admit when I am wrong, or just plain ignorant, on an issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/30/la-times-john-mccain-has_n_104407.html
McCaint sold his soul to the devil.....I know. My friend told me so.....
Giving our heroes the shaft is John McSame
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/290219
Edward Humes: McCain consistently fails to back veterans
"The dissonance between McCain's military-man image and his actions on this issue have introduced a jarring note to his presidential aspirations."
"McCain's rationalization for opposing the bill may not hold water, but his stance makes perfect sense in light of his record. From 2004 to 2006, the Disabled Veterans of America gave him annual scores ranging from 50 percent to 20 percent on supporting the group's legislative priorities. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a grade of D in its most recent analysis of voting records. The American Legion says he is dead wrong on the GI Bill, as does the Veterans of Foreign Wars."
"It is certainly true that McCain's affectionate and respectful rhetoric for America's servicemen and women takes a back seat to no one. But when it comes to improving the health and education of our veterans, McCain's record leaves them stranded by the side of the road."
Once again, no surprises here from McBush!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/election2008/ig/Election-Funny-Pictures/McBush.-20F.htm
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Giving our heroes the shaft is John McSame
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/290219
Edward Humes: McCain consistently fails to back veterans
"The dissonance between McCain's military-man image and his actions on this issue have introduced a jarring note to his presidential aspirations."
"McCain's rationalization for opposing the bill may not hold water, but his stance makes perfect sense in light of his record. From 2004 to 2006, the Disabled Veterans of America gave him annual scores ranging from 50 percent to 20 percent on supporting the group's legislative priorities. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a grade of D in its most recent analysis of voting records. The American Legion says he is dead wrong on the GI Bill, as does the Veterans of Foreign Wars."
"It is certainly true that McCain's affectionate and respectful rhetoric for America's servicemen and women takes a back seat to no one. But when it comes to improving the health and education of our veterans, McCain's record leaves them stranded by the side of the road."
Once again, no surprises here from McBush!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/election2008/ig/Election-Funny-Pictures/McBush.-20F.htm
Well that was easy. All I had to do was go to THOMAS (The Library of Congress database) and read the Webb Bill.
It's a good bill for veterans. In a nut shell, it pays 90% of college tuition and 100% of housing to veterans that serve 3 years military service.
The problem he had with the bill, and it is very justified, is that the bill covers all veterans without respect to rank or merit. It is simply an entitlement bill.
It also covers tuition regardless of what public or private institution or monetary amount. So veterans that want to attend private schools could be educated to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for only 3 years of service. In addition they receive full housing reimbursement.
And the biggest problem with the bill is that (Section C, Subchapter II) allows individuals enlisted for less than the 36 months, who are discharged for mental, or medical reasons unrelated to military service to receive the same benefits.
This is a loop hole that is currently abused by people to receive military benefits.
It is a multi-billion dollar flawed bill. It has a good mission but costly flaws.
If I want tuition to Harvard I can enlist, and then have a mental breakdown, or get pregnant leading to a discharge. The government would then pay me $94,458 for tuition, $36,000 for housing, $3,000 for books, and additional funding for food, tutoring, plus what they call "Administrative Provisions."
I would like to see a bill like this, but it would need to be linked to merit (liberal bad word), and have the loopholes closed. The tuition limits would also need to be linked to national averages with a cap.
Average citizen reading legislation rather than relying on "Amico del diavolo's" hype.
Terrible example.
You have to qualify to get into Harvard. You make it sound automatic. Most young people with the choice of military duty will not qualify for college entrance requirements.
The purpose of this legislation was to attract more young people into our military which is having big problems growing itself other than spending us into the stratosphere.
'Anything Not to Go Back'
http://www.newsweek.com/id/140478
"There are some soldiers who will do almost anything not to go back," she says. Col. Elspeth Ritchie, the Army's top psychologist, agrees that we could see an uptick in intentional injuries as more U.S. soldiers serve long, repeated combat tours, "but we just don't have good, hard data on it."
These creeps over the last 8 years have ruined our military stamina and drive.....
Glad my kids won't be facing the draft.....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Terrible example.
Most young people with the choice of military duty will not qualify for college entrance requirements.
You have to qualify to get into any college. I understand that.
Your statement about
"most young people with the choice of military duty" is atrocious!
Are you saying that only stupid people join the military?
Unique glimpse into the liberal mind.
I had the honor to go to high-school with many young men and women that joined the military because they wanted to serve their country, see the world, or do great things, not because they couldn't get into college.
I then went to college with many who I had a great deal of respect and even envy for because they had seen the world, done great things, and served their country.
I can't even think of how to rebut your statement. Disgusting!
quote:
Staff Sgt. Jessie Jelks, "I don't have to sell the Marines. They know what they want when they step in the door."
That may be why the Marine Corps is smashing enlistment records, even as a long and unpopular war makes military service a hard sell.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-marinerecruiting_09tex.ART.State.Edition2.46df519.html
quote:
He pointed out that high re-enlistment rates are helping alleviate the war-zone demand because many of those re-upping are requesting to return to the war zone.
"We have senior NCOs who are reaching retirement dates and requesting to go to deploying units. There are a lot of infantry soldiers who are trying to get back into the fight again," Col. Blocker said.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/06/army_deployequity_060708w/
Random snippets mean nothing. This entire thread's only worth is to show that you have too much time to post to yourself and that you are only interested in one side of any issue. So long as you can find a source that says exactly what you want it to say it doesn't matter how biased or just whack job it is, it's right!
Shouldn't you be posting a new "twoof" conspiracy sometime soon?
Oh, and by the way, it's harder to get into West Point than Harvard. So I'd say at least SOME recruits qualify for college with flying colors.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Terrible example.
Most young people with the choice of military duty will not qualify for college entrance requirements.
You have to qualify to get into any college. I understand that.
Your statement about "most young people with the choice of military duty" is atrocious!
Are you saying that only stupid people join the military?
Unique glimpse into the liberal mind.
No. You rearranged my wording to fit what you want it to say. I never meant stupid. Only reactionaries frame it in that way to cover for their own inadequacies.
The less fortunate in this country were afforded the option of serving in our military. In return, if they survived the government gave them a hand up. In the future, it does not appear McSameco would back that incentive. The priority appears to be with the arms manufacturers and not our vets.
quote:
I propose we cure cancer and kill all the Jews.
McCain: I can not support that proposition.
FOTD: Why do you hate cancer patients?
- - -
Get the point?
You'll do or say anything if you think it will fool one idiot into believing you. Source credibility, context, or presenting the entire argument means nothing. Move along...
Obama: Windfall profits tax
Cannon Fodder: Why do you hate oily people?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aT1qU1jZD5ZU&refer=home
McCain Aide Says Bush Knows Little About Economy (Update1)
"A Bloomberg News analysis of McCain's budget, which was released in April, shows it would increase the national debt by $1.8 trillion over eight years. Groups such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center, both based in Washington, estimate the cost to be even higher.
McCain, 71, has been attempting to separate himself from the unpopular current president, whose approval rating is hovering near 30 percent in most polls, as the presidential race against Obama heats up. "
Those repiglicans are starting to canabilize their young in order to win an election.
building a dossier and this info helps....
Keep an eye on this thread.....over time, John McSame will look like a donkey. Not that he doesn't already.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/11/mccain-cheney-hell-yeah/
McCain On Whether Cheney Might Serve In His Administration: 'Hell, Yeah'»
As Vice President Dick Cheney makes the rounds on "the GOP's rubber chicken circuit" these days to raise funds for conservative candidates, he always implores his audiences "to make sure that we elect John McCain the 44th President of the United States." But worried about being labeled a third Bush term, the McCain campaign has made strides to distance the candidate from Cheney by blasting "Vice President Cheney's energy bill."
But before Cheney became a political albatross, McCain overflowed with kind things to say about him. In fact, in July 2004, McCain described Cheney as one of the best vice presidents ever:
At a July 15 appearance in Michigan, McCain dampened the speculation by calling Cheney "one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice presidents this country has ever had."
In interviews for Stephen Hayes' 2007 biography of Cheney, McCain "strongly" asserted that Cheney "has been of enormous help to this president of the United States." Politico's Jonathan Martin reports today that in unpublished comments to Hayes, McCain also said he would consider Cheney for a post in his administration:
Going further, McCain even told Hayes in comments heretofore unpublished that he'd consider Cheney for an administration post.
Asked whether he'd be interested in Cheney had the vice president not already have served under Bush for two terms, McCain said: "I don't know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."
Though the McCain campaign told Martin that "John McCain will always treat the vice president with respect," they also refused to say whether they would have Cheney speak at the Republican National Convention. "No decisions have been made on the program yet," said a McCain aide.
Landslide....look out!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Keep an eye on this thread.....over time, John McSame will look like a donkey. Not that he doesn't already.
Um. . .Oh, never mind.
[;)]
McCain Gaffes: A Tough Week In The Youtube Era
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/mccain-gaffes-a-tough-wee_n_106290.html
"We're going through a process where you get a whole bunch of names, and ya ... Well, basically, it's a Google," McCain said. "You just, you know, what you can find out now on the Internet. It's remarkable, you know."
Manchurian candidate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qha3pZTflzY
Oh McCain!
Can we see some defense for this poor repiglican?
Hard to defend the indefensible. You haven't bothered to lampoon McCain yet for his gaffe sayng: "I will veto every beer".
How'd you miss that?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hard to defend the indefensible. You haven't bothered to lampoon McCain yet for his gaffe sayng: "I will veto every beer".
How'd you miss that?
It's in an earlier post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/mccain-gaffes-a-tough-wee_n_106290.html
second down....
The doozy I missed was the one he had in conversation with Matt Latimure on "Today" Wens. when he stated avoiding casualties in Iraq is more important than bringing troops home... http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOhjF56Q7VttEl24KP-3TLhIdhrAD9183IJ80
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hard to defend the indefensible. You haven't bothered to lampoon McCain yet for his gaffe sayng: "I will veto every beer".
How'd you miss that?
... then there's the Cindy McCain "Cookiegate" scandal...
Cindy McCain's Oatmeal-Butterscotch Cookies http://www.parents.com/recipes/recipedetail.jsp?recipeId=R118092
HERSHEY'S Kitchens Oatmeal Butterscotch Cookies http://www.hersheys.com/recipes/recipes/detail.asp?id=3909&page=1&per=25&product_ID=8
Despite Cindy McCain copying a Hershey's recipe and acting like it was an old family heirloom, the cookies do sound pretty good.
I really don't care if she stole the recipe from the Keebler elves if they taste good.
I'm for John McCain because he's been a big part of loosening regs on mortgages and opposing the loopholes that created Enron and our current price of a gallon of gas. Well, scratch that last part. Recently, McCaint helped squash the Ag bill that would have closed the Enron Loophole.
But I'm a patriot and scared of Obama and his peacenik liberal minions. McCaint's economic advisers and lobbyists staff are reason enough for my vote. http://www.alternet.org/election08/87999/
Not that it matters because I'm voting in Oklahoma.
Landslide coming.....look out below.
McCain Adviser: Another Attack on U.S. Would Be "Big Advantage" For McCain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/23/mccain-adviser-another-91_n_108671.html
I'm for John McCain because guys like Charlie Black will replace *Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb.
*"Two people or two groups resembling each other so closely that they are practically indistinguishable."
I'm for John McCain because, like me, he lets loose....
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=mccain+temper&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=john%20mccain%20temper&hl=en&sitesearch=&src=3&dur=2&so=4
I'm for John McSame because I want to be neo-conned again into wrecking this country by a bunch of dim bulbs like Grover Nordquist one of McCaints point men.....
(neo-con motto)
"reduce the size of the US government until it will drown in a bathtub of water". Nordquist
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25420599
'Obama is John Kerry with a tan"....Grover Nordquist
Grover it's over......
SHAMEFUL POS!
How can a man who claims he "knows nothing about economics" run for president?
That's like an actor running for president!
[:o)]
I'm FORE John McSame because he'd still vote for the Iraq War....OMG!
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-07012008-1556942.html
McCain: US winning in Iraq
By BRIAN SCHEID
Bucks County Courier Times
Sen. John McCain said that he is willing to stake his presidential campaign, as well as his political career, on his support for the war in Iraq.
In an interview with reporters on the back of his campaign bus, the "Straight Talk Express" Monday afternoon, McCain said that even in retrospect he would still have voted to authorize the war, as he did in 2002.
"I think there's no question," said the Republican's likely presidential nominee. "I owe too much to these young people who are serving there to let political considerations interfere with what I know is right.
"I believe the American people, over time, will side with me, but if they don't I'll accept that," he said. "I'd much rather lose a political campaign than lose a war."
A Time magazine poll released last week found that 57 percent of Americans felt that America was wrong to go to war with Iraq. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released two days earlier found that 67 percent of Americans believed that the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war for.
While McCain acknowledged that there was "a massive, colossal intelligence failure" that led up to the invasion of Iraq, he said that other countries had gathered the same, false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He said that even with that faulty intelligence he felt the war was justified since Saddam Hussein had twice used weapons of mass destruction, broken international sanctions and was "a threat" to the United States. McCain said that conditions in Iraq would have gotten much worse if Hussein's regime had continued.
"The status quo was not going to prevail in Iraq," McCain said.
McCain said that the current military strategy in Iraq, particularly a troop surge he was initially criticized for supporting, is working.
"Historians will quibble for a long time as to whether we should have gone into Iraq ... that's a matter for historians," McCain said. "What Americans care about is whether we will come home with victory and honor or whether we will be defeated. That's the difference between my position and Senator [Barack] Obama's position. That's the difference."
Obama, the Democrat's likely presidential nominee, has called for a phased redeployment of American troops out of Iraq. Monday, McCain said Obama has "a total lack of understanding of the situation" in Iraq and criticized Obama for only visiting Iraq once and never meeting with Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
McCain, who was in Bucks County Monday for the first time since he campaigned for then-Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick at a rally in Upper Makefield in 2006, said he felt that he could win Pennsylvania, even though no Republican presidential candidate has won in this state in 20 years.
"I realize it's an uphill battle and I'm the underdog in this race," he said. "I'm confident that we can carry Pennsylvania, but I just have a lot of work to do."
Brian Scheid can be reached at 215-949-4165 or bscheid@phillyBurbs.com.
Wow. Obama has set a timeline for withdrawl and he's never so much as had a meeting with Gen. Petraeus?
He might just be as young and naive as he looks.
Wow. Obama has set a timeline for withdrawl and he's never so much as had a meeting with Gen. Petraeus?
He might just be as young and naive as he looks.
Vote for Obama, re-elect Carter! [}:)]
McCain Orders Shake-Up of His Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/politics/02cnd-manage.html?_r=1&8au&emc=au&oref=slogin
More Busheviks...."Mr. Schmidt is a veteran of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and he worked closely with Karl Rove, who was Mr. Bush's political adviser."
I'm for John McSame because he is not for free speech nor civil disobediance!
McCain staff asked for protester's ouster
"He was simply trying to uphold the policy."
http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_9844803
"It was Sen. John McCain's staff who asked security at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts to remove people holding protest signs at the venue — not U.S. Secret Service agents, who were not involved in Carol Kreck's ouster from the galleria. ...Kreck, a 60-year-old librarian and former Denver Post reporter, was cited for trespassing by Denver police at the Monday event."
Bush redux.
Crazy Democrats! Ya'll are really pissing me off[V] "O' McCain is evil, McCain is a hypocrite, McCain is a flip-flopper" COME ON! Lets get real here. At the beginning of the race, Sen. Osoma was one of the most liberal Dumm's in the Senate, now Sen. Osoma threw on his "Happy Face" so called conservative face and moved right down to the center of the aisle. He is now one of the most conservative dumm's in the Senate, second to Sen. Lieberman.
Talken' about McCain selling his soul to the Devil, uhmmmmm
quote:
Originally posted by stu8749
Crazy Democrats! Ya'll are really pissing me off[V] "O' McCain is evil, McCain is a hypocrite, McCain is a flip-flopper" COME ON! Lets get real here. At the beginning of the race, Sen. Osoma was one of the most liberal Dumm's in the Senate, now Sen. Osoma threw on his "Happy Face" so called conservative face and moved right down to the center of the aisle. He is now one of the most conservative dumm's in the Senate, second to Sen. Lieberman.
Talken' about McCain selling his soul to the Devil, uhmmmmm
You go Stu!!!!!!
The soul was removed during Vietnam and replaced with The Manchurian Candidate. The devil told me so.[:P]
90% of republicans voted for bush twice! talk about dumb*uckistan!
Gotta want a crapshooter for the most powerful man in the world..... goes badly with being loose. My guess is McSame has an alcohol issue. Perhaps meds as well....
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819898-2,00.html
Vote for John McCain if you're a resident of Dumb*uckistan.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Gotta want a crapshooter for the most powerful man in the world..... goes badly with being loose. My guess is McSame has an alcohol issue. Perhaps meds as well....
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819898-2,00.html
Vote for John McCain if you're a resident of Dumb*uckistan.
Vote for Barack Obama if you're a resident of Dumb racistville.
quote:
Originally posted by stu8749
Crazy Democrats! Ya'll are really pissing me off[V] "O' McCain is evil, McCain is a hypocrite, McCain is a flip-flopper" COME ON! Lets get real here. At the beginning of the race, Sen. Osoma was one of the most liberal Dumm's in the Senate, now Sen. Osoma threw on his "Happy Face" so called conservative face and moved right down to the center of the aisle. He is now one of the most conservative dumm's in the Senate, second to Sen. Lieberman.
Talken' about McCain selling his soul to the Devil, uhmmmmm
While everybody is entitled to their opinion, I find it very insulting how you refer to Barack Obama, an elected official, as "Sen. Osoma." I see no excuse for this.
quote:
Originally posted by Nik
quote:
Originally posted by stu8749
Crazy Democrats! Ya'll are really pissing me off[V] "O' McCain is evil, McCain is a hypocrite, McCain is a flip-flopper" COME ON! Lets get real here. At the beginning of the race, Sen. Osoma was one of the most liberal Dumm's in the Senate, now Sen. Osoma threw on his "Happy Face" so called conservative face and moved right down to the center of the aisle. He is now one of the most conservative dumm's in the Senate, second to Sen. Lieberman.
Talken' about McCain selling his soul to the Devil, uhmmmmm
While everybody is entitled to their opinion, I find it very insulting how you refer to Barack Obama, an elected official, as "Sen. Osoma." I see no excuse for this.
I see no excuse for referring to John McCain as Sen. McSame
quote:
Originally posted by stu8749
quote:
Originally posted by Nik
quote:
Originally posted by stu8749
Crazy Democrats! Ya'll are really pissing me off[V] "O' McCain is evil, McCain is a hypocrite, McCain is a flip-flopper" COME ON! Lets get real here. At the beginning of the race, Sen. Osoma was one of the most liberal Dumm's in the Senate, now Sen. Osoma threw on his "Happy Face" so called conservative face and moved right down to the center of the aisle. He is now one of the most conservative dumm's in the Senate, second to Sen. Lieberman.
Talken' about McCain selling his soul to the Devil, uhmmmmm
While everybody is entitled to their opinion, I find it very insulting how you refer to Barack Obama, an elected official, as "Sen. Osoma." I see no excuse for this.
I see no excuse for referring to John McCain as Sen. McSame
Not exactly along the same lines. Your neo-conism is showing...
[:P]
Stu, we all know he's a Muslim.....move on.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Stu, we all know he's a Muslim.....move on.
"Move On" Lets get real here! America may be ready for a black president, but does that mean we are obligated to elect someone president, just because they are black? Obama has extremely minimal experience and minimal credentials, not to mention his 20 years joined at the hip with anti-American racists. Also, about 15% of our population is black, so in a democracy, why are the other 85% of us made to feel obligated to elect a black man? I think the problems confronting America today are too dire and too complex to elect someone who is less qualified, just because it is politically correct.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Gotta want a crapshooter for the most powerful man in the world..... goes badly with being loose. My guess is McSame has an alcohol issue. Perhaps meds as well....
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819898-2,00.html
Vote for John McCain if you're a resident of Dumb*uckistan.
The story you cited seemed to be far more interested in Obama's beer-swilling compulsive poker playing.
Here, lemme buy you a Bud
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/2008_05_06t183927_450x370_us_usa_po.jpg)
Show me some McDifference between these two hosers FOTD, not Chump Change
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow. Obama has set a timeline for withdrawl and he's never so much as had a meeting with Gen. Petraeus?
He might just be as young and naive as he looks.
Vote for Obama, re-elect Carter! [}:)]
Uh, not exactly Carter...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0e0846cd-694f-40d1-a6d9-55e20de176cf
...and if you listen to their respective strategic plans on foreign policy, Obama is making much more sense than McCain. There is a good comparison piece by Slate.com today.
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow. Obama has set a timeline for withdrawl and he's never so much as had a meeting with Gen. Petraeus?
He might just be as young and naive as he looks.
Vote for Obama, re-elect Carter! [}:)]
Uh, not exactly Carter...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0e0846cd-694f-40d1-a6d9-55e20de176cf
...and if you listen to their respective strategic plans on foreign policy, Obama is making much more sense than McCain. There is a good comparison piece by Slate.com today.
Here is the Slate.com article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195471/
quote:
Originally posted by stu8749
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Stu, we all know he's a Muslim.....move on.
"Move On" Lets get real here! America may be ready for a black president, but does that mean we are obligated to elect someone president, just because they are black? Obama has extremely minimal experience and minimal credentials, not to mention his 20 years joined at the hip with anti-American racists. Also, about 15% of our population is black, so in a democracy, why are the other 85% of us made to feel obligated to elect a black man? I think the problems confronting America today are too dire and too complex to elect someone who is less qualified, just because it is politically correct.
Jeeezus Stu.....we're not going to go through this again. Go back under search then look under "racist" or "race" or "bigot" and see all the discussions.
The race is not about race unless you want it to be. Many Americans could care less. To them, it's the issue of correcting the fiascos brought on our great country since 2000 that have put our country into a poor economy and our National honor at question.
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow. Obama has set a timeline for withdrawl and he's never so much as had a meeting with Gen. Petraeus?
He might just be as young and naive as he looks.
Vote for Obama, re-elect Carter! [}:)]
Uh, not exactly Carter...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0e0846cd-694f-40d1-a6d9-55e20de176cf
...and if you listen to their respective strategic plans on foreign policy, Obama is making much more sense than McCain. There is a good comparison piece by Slate.com today.
Here is the Slate.com article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195471/
Great, more op-ed quoted as fact. We've already got one poster who supplies us plenty of that. [;)]
McCain is un-realistic, Obama is naive and appears halting and un-informed when he's being questioned extemporaneously. He doesn't think well on his feet.
I'm not happy with either choice. I've been studying the history and facts on these guys. McCain has a very slight edge when it comes to which "I like least".
Good. You vote for the old guy who surrounds himself with bad advisors while he can't think consistently. Doesn't matter anyway. I guess family values and good moral character are not required....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Good. You vote for the old guy who surrounds himself with bad advisors while he can't think consistently. Doesn't matter anyway. I guess family values and good moral character are not required....
Hearsay.
How many foreign, ethnic orphans have the Obamas adopted again?
Didn't say who I was voting for yet. There's still more than three months left to find out more facts on these two.
They are both terrible options, but at least I don't get the feeling that McCain is hiding behind the media.
Obama has O, zero, zilch, none, NO practical experience and attended a church for 20 years that is a black nationalist, Africa first church.
Now, either he knows, follows and believes in his church or he's a blind, stupid, shallow idiot. There's no third option. Which of those options makes for a good choice for President of the United States? We've already tried the second option, although I doubt to Obama's extent. He sure can talk pretty when he reads from the box. It isn't working.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
They are both terrible options, but at least I don't get the feeling that McCain is hiding behind the media.
Obama has O, zero, zilch, none, NO practical experience and attended a church for 20 years that is a black nationalist, Africa first church.
Now, either he knows, follows and believes in his church or he's a blind, stupid, shallow idiot. There's no third option. Which of those options makes for a good choice for President of the United States? We've already tried the second option, although I doubt to Obama's extent. He sure can talk pretty when he reads from the box. It isn't working.
You left out he's a Muslim.
Crash and burn already.....
What will happen, I believe, is that the country is so ready for change, that change will come as a party change in the White House.
Just because McCain says he's not Bush doesn't make it so in the eyes of voters. He has the nasty reputation of being Republican right now, and with some of the rhetoric he's been spewing about the Iraq War, and with the news still playing up some of his more idiotic displays (anyone remember 'bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran?) he will not be able to shake the Bush anti-legacy loose.
I wish Jesse Ventura would run. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
What will happen, I believe, is that the country is so ready for change, that change will come as a party change in the White House.
Just because McCain says he's not Bush doesn't make it so in the eyes of voters. He has the nasty reputation of being Republican right now, and with some of the rhetoric he's been spewing about the Iraq War, and with the news still playing up some of his more idiotic displays (anyone remember 'bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran?) he will not be able to shake the Bush anti-legacy loose.
I wish Jesse Ventura would run. [:D]
I hope not because that would hurt Al Franken's chances and we need a real genuine commedian in the Senate. Authenticity for a change![}:)]
Ventura? Sheesh, his 'roid rage would make McCain look like a lamb. [}:)]
I'm for John McCain because he likes to tell jokes....er, he is the joke.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11823.html
McCain's humor often backfires
"McCain's humor, by contrast, makes him the political counterpart of the radio host Don Imus (whom he has defended): It's sharp, unrehearsed and, at times, way, way over the line. This cycle, he's drawn winces, and worse, for everything from a joking reference to domestic violence to a now-notorious little ditty about bombing Iran. Earlier in his political career, the Arizona press reported that he'd cracked a rape joke that would now probably end any politician's career, a joke his aides then and now say he doesn't recall making. "
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The race is not about race unless you want it to be. Many Americans could care less. To them, it's the issue of correcting the fiascos brought on our great country since 2000 that have put our country into a poor economy and our National honor at question.
So are you saying that "Many Americans" do care about race since it would be possible to care a smaller amount... or... are you using the common corruption of "could not care less"?
I never quite know with you.
I
almost voted for Algore in 2000 so the democrats could get proper credit for the already worsening economy but couldn't force myself to do it. I also remember pictures in the news from Europe (Germany I think) in a parade or protest depicting Bill Clinton as a fool. The disrespect for America had already been underway. I must admit W hasn't improved it much (any).
Obama would certainly change things. I am just not believing they would necessarily be better.
Never challenge worse! (From another thread.)
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow. Obama has set a timeline for withdrawl and he's never so much as had a meeting with Gen. Petraeus?
He might just be as young and naive as he looks.
Vote for Obama, re-elect Carter! [}:)]
Uh, not exactly Carter...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0e0846cd-694f-40d1-a6d9-55e20de176cf
...and if you listen to their respective strategic plans on foreign policy, Obama is making much more sense than McCain. There is a good comparison piece by Slate.com today.
Here is the Slate.com article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195471/
Great, more op-ed quoted as fact. We've already got one poster who supplies us plenty of that. [;)]
McCain is un-realistic, Obama is naive and appears halting and un-informed when he's being questioned extemporaneously. He doesn't think well on his feet.
I'm not happy with either choice. I've been studying the history and facts on these guys. McCain has a very slight edge when it comes to which "I like least".
Op-ed is not fact, but it provides a viewpoint that helps explain things for me.
I'm not worried about Obama's extemporaneous speaking ability, although I'd say that hesitating and thinking through things to try to get it right is better than hesitating and coming up with zingers like McCain's Iran cigarette joke or confusing Shiite with Sunni when trying to explain the complexities of the Middle East conflict.
Although I agree that Obama is a bit green on foreign policy, I have to point out that he appears to be right on (a) talking with Iran - Bush is doing it now; (b) troop surge in Afghanistan - McCain is now suggesting it (although without a plan for sufficient troops); (c) a target for pulling out American troops - Iran's leaders have called for one. Whether he turns out to be right on whether the Iraq surge was correct will depend on whether the Iraqi troops can hold the peace after American troops leave. That is still to be determined. In any event, I've grown confident that Obama's judgment (regardless of whether the surge is shown to have been a good strategy) is far superior to McCain's.
The rejected New Yorker satire cover.
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2008/07/rejected-new-yorker-cover-art.html
I'm for John McSame because he too breaches protocal and places our future leadership in danger for his own political gain!
Obama's aides furious at McCain for blabbing about Dem's Mideast trip
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/18/2008-07-18_obamas_aides_furious_at_mccain_for_blabb.html
Op-Ed Columnist
It's the Economic Stupidity, Stupid
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
By FRANK RICH
Published: July 20, 2008
THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain's response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.
"In a time of war," Mr. McCain said last week, "the commander in chief doesn't get a learning curve." Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain's attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer's learning curve was faster than his.
Mr. McCain still doesn't understand that we can't send troops to Afghanistan unless they're shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.
In 2000, he told an interviewer that he would make up for his lack of attention to "those issues." As he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. McCain was still saying the same, vowing to read "Greenspan's book" as a tutorial. Last weekend, the resolutely analog candidate told The New York Times he is at last starting to learn how "to get online myself." Perhaps he'll retire his abacus by Election Day.
Mr. McCain's fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about "a nation of whiners." The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama's connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidate's numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.
Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America's "mental recession," Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as "almost certainly" the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was "probably the most exploited worker in American history" since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the "billions" he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell.
But no one in the news media seemed to notice Mr. Gramm's naked expression of the mind-set he'd bring to a McCain White House. And few journalists have vetted the presumptive Treasury secretary's post-Senate history as an executive at UBS. The stock of that banking giant has lost 70 percent of its value in a year after its reckless adventures in the subprime lending market. It's now fending off federal investigation for helping the megarich avoid taxes.
Mr. McCain made a big show of banishing Mr. Gramm after his whining "gaffe," but it's surely at most a temporary suspension. When the candidate said back in January that there's nobody he knows who is stronger on economic issues than his old Senate pal, he was telling the truth. Left to his own devices — or those of his new No. 1 economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina — Mr. McCain is clueless. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter, said that Mr. McCain's latest panacea for high gas prices, offshore drilling, is snake oil — and then announced his availability to serve as energy czar in an Obama administration.
The term flip-flopping doesn't do justice to Mr. McCain's self-contradictory economic pronouncements because that implies there's some rational, if hypocritical, logic at work. What he serves up instead is plain old incoherence, as if he were compulsively consulting one of those old Magic 8 Balls. In a single 24-hour period in April, Mr. McCain went from saying there's been "great economic progress" during the Bush presidency to saying "Americans are not better off than they were eight years ago." He reversed his initial condemnation of mortgage bailouts in just two weeks.
In February Mr. McCain said he would balance the federal budget by the end of his first term even while extending the gargantuan Bush tax cuts. In April he said he'd accomplish this by the end of his second term. In July he's again saying he'll do it in his first term. Why not just say he'll do it on Inauguration Day? It really doesn't matter since he's never supplied real numbers that would give this promise even a patina of credibility.
Mr. McCain's plan for Social Security reform is "along the lines that President Bush proposed." Or so he said in March. He came out against such "privatization" in June (though his policy descriptions still support it). Last week he indicated he isn't completely clear on what Social Security does. He called the program's premise — young taxpayers foot the bill for their elders (including him) — an "absolute disgrace."
Given that Mr. McCain's sole private-sector job was a fleeting stint in public relations at his father-in-law's beer distributorship, he comes by his economic ignorance honestly. But there's no A team aboard the Straight Talk Express to fill him in. His campaign economist, the former Bush adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, could be found in the June 5 issue of American Banker suggesting even at that late date that we still don't know "the depth of the housing crisis" and proposing that "monitoring is the right thing to do in these circumstances."
Ms. Fiorina, the ubiquitous new public face of McCain economic policy, adds nothing to the mix beyond her incessant display of corporate jargon, from "trend lines" to "start-ups." Before she was fired at Hewlett-Packard, its stock had declined 50 percent during her five-plus years in charge. She missed earning projections — by 23 percent in one quarter — much as she now misrepresents both the Obama and McCain records. This month she said Mr. McCain wanted to require insurance plans to cover birth control medications along with Viagra, when in fact he had voted against it.
Ms. Fiorina received a $42 million payout (half in cash) from H.P., according to a shareholders' subsequent lawsuit. With this inspiring résumé, she now aspires to be Mr. McCain's running mate. So does the irrepressible Mitt Romney, who actually was a business whiz before serving as Massachusetts's governor. Beltway wisdom has it that the addition of such a corporate star will remedy Mr. McCain's fiscal flatulence.
But Mr. Romney, while more plausible than Ms. Fiorina, is hardly what America wants at this desperate time. His leveraged buyout dealings as co-founder of Bain Capital induced plant closings, mass layoffs and outsourcing. If Mr. McCain truly intends to "put our country's interests" above politics and reach across the aisle to move the nation forward, as he constantly tells us, why not go for a vice president who's the very best fit for the huge challenges at hand?
The obvious choice would be Michael Bloomberg — who, as a former Republican turned independent, would necessitate that Mr. McCain reach only halfway across the aisle, and to someone who is his friend rather than a vanquished rival he is learning to tolerate.
Romney vs. Bloomberg is not a close contest. Bloomberg L.P. has roughly three times the revenues and employees of Bain & Company, where Mr. Romney ultimately served as chief executive. Mr. Romney rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics while running it in 2002, but Mayor Bloomberg revitalized New York, the nation's largest metropolis, after the most devastating attack in our history. The city he manages has more than twice the budget of Mr. Romney's state.
Yes, Mr. Bloomberg is a closet Democrat and an alpha dog who doesn't want to be a second banana. And his views on gay civil rights and abortion would roil the G.O.P. base. But Mr. Romney shared some of those same views before he flip-flopped, and besides, these are not ordinary times. Millions of Americans are losing their homes and jobs. Whole industries are going belly up. The national crisis at hand, not yesterday's culture wars, should drive the vice-presidential pick.
Mr. McCain reminds us every day how principled he is. That presumably means he'd risk a revolt by his party's dwindling agents of intolerance and do everything in his power to persuade Mr. Bloomberg to join his ticket in the spirit of patriotic sacrifice. The politics could be advantageous too. A Bloomberg surprise could impress independents and keep the television audience tuned in to a G.O.P. convention that will unfold in the shadow of Mr. Obama's address to 75,000 screaming fans in Denver.
But this is fantasy political baseball, not reality. Mr. McCain, sad to say, hung up his old maverick's spurs the day he embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once opposed as "too tilted to the wealthy." And Mr. Bloomberg? It's hard to picture a titan who built his empire on computer terminals investing any capital, political or otherwise, in a chief executive who is still learning how to do, as Mr. McCain puts it, "a Google."
Bloomberg? That's rich.....
Dumf*ckistanians are for McCain because they believe his dishonest and shameful ads constructed through lies and purposeful ommissions of the truth. Same as Bu****es.
Once again, the Presidential campaign is being reduced to the lowest common denominator because the media are following McCain's mendacious, fear-mongering talking points rather than his policies. Instead of repeating McCain's truly stupid, pathetic ads, the media should refuse to air them repeatedly--and concentrate on tell ing us--the electorate--what each candidate plans to do if elected. We cannot afford another eight years of Repiglican mismanagement.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Former_Ramstein_medical_chief_denounces_McCain.html
FOTD believes in mean spirited discussion. Just not in old angry manchurian candidates.
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/little-left-of
SHOCKING! Oh the stupididty!McCain ad compares Obama to Britney Spears, Paris Hilton
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/mccain.ad/
Well, joy! Dumbf*ckistan seems to be losing population.
Republicans are Disturbed, Skeptical and Saddened after Viewing New John McCain Ad
http://www.mediacurves.com/Politics/J6947-McCainsAd-Celeb/Index.cfm
Poll: "Results of a national study conducted today among 320 Americans revealed that a majority of Republicans (61%), reported that they were disturbed, skeptical and saddened after viewing a new ad by John McCain, which likens Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton."
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article749388.ece
From 'straight talk' to smear campaign
"The Straight Talk Express has taken a nasty turn into the gutter. Sen. John McCain has resorted to lies and distortions in what sounds like an increasingly desperate attempt to slow down Sen. Barack Obama by raising questions about his patriotism. Instead of taking the Democrat down a few notches, these baseless attacks are raising more questions about the Republican's campaign and his ability to control his temper.
The most offensive line comes from McCain himself. The Arizona senator has repeated that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.'' That is one of the more outrageous statements by a major political party candidate seeking the presidency. The looming choices about the long-festering war in Iraq are not between winning and losing but about how quickly or slowly the United States can reduce its military forces without jeopardizing recent security gains. Even McCain acknowledges that, and insulting Obama in such a reckless way is not presidential.
That is only one example of the darker tone enveloping the McCain campaign since several of Karl Rove's acolytes took the wheel. A new McCain ad suggests that while Obama traveled abroad last week he "made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.'' That's a compelling punch line, but it's below the belt.
What actually happened: Obama planned to visit wounded troops at a medical center in Germany until the Pentagon said it would not allow him to bring a retired Air Force major general who is one of the campaign's foreign policy advisers. The Democrat may have been poised to blur the line between political events and official troop visits by members of Congress. But there is no evidence that he was snubbing soldiers because he could not appear with them on television.
McCain has even attempted to plant doubts about whether Obama is a socialist. He said earlier this month that the Democrat's voting record "is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.'' Asked whether he thought Obama is a socialist, McCain responded: "I don't know. All I know is his voting record, and that's what people usually judge their elected representatives by.''
This is a classic smear campaign. As the Times' PolitiFact notes, the National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator by analyzing just 99 of 442 votes last year. He did not finish near the top in two previous years, and other ranking services rate his record as significantly less liberal than Sanders'. But McCain was not troubled by the details. He mentioned Obama and socialist in the same sentence, and the seeds of doubt were planted.
Virtually all candidates, including Obama, distort their opponent's record. But McCain has gone beyond reasonable bounds. The self-described "happy warrior'' in the 2000 presidential campaign has turned sour in 2008, and the candor and straight talk that once made him such an attractive candidate are rapidly disappearing."
Obama will take Florida based on a sounder campaign organization than Gore or Kerry had ...
And McCain will drag down Repuke Senaturds and Congressmen with him. That's why FOTD wants McInsane for President. McFlintstone is a deamonizer. FOTD would have it no other way.
"If you get confused, listen to the music play" (Weir/Barlow)
FOTD loves McCain for his devilish ways!
http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/48928/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/31/AR2008073102820.html
MORE!
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/setting-the-rec.html
Read them if you desire. In 93 days we'll have a good idea if America buys into this fear stuff for still another 4 years.
How many of you each day live fearless lives?
FOTD wants a WASTER!
ARCHIVES
Paris Hilton's Mom, McCain Contributor, Responds to Ad
Trish | Aug. 3, 2008
"Jon Stewart already pointed out one problem with the McCain "Celebrity" ad when he named it the Dick Move of the Week.
Jon Stewart: "McCain's saying to the Hiltons, 'I thank you for your support. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go take a nationally televised dump on your daughter.'"Demeaning Obama is not why this is a dick move by McCain. It's a dick move by McCain 'cause it turns out one of the fine young ladies featured in this ad...her parents, the Hiltons, contributed $4,600 — the maximum amount you can contribute — to the campaign of none other than one John McCain.
John McCain's saying to the Hiltons, "I thank you kindly for your support. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go take a nationally televised dump on your daughter."
Although Stewart made his comments as soon as the ad appeared, it turns out, that's exactly how it struck the Hiltons too. Kathy Hilton's response, posted today on the Huffington Post, was short, sharp, and...right on.
In its entirety:
I've been asked again and again for my response to the now infamous McCain celebrity ad. I actually have three responses. It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States.
Ouch."
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/08/03/paris-hiltons-mom-mccain-contributor-responds-to-ad/
McCaint. He'll waste 4 more years on neo con priorities.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
FOTD wants a WASTER!
ARCHIVES
Paris Hilton's Mom, McCain Contributor, Responds to Ad
Trish | Aug. 3, 2008
"Jon Stewart already pointed out one problem with the McCain "Celebrity" ad when he named it the Dick Move of the Week.
Jon Stewart: "McCain's saying to the Hiltons, 'I thank you for your support. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go take a nationally televised dump on your daughter.'"Demeaning Obama is not why this is a dick move by McCain. It's a dick move by McCain 'cause it turns out one of the fine young ladies featured in this ad...her parents, the Hiltons, contributed $4,600 — the maximum amount you can contribute — to the campaign of none other than one John McCain.
John McCain's saying to the Hiltons, "I thank you kindly for your support. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go take a nationally televised dump on your daughter."
Although Stewart made his comments as soon as the ad appeared, it turns out, that's exactly how it struck the Hiltons too. Kathy Hilton's response, posted today on the Huffington Post, was short, sharp, and...right on.
In its entirety:
I've been asked again and again for my response to the now infamous McCain celebrity ad. I actually have three responses. It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States.
Ouch."
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/08/03/paris-hiltons-mom-mccain-contributor-responds-to-ad/
McCaint. He'll waste 4 more years on neo con priorities.
(http://i29.tinypic.com/34djw44.jpg)
Little Joe would be proud....good job Hoss!
Postmodern John McCain: the presidential candidate some Arizonans know — and loathe
By Amy Silverman
published: August 07, 2008
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/content/printVersion/848709
I once stood in John McCain's kitchen and watched Cindy cook eggs for their kids.
It was still dark outside when I arrived at the McCains' north-central Phoenix house on a winter day in early 1994. I remember terra cotta tile and overstuffed plaid couches and wondering whether Mrs. McCain regularly got up before dawn to make breakfast.
I was following her husband around for the day, for a story I was working on about his role in Arizona Republican politics. I'd been gathering examples of McCain's strong-arming, and I needed some face-time with the senator, to ask about that and also to describe his personality. That day, we drove to Tucson so McCain could sit in as guest host on a local talk-radio show.
For three hours, with the same piece of gum in his mouth, McCain took calls from listeners. There was no set topic. I got the anecdote I needed for my story in the form of a call from "Rosemary," an obviously elderly woman who wanted to express her concern about nuclear proliferation.
"You make some excellent points, Rosemary, and I wish that everybody were as concerned about the issue as you are. And I appreciate the call," the senator told her. Then he announced a station break, took off his headphones, and leaned over to me (his BFF for the day) with a Grinch-like grin on his face.
"I believe that Rosemary has a bumper sticker that says 'Visualize World Peace,'" he said.
Vintage McCain.
A few months after that story was published, a good friend of mine who knows the senator well pointed out an error in my anecdote about John McCain and Rosemary.
In the story, I wrote:
Although his demeanor is even and cordial throughout the radio shift, his hands betray the storm that lurks beneath the surface. His hands wring constantly, as if every bit of nervous energy, every distraction, every unspoken slam, is channeled through them.
"Uh, he doesn't wring his hands because he's mad," my friend said. "He does it because he's in pain from the injuries he got as a prisoner of war. His hands hurt constantly, so he rubs them together."
It was a good lesson for a young reporter. Never assume anything. For years, I was embarrassed by the gaffe. But looking back, I've got to say that it's pretty darn likely that handwringing was the product of McCain's desire to control both pain and anger.
That's the thing about covering John McCain. Someone always wants you to give him the benefit of the doubt. And there's usually a pretty good case for why he deserves it, though that doesn't mean he should be let off the hook completely.
Even now that McCain's the one whining that Obama's getting all the good press in this presidential race, you still don't see a lot in the national media really damning the guy. It could be that in this postmodern political world, there's not much you can say anymore that will get the attention of the American people. Ever since Monica Lewinsky crawled under that desk in the Oval Office, it's been hard to shock this country.
Or it could be that, like me, no one really expected John McCain to make another run at the White House. The man is old, and there's no way his war injuries — far more extensive than cramped hands — don't age him further. I didn't think he'd be in the Senate in 2008, let alone on practically every television screen, front page, and magazine cover.
If nothing else, that cameo in Wedding Crashers should have signified the end of McCain's presidential aspirations.
And yet, here we are.
I've been a writer and editor at New Times for 15 years. For much of that time, I wrote about Arizona politics, which is to say that I wrote about John McCain. It's still odd to see the guy in the spotlight, because for quite a while, I was pretty much the only one covering him.
I never did fall for him in the way reporters fall for politicians, probably because he wasn't much to fall for back in the early 1990s. In those days, McCain was still rehabilitating the image he'd later sell to the national media. He was known then for cavorting in the Bahamas with Charlie Keating, rather than for fighting for campaign finance reform and limited government spending.
No one seems to remember Keating much, anymore. Amazing. McCain and his fellow Arizonan, Democrat Dennis DeConcini, were hauled before the Senate Ethics Committee along with three other senators to explain their actions on behalf of Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan.
Keating gave the senators hefty campaign contributions, then called on them to meet with bank regulators to pressure them to go soft on an investigation of Lincoln. There were two infamous meetings. McCain attended both.
It's true that McCain was the first to back off when the appearance of impropriety became obvious, and the ethics committee was easier on him than most of the others, partly because some of McCain's actions on behalf of Keating took place while he was in the House, and therefore not under the purview of the Senate Ethics Committee.
More important, what often gets lost in the retelling is McCain's close personal relationship with Keating. McCain took trips with Keating, including to his retreat in the Bahamas, and reimbursed him only after the fact was made public.
It was also revealed that Keating had a business relationship with Cindy and her father, Jim Hensley, who ran a very lucrative Anheuser-Busch distributorship in Phoenix.
Most shocking, perhaps, given McCain's image today, is that McCain took more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from Keating and his employees, between 1982 and 1988.
You may be surprised to know that in 1987 and 1988, McCain voted against federal legislation reforming the campaign finance system. It was only in 1990, in the aftermath of Keating and the shadow of an upcoming re-election campaign, that he started supporting reform. Ditto for his efforts to cut government spending.
And I've got to pause to say something about both of those efforts. In a word, they're a farce. McCain famously sponsored a law designed to control special interests' grip on Washington, but at the same time, he took money from those interests. Years ago, I analyzed McCain's contributions, compared with the favors he dealt as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee ("An Endowed Chair," November 25, 1999).
On top of that, McCain's efforts haven't done much to reform the campaign finance system; shady independent expenditures to outside groups supporting candidates now rule the day, in a roundabout way. And millions are still spent on elections.
Efforts to stop pork-barreling are sadly cosmetic, as well. First off, the earmarks that groups like Taxpayers for Common Sense rail against account for only 1 percent of the federal budget. One percent.
And it's not all bridges to nowhere. McCain, who used to fight for projects like a regional airport for metropolitan Phoenix (like minds argued whether building another airport was even necessary; they wondered whether the airport idea was a ploy to antagonize certain Phoenix officials), now refuses to fund anything for the state. And his sheep. er, colleagues — Arizona congressmen John Shadegg and Jeff Flake — have followed suit. As a result, Arizona ranked dead last in earmark funding in the past fiscal year.
Currently, East Valley Congressman Harry Mitchell, a freshman Democrat, is pushing for funding to continue a program at a Scottsdale hospital that trains doctors, nurses, and other military medical personnel in trauma care; some have already used the training in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If that's pork, I'll take a BLT.
Arizona's political forefathers — Mo Udall, Barry Goldwater, Carl Hayden — pushed through one of the biggest pork barrel projects in the history of the United States Congress: the Central Arizona Project. If they hadn't, there wouldn't be much of a state to represent.
As a native Arizonan, those are the politicians I grew up learning about. McCain just doesn't compare.
Yeah, the guy has a sharp wit. He'd be fun to have beers with. But does that mean he should have his finger on the button?
I have my own share of war stories from covering McCain, like the time I stumbled across the news that Cindy was stealing prescription drugs from her own charity. A few months later, John McCain berated a close family member of mine, in one of his classic outbursts.
For months after I wrote about McCain's love affair with the national media, his chief of staff mailed me a copy every time another glowing piece about her boss came out in the press.
I learned the love lesson firsthand during the 2000 election, when — cajoled into doing an interview about McCain for a piece by TV newsmagazine 20/20 — I flew back and forth to Washington in a single day to be interviewed by Sam Donaldson, only to learn later from his producers that, whoops, Donaldson had decided he really liked McCain and didn't want to include anything negative in his profile.
On my way back to the airport that day, exhausted, I checked my voicemail from the back of a town car. Tucker Carlson, then a writer for now-defunct Talk magazine, had called, looking for quotes for a story. I called him back and left a message saying I couldn't help him. And since then, for the most part, I've stayed away from other reporters doing stories about John McCain.
They still call, from as far away as London. One guy, describing himself as a Phoenix freelancer (I'd never heard of him) wanted to know what it would take to get me to give him all my files of public documents on Cindy McCain. I tell them that the work my colleagues and I have done on McCain over the years speaks for itself.
And it does. Yet, something seems to be getting lost in translation.
Much has been made of what McCain learned during his time in Vietnam and his time in Washington. But there's also something to be said about what Arizona has learned about John McCain from his time in — or, at least, his time representing — this state.
Here's a story I've never seen told. In 1988, Arizona was already down and out, politically — and John McCain couldn't resist delivering a low blow.
When I was in the Phoenix Public Library just last month, looking for the old Congressional hearing testimony to confirm the story, I was surprised when the librarian knew just what I was talking about. People here remember.
First, some background.
In the spring of 1988, things were a mess. Governor Evan Mecham had just been impeached, and everyone was busy licking wounds.
There was no way of knowing then that Arizona's ugly days would turn into years — that the state stood to endure a political scandal that would send legislators to jail for taking bags of cash from undercover agents pretending to be lobbyists (AzScam); that its U.S. senators would become poster boys for corruption on the federal level (the Keating Five); or that its governor would leave office in disgrace over his personal financial dealings, narrowly avoiding a prison term (John McCain's pal J. Fife Symington III).
But before all that, there was Ev Mecham. From a public relations standpoint, Mecham probably did more damage to the state than anyone, which is really saying something. Mecham's the conservative used-car dealer who — against all odds and against the GOP candidate anointed by everyone in the party, from John McCain on down — won the 1986 gubernatorial election.
Looking back, you can argue about just how bad a governor Mecham was. Mostly he was an embarrassment. He's the one who used the term pickaninny and kept the state from recognizing the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. as a national holiday, leaving Arizona's tourism industry for dead.
Even Doonesbury took note in a series of comic strips.
People were so set on getting Mecham out of office that they launched simultaneous efforts. To be on the safe side, in case the state Senate didn't impeach, the governor's detractors started a recall movement. The campaign was ready to go when Mecham was ousted.
But when it was clear that the recall wasn't necessary, some insisted on continuing it.
In Arizona, when a governor leaves office early, the secretary of state ascends. In this case, that was Rose Mofford, an old-school Democrat from the small mining town of Globe, a lady with a bright white beehive that Arizona Republic cartoonist Steve Benson once famously drew as a cone-full of Dairy Queen.
Mofford had served as secretary of state for decades. She'd never aspired to the state's top spot. But she accepted graciously and agreed to serve out the remaining 2 1/2 years of Mecham's term. She never showed interest in running for another term after that, although she was enormously popular.
As the story goes, John McCain and his friends wanted her out immediately. And, they figured, they had the mechanism in place to do it. Mecham was gone, but the recall effort was still in place. Why not shift gears and target Mofford instead?
The Democrats didn't like that one bit and asked the Arizona Supreme Court to consider the legality.
In mid-April 1988, Mofford and some staff flew to Washington for, as one former aide puts it, the "perfunctory wet kiss" meeting with the Arizona congressional delegation. Even in mean old D.C., there's such a thing as protocol, and the tour was expected to go along without incident.
At 10 in the morning on April 12, Mofford testified before the Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations on the topic of the Central Arizona Project.
Now, Mofford had been governor for only eight days. Before that, her main task had been running the state's elections department. This appearance (there was a similar one, later that day, before the House) had been billed as ceremonial. She was not familiar with the particulars of federal water law. Nor did her staff think she'd be expected to be — just then.
But, apparently, Senator James McClure, a Republican from Idaho, did. After a lot of looking, that librarian and I (actually, it took three librarians) tracked down the testimony from that day. McClure asked Mofford a series of questions that would leave any water expert's mouth dry. Her staff jumped in to try to answer, but even so, ultimately they had to file an addendum to the testimony.
Word spread quickly about what had happened.
Coincidentally, that very same day, Pat Murphy, then publisher of the Arizona Republic, was also in Washington to meet with the delegation. He and his wife had lunch plans with McCain, and as Murphy recalls, they went to the hearing room where Mofford was testifying, to meet up with him. Murphy had written glowingly of McCain and considered him a personal friend.
As Murphy recounted in an e-mail recently (he left the Republic many years ago, and now lives in Idaho), the incident crushed him. He says it was the beginning of the end of his respect for and friendship with McCain.
"We peeked in the room," wrote Murphy. "McCain saw us, excused himself, and we three went to the Senate dining room for lunch.
"During lunch, McCain said, almost with mischievous glee, that he had slipped some highly technical questions to [James McClure] to ask Mofford — questions she wouldn't be prepared to answer or expected to answer.
"Flabbergasted, I asked McCain why would he want to sabotage Mofford's testimony, when in fact the CAP was the nonpartisan pet of Republicans and Democrats — such as far-left Udall and far-right Goldwater — since its inception.
"His reply, as near as I remember, was, 'I'll embarrass a Democrat any time I get the chance.'
"The lunch continued in strained chit-chat. We then walked back to McCain's office, where a few reporters, all of them from Arizona papers, as I recall, were waiting. One said there was a rumor McCain had tried to sabotage Mofford's testimony, to which he said something like, 'I'd never do anything like that.'"
There was more. Another rumor, later reported in the Republic, held that McCain had brought in a private film crew to tape the proceedings, so that the tape could be used to embarrass Mofford in the recall election. At the time, Jay Smith, McCain's campaign media consultant, was quoted in the Republic as declining comment; he did not deny the rumor.
The next day, the Republic ran a story about Mofford's trip to Washington. There was another story that very same day about the Arizona Supreme Court's decision not to allow the recall election to go forward. John Rhodes, the former congressman who had been tapped to run against Mofford, sounded relieved. He and Mofford were old friends.
Mofford, who lives in Phoenix and is involved with local charities, is hesitant to say much negative.
"I've known Cindy since she was a little girl, and the Hensleys have always been very good to me," she says of McCain's wife and her family. "I don't hold grudges."
But, she adds, regarding the CAP hearing, "that hurt me more than anything . . . to be set up like that."
Others were upset, as well.
Karen Scates was on that trip and in that hearing room, as an executive assistant to Mofford. (A one-time Udall aide, she's worked in many capacities over the years, including for American Express and Kids Voting; she's now in the Napolitano administration.) Scates does hold a grudge.
"Senator McCain did the unthinkable," she says. "He orchestrated a partisan, mean-spirited, and utterly inexcusable hearing designed to embarrass Governor Mofford by unfairly pressing her, only a week into her new job, for minute details on the Central Arizona Project, which was the most sacrosanct of all issues critical to Arizona."
James McClure is now retired. It's been 20 years, but, when reached by phone, he remembered the incident immediately — though he wasn't sure of all the particulars. He says he recalls the hearing because it was unusual in that there was a strategy session beforehand.
"I know that there was such an effort," the former senator says of the decision to ask Mofford tough questions. "I know that there was quite a little conversation with my staff . . . I know we did ask [Mofford] a number of questions because somebody had told us that she was not well grounded in some of the issues, and it was designed to expose her lack of information."
As for McCain's specific involvement?
"I don't remember his involvement in it," McClure says. "I'm not saying he wasn't, but I just don't remember."
Pat Murphy recalls hearing that McCain later called Mofford to apologize. The former governor says no. She got a different kind of call from McCain.
"He said, 'I didn't have anything to do with that.' And I said, 'John, don't ever call me again.'"
Rose Mofford started off our phone conversation about John McCain by announcing: "He's certainly no Barry Goldwater or Mo Udall."
You hear that a lot around town these days, mainly because McCain tends to bring up Goldwater and Udall a lot on the campaign trail. It drives some people here nuts. Particularly those who know, or knew, all three men.
People who were around then say it was obvious that McCain moved to Arizona to run for office. There have been several instances of such carpetbagging by now (like Hillary Clinton in New York), but it wasn't as common in 1982. To his credit, McCain worked hard and won a hotly contested four-way race to represent the congressional district that covered Mesa, Tempe, and other parts of the eastern portion of metropolitan Phoenix.
Then he had some catching up to do.
He did a lot of it, in the early days, with Mo Udall, the congressman from Tucson. Udall liked to joke that he could hold meetings of the U.S. House Democrats from Arizona in his bathtub. That might be why he worked so well with Republicans. McCain took to him immediately and as Udall's top aide, Bob Neuman, recalls, Udall was happy to help.
Neuman, who worked for Udall for many years in the 1970s and again in the '80s, says McCain "clung to Mo," that he dropped by the office unannounced all the time. This became awkward during the 1986 Senate race, Neuman says, when Arizona Democratic Party operatives worried that McCain was using Udall as a campaign tool. They asked Neuman to put some distance between the two.
Udall's aide tried to be subtle, but McCain got the message. And Neuman felt his wrath. He refuses to repeat the expletives the then-congressman used when he called to bawl him out, but recalls thinking there was something really wrong with the guy.
Neuman says he thinks McCain did try, early on, to model himself after Udall, in terms of developing both a sense of humor and a concern for environmental issues.
In the end, though, McCain hasn't come out too Udall-esque on either front.
Udall's humor tended toward self-deprecation. During a rare break for a golf game during the 1976 presidential campaign, someone asked him about his handicap. "I'm a one-eyed Mormon Democrat from conservative Arizona," he joked. "You can't find a higher handicap than that."
Neuman, who co-authored Udall's book Too Funny to Be President and is now a consultant in Washington, concedes that Udall may not have found humor in McCain's own repertoire of jokes.
One of the senator's most famous:
Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because Janet Reno is her father.
Think that one was funny? How about one from 1986, recounted in an entry last month on "The Huffington Post" blog. McCain's campaign denies it. Apparently there's no video, but a Tucson reporter who wrote about it at the time says it happened.
From Huffington:
In an appearance before the National League of Cities and Towns in Washington, D.C., McCain supposedly asked the crowd if they had heard "the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly, and left to die?"
The punch line: "When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, "Where is that marvelous ape?"
"John McCain is the Eddie Haskell of politics," Neuman says, admitting he's a little worried McCain won't find that comment funny at all. "You can attribute that to me, and he'll kill me for it."
McCain did vote with Udall on environmental issues — for a while. But Udall left Congress in 1991, and for years, McCain's earned dismal marks from environmental groups, including a zero in the League of Conservation Voters' most recent ratings.
Representatives of the local chapter of the Sierra Club haven't been able to get a meeting with him in at least the past year, if not two. The last time they did, he just complained that the group's positions were unrealistic, recalls Sandy Bahr, the chapter's director.
McCain tends to support big-picture issues that will play well with voters, but when it has come to protecting Arizona over the past 26 years — well, not so much.
In the 1980s, McCain made a name for himself, supporting the limitation of air flights over the Grand Canyon, but in recent years, backed off the effort when environmentalists wanted to expand the limits from small tour planes to commercial aviation. And he's taken a lot of heat recently for refusing to weigh in on efforts to mine uranium near the Grand Canyon.
In fact, despite a vague statement issued last week saying he might, at some point, support mining reform, McCain has failed for years to back proposed changes to the horribly outdated Mining Act of 1872 — and evidence of that is strewn all over Arizona in the form of large strip mines and environmental degradation.
When it comes to Arizona environmental issues, though, McCain's best known for an infamous U.S. Governmental Accountability Office report that details threats he made to the job of a forest service official who dared to disagree with him on the topic of the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel.
Not very Udall-esque.
Environmentalists were concerned that the University of Arizona's plan to build telescopes would jeopardize the squirrels' habitat. Government scientists agreed. McCain sided with the university.
And yet, the Udall comparison has stuck, mostly because McCain makes it whenever he can. Even Newsweek, in an April cover story, noted the phenomenon, writing of McCain:
"He traces his environmental awareness to the sainted Rep. Mo Udall, an Arizona Democrat who took McCain as a young congressman under his tutelage . . . To environmentalists, that's like saying you learned about civil rights by driving around Alabama with Martin Luther King Jr."
Arizona environmentalists don't have a lot of patience with McCain, although they do celebrate the crumbs he's handed them over the years.
Don Steuter, conservation chair for the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, is quick to recall that once, in the '90s, one of McCain's aides came out and toured several mining sites along Pinto Creek in rural Arizona, all points of contention for environmentalists who worry about such issues as where the mines will get ground water to operate and where they'll dump their waste.
"McCain was, I have to say, at the time, sympathetic with what we were trying to do. But he never came forward and offered any solutions," Steuter recalls.
It was Barry Goldwater, long out of public life and a couple of years from dying, who gave the Sierra Club a quote the group still uses in brochures: "Pinto Creek is worth the strongest protection possible."
McCain also has been mentioning Goldwater a lot these days.
It's true that the elder statesman chose McCain to run for his Senate seat, though some say McCain stepped over poor Bob Stump, the longtime Republican Arizona congressman who, via seniority, had the right of first refusal. (Stump died in 2003.)
Goldwater's endorsement letter is reprinted in a new book by his son, Barry Goldwater Jr., and John Dean. And it's not the only letter in Pure Goldwater about John McCain. The book reports that for a while after the 1986 senate race, the men got along, but that Goldwater's feelings toward McCain started to "cool" after the Keating scandal, and he "soon found he had to stop McCain from using his good name."
Things really got ugly, according to the book — and accompanying letters — when McCain decided to throw an event honoring Goldwater that was really meant as a fundraiser for McCain. Goldwater wrote to McCain, chastising him and telling him that he didn't wish to be honored. He also instructed McCain to donate half the proceeds to the Arizona Republican Party. The event wound up as a tribute to Ronald Reagan, instead. Goldwater did speak there, but was unhappy afterward, as he wrote to McCain:
"You will recall during my speech at the dinner for the president in Phoenix, I announced that you were going to give half of the funds you raised to the State Republican Party. I am told by the Party, that you still owe them $35,000, and unless you pay all of it, or most of it, they cannot meet their payroll next Wednesday."
McCain continues to bring up both men. He does deserve credit for the time he spent with Udall during his final years. "There was no steadier visitor," Bob Neuman recalls of McCain's visits to his old boss' bedside during Udall's very long struggle with Parkinson's disease. And for that, Neuman says, McCain earned his "respect and admiration and affection."
Until McCain went public with it.
In 1997, Michael Lewis profiled McCain for the New York Times Magazine. Lewis' piece was well-written, and he did get great access to McCain. In fact, the senator even took the journalist to the veterans hospital in Washington, D.C., for one of his visits with Udall. According to Lewis, McCain tried in vain to wake Udall that day. (Udall died the following year.)
About the encounter, Neuman says, "That was devastating to me, that he brought in a reporter. I thought that was crossing the line, and it destroyed me."
I'm sure I would have accepted the offer to go the hospital, as well. I can't blame Lewis, but maybe the sight of the legendary Mo Udall in his final, sad days wasn't McCain's to share.
One morning this summer, my work phone rang.
"Hi, Amy, this is Tom Gosinski," a pleasant voice said.
"No way!"
Every other call I'd gotten about McCain, it seemed, had been from some reporter wanting to know where he or she could find Tom Gosinski, the guy who ultimately had led to the outing of Cindy McCain's drug addiction in 1993. I had told people honestly that I had no idea where Gosinski was; I hadn't spoken to him in many years.
"It's me!"
"Okay, prove it," I said. "Tell me something that only Tom Gosinski would know."
"I was wearing Pepe jeans the day I came to New Times, so you could interview me for the Cindy McCain story."
It was him. True, he could have read that detail in my story about him, but by then, I recognized the voice.
He'd been on my mind.
Tom Gosinski's is a story worth re-telling, since it's been parsed so much in the national press.
Sometime in the spring of 1994, I'd started hearing the rumors that Cindy McCain was addicted to prescription drugs. Bummer for her, but not a story — at least not one that I'd be able to get.
Then I learned something that turned Cindy McCain's personal tragedy into a real news story. Two unrelated sources told me about Tom Gosinski.
Gosinski was in his mid-30s, working two crappy part-time jobs to stay afloat. He'd been fired months earlier from his position as director of government and international affairs for the American Voluntary Medical Team, McCain's non-profit charity, which brought medical relief to poor countries all over the world.
Turns out, shortly after he was fired, Gosinski went to the Drug Enforcement Administration. He'd suspected Cindy McCain was addicted to prescription drugs and was getting a doctor who worked with AVMT to illegally prescribe them in her employees' names.
Later, in an interview with New Times, Gosinski said he was not trying to blackmail the McCains. He was worried about his own culpability, so he asked the DEA officials a rhetorical question: "'If a person knows that prescriptions have been written in their name, and they never met with the doctor and they don't know the whereabouts of the drugs, what is their responsibility?' And I was told it was my responsibility to turn it in. So at that moment, I began to cooperate with the DEA."
Gosinski's suspicions were right. Dr. John Max Johnson, AVMT's medical director, had written two prescriptions for painkillers in Gosinski's name, at Cindy McCain's behest. He'd written more, too, in other people's names. Some prescriptions, the DEA found, were for as many as . Johnson told investigators that he 500 pills at a timenever traveled with the drugs; Cindy McCain kept them in her personal luggage. (Johnson later surrendered his medical license.)
Gosinski didn't just go to the DEA. He also filed a wrongful-termination claim against AVMT, which led John McCain's attorney, John Dowd (well known for his over-the-top tactics on behalf of McCain and former Arizona Governor Fife Symington) to persuade then-Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley to open an extortion investigation against Gosinski (it was eventually dropped).
If Dowd had stayed out of it, there's a good chance this story would never have gone public.
I heard that the U.S. Attorney's Office was investigating Cindy McCain, so I asked for the details. Turns out, public-records law protects the feds; there is no legal mandate to turn over materials related to an ongoing federal investigation.
But that law does not apply to Maricopa County. So I asked the County Attorney's Office for all materials related to the Gosinski extortion investigation, and hit the jackpot: Because Cindy's drug problem was the topic of Dowd's extortion case, the county attorney had received copies of all of the federal records related to the case. I made a public-records request.
I got notice that the records were ready. First, though, someone had told the McCains. And so before my piece was even written, I watched their carefully spun version splash across more than one front page and lead at least one morning news show. Cindy McCain talked openly about her drug addiction (although the details of just when John had learned about it and about when she'd gone through rehab remained unclear) and attributed it to the pain of two back surgeries and stress from the Keating Five scandal. The McCains claimed Gosinski was trying to blackmail them.
Later, we did our own story at New Times ("Opiate for the Mrs.," September 8, 1994). Gosinski went on the record, and I also got hold of the journal he'd kept during the time he worked at AVMT. Although he took a beating in the affair, the journal revealed how conflicted he was over her improprieties. For example:
"July 27, 1992: I have always wondered why John McCain has done nothing to fix the problem. He must either not see that a problem exists or does not choose to do anything about it. It would seem that it would be in everyone's best interest to come to terms with the situation. And do whatever is necessary to fix it. There is so much at risk: the welfare of the children; John's political career; the integrity of Hensley & Company; the welfare of Jim and Smitty Hensley; and the health and happiness of Cindy McCain.
"The aforementioned matters are of great concern to those directly involved, but my main concern is the ability of AVMT to survive a major shake-up. If the DEA were to ever conduct an audit of AVMT's inventory, I am afraid of what the results might be . . . It is because of CHM's willingness to jeopardize the credibility of those that work for her that I truly worry.
"During my short tenure at AVMT, I have been surrounded by what on the surface appears to be the ultimate all-American family. In reality, I am working for a very sad, lonely woman whose marriage of convenience to a U.S. Senator has driven her to: distance herself from friends; cover feelings of despair with drugs; and replace lonely moments with self-indulgences."
Ultimately, the U.S. Attorney did, in fact, investigate AVMT and Cindy McCain. In the end, she avoided criminal charges and entered a drug-diversion program. She also paid for the cost of the investigation. She was lucky; if she were not well connected, she could have faced much harsher penalties, including prison time.
When I spoke to him this past June, Tom Gosinski said he's doing well. He left Arizona many years ago and took up a profession that has nothing to do with his previous work. He doesn't want to talk about the McCains. (In fact, when I e-mailed him after our phone conversation, asking if he'd like to talk to me for this story, I never heard back.)
He called me because a private investigator had shown up on his mother's doorstep that morning, looking for him, and they were spooked. He wanted to know if I'd heard of the guy, who didn't identify his political camp. I hadn't.
With a couple of exceptions, McCain never spoke to me again after the Gosinski story. Word eventually trickled back (years later) that a few months after the story was published, he'd cornered a close relative of mine in the Senate Dining Room in Washington, asking why my family couldn't control me.
Given the treatment McCain has long received from the national media, it's easy to see why he gets frustrated by any negative coverage. At one point, an editor of mine had a brilliant idea: document the glowing coverage McCain was getting — even back then — from the national media. That resulted in "The Pampered Politician" (May 15, 1997).
For months after that story ran, Deb Gullett, one of McCain's top staff, sent me a copy of each additional positive national story, as it came out. I have to admit, that was pretty funny. Better than the habit McCain's Washington press staff had adopted when I'd call — promising to be right back, then leaving me on hold until I finally hung up.
Even as the 2000 race heated up, coverage of McCain remained positive. No one, it seemed, had a harsh word for the straight-talking war hero. So when national media called, I felt an obligation to help.
I spent a lot of time working with producers for 60 Minutes to gather background research for a piece Mike Wallace was doing on McCain, only to have it deep-sixed when Wallace decided to do a positive story about the senator. Ditto for Sam Donaldson. I should have learned after Wallace that the press was willing to overlook political warts when it came to McCain, but since I'd had a long conversation with Donaldson's producers, in which I explained just what had happened with 60 Minutes, I didn't expect the same to happen with 20/20.
From what I know, McCain didn't insert himself into the mix at 60 Minutes or 20/20; Wallace and Donaldson simply liked him. But he has tried to do it elsewhere, particularly at his hometown daily, the Arizona Republic.
Back in the day, when McCain was first elected, he palled around with Duke Tully, the infamous Republic publisher who was ousted when it was revealed he'd fabricated his own military record.
Next, McCain and aforementioned publisher Pat Murphy were buddies; that relationship fizzled in the late 1980s.
As far as I know, McCain was never close with Chip Weil, who served as publisher, then CEO, at the Republic from 1991 to 2000.
Weil (officially, it's Louis "Chip" Weil III) is retired now. He serves on the board of the USO. In a phone conversation, he laughs, remembering his dealings with McCain, but it's easy to tell he took them seriously, too.
"He always had his own views of how a newspaper ought to be run, and he didn't like the way we ran it," Weil says of McCain. "It's a free world, so he's welcome to feel that way."
When poked, Weil admits the criticism wasn't always welcome or, in his view, appropriate. He confirmed the story going around locally that when McCain called, Weil's secretary would sometimes put the phone receiver down and let the senator rant.
"We used to sit in the outer office and listen to him," Weil says, laughing.
Becoming more serious, he continues, "The question was, 'Who [was] running the newspaper?'"
Weil says he didn't mind criticism but felt McCain was unreasonable in his requests. The senator called Weil after a trip abroad to complain that the story about his travels was on page 14, instead of the front page. This was a time when McCain didn't even have serious opposition.
"Others were much more discreet about it. For instance, Jon Kyl, if he had an issue, would call and discuss it, and it would be fine," he says of Arizona's junior senator. "But McCain always seemed upset."
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Weil says, McCain traveled around the country, complaining about the Republic.
"He'd tell editorial boards how awful his hometown paper was," Weil recalls. "So I'd hear from my colleagues around the country. That was always fun."
Wouldn't that be a badge of honor to good journalists?
"I don't know," he says. "He's a United States senator, and you ought to have respect for a United States senator."
On the first Tuesday in February, fortified with a cocktail or two, a few of us from New Times attended John McCain's victory party at the Arizona Biltmore.
We had no particular agenda, no immediate deadlines, though there was some talk about watching history being made. After all, Super Tuesday was going to put McCain over the top, making him the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
The huge ballroom was packed. It felt like every Republican in town was there. But not in a good way. I know people like to joke that Cindy McCain looks like a Stepford Wife, but really, she's got nothing on the group that night in the Biltmore's largest ballroom. Everywhere you looked, there were well-coiffed zombies, all dutifully mingling. And sneaking peeks at their watches.
A few of the people we chatted up — Congressman Jeff Flake, Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman, former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley — did seem genuinely excited, but just about all the others were clearly there because they had to be.
Maybe everyone was tired from a long workday. But it seemed that, really, they were all profoundly bored and spending a lot of time looking around to make sure someone important from the McCain campaign noted their presence (just in case the Arizona senator wins, and a job opens up in D.C.).
From that night on, it has been difficult to find anyone who'll say an unkind word about McCain. Some did, obviously, for this story, but I know there are more.
Often, people wouldn't call back at all. Although he has plenty of harsh comments for McCain in his book, Barry Goldwater Jr. never could be reached for comment.
Some I tried to talk to were apologetic about not being able to spill. They work for ASU or the governor or a conservative think tank or a liberal think tank or they lobby Congress. Or, like John Hinz, the one-time executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, who recounted some tales of the senator's temper for the Washington Post this spring, they've gotten the message that it's not a good idea to say anything negative about McCain.
It's hard to keep track of the shifting alliances. Paul Johnson, former mayor of Phoenix, who spent much of the early 1990s publicly loathing the senator, is now a Democrat for McCain. But lobbyist Knox Kimberly, who once ran McCain's local congressional office, is a big Barack Obama supporter.
Grant Woods, McCain's first chief of staff, was very close friends with McCain, until a public falling out in the early '90s, when the senator shunned him for investigating his pal, Fife Symington.
Now Woods is back in the McCain camp. He was at the Biltmore on election night. I saw him from across the room. He didn't return my call for this story.
Nor did anybody representing McCain get back to me after I contacted his campaign for this article.
Maybe some of the dreariness of the Biltmore event could be blamed on the large area roped off for the national press — a group of sad-looking, credentialed folks who could clearly suck the life out of any room. Tucker Carlson stood watching the action, arms crossed, looking like he'd rather be anywhere else.
Postmodern McCain is just not as much fun as his predecessor, the straight-ahead, ****-talking bad guy.
Watching him up on the stage, struggling with the teleprompter, Cindy looking miserable next to him, I almost pitied the GOP's presumptive nominee. No more nasty jokes, no public outbursts. He's reduced to talking about climate change and accusing Obama of being the media's flavor of the day.
"Don't feel sorry for him," a friend said. "The guy might wind up president."
I'm voting for McCain because he will be like Dick Cheney and stop the Russian aggresors.
Cheney: "Russian aggression must not go unanswered"
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1049425020080811?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews
"Russian aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States"
McCain adviser got money from Georgia
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lobbyist;_ylt=AmHDDzhexu4gpzDB3lukmRas0NUE
"The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann's personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue."
I'm for John McCain because ..... oh, he too likes Jackson Browne.
It AMAZES me that no McCain campaign or RNC attorneys caught this before it was used!
Jackson Browne sues McCain over song use Singer Jackson Browne is suing presidential candidate John McCain and the Republican party for using Browne's song, "Running on Empty,"
without permission or payment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26207288/from/ET/
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I'm for John McCain because ..... oh, he too likes Jackson Browne.
It AMAZES me that no McCain campaign or RNC attorneys caught this before it was used!
Jackson Browne sues McCain over song use Singer Jackson Browne is suing presidential candidate John McCain and the Republican party for using Browne's song, "Running on Empty,"
without permission or payment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26207288/from/ET/
Now there's a fine piece of irony. Did you get the JB ticket link I sent you?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I'm for John McCain because ..... oh, he too likes Jackson Browne.
It AMAZES me that no McCain campaign or RNC attorneys caught this before it was used!
Jackson Browne sues McCain over song use Singer Jackson Browne is suing presidential candidate John McCain and the Republican party for using Browne's song, "Running on Empty,"
without permission or payment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26207288/from/ET/
Now there's a fine piece of irony. Did you get the JB ticket link I sent you?
Yes, thanks....PM did too. But i got ducats on line .....more centered .....like me![8D]
Tanks.....
The devil in FOTD loves hypocrits. Especially, when it goes unnoticed by the folks in Dumbf*ckistan!
"Most working families today do not have homes that have anywhere near 10 rooms. John McCain has 10 houses. Many working people in America have to work two and three jobs to provide for their families and pay their car loans. John McCain hops on a private jet. Is it any wonder why McCain champions a George Bush agenda of cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, helping oil companies turn record profits, and leaving working families to fend for themselves? McCain's velvet world leaves him utterly unprepared to make the tough choices we need to restore the middle class and ensure that everyone in America has quality, affordable health insurance. "
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/49248-mccain-s-mansions-the-houses-that-greed-built
"AFL-CIO President John Sweeney summed it up best when he said McCain "simply doesn't understand the challenges America's working families are facing because he isn't remotely affected by them." It's up to us to tell people who McCain really is, a jet-setting elitist more concerned with corporate lobbyists than hard-working Americans. "
No Whiners!
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
The guy takes pride in spilling his guts to the enemy. Is he a true hero? Many vets think not.
Many think he's nuts for not getting out when the fix was in to free him from captivity. He takes great pride in returning to his cell. Is that sane? No, it's McInsane.
Devil worshippers everywhere are coming out of their hoods to back McMansion! Just ask his staff.
7 houses? 7? Wow. He'll be in touch with joe average citizen.....
McCain: $500 Shoes, $100 Million Assets, Can't Remember How Many Homes He Owns! (Brent Budowsky)
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/08/21/mccain-500-shoes-100-million-assets-can%E2%80%99t-remember-how-many-homes-he-owns/
"This is hilarious: The guy who makes the phony-baloney charge that Barack Obama is elitist can't remember how many houses he owns! He tells reporters: "I'll have my staff get the number and get back to you"!!!"
Satan feels a draft and wanted me to warn eveybody.....especially parents and young voters. Warning...war monger for president.
FOTD backs bombing children and fighting against a wamoan's right to choice.......that's why he thinks dumbf*ckistan deserves McSh*tforbrains.
Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians?
Like Iraq, Vietnam was not a noble cause. It's time we stopped letting politicians and the press perpetuate the McCain War Hero myth.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/95906
A hero is the guy that falls on the granade giving his own life and saving his buddies. What did Captian
fourth from the bottom of his class do that was heroic. He got his sorry donkey shot down after the killing of hundreds of women and babies. Talk is that he spilled his guts the 2nd day of his capture and told the NVN everything they wanted to know. When released he cheated on his wife, divorced her, married a young girl, used her father's money and connection as a vehicle to Washington. His whole life is a lie. He calls Obama an elitist while wearing $500.00 shoes that he walks into one of his 7 homes, after stepping off his private jet. Yeah, he's a hero alright, if you believe in fiction. The little runt bastard.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/22/8506/94630/59/572522
200,000 Homeless veterans vs John "10 House" McCain
[:(!][V][:(]
What a great guy John McLame is...Infuriated About Tough CNN Interview, McCain Cancels Larry King Appearance»
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/02/mccain-cancel-cnn/
The devil likes hot heads!
The devil inside John McCaint makes FOTD in favor of his ill tempered humor and his lack of an education:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2zx3-0zOPs&eurl
He has mean genes!
Because in Dumbf*ckistan, no one understands integrity:
McCain's Integrity
Wednesday 10 September 2008
»
by: Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic
Editor's Note: Historically a John McCain supporter, conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue of John McCain's integrity as he strives to win the presidency. - vh/TO
"For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?
So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.
And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.
He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.
And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.
And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.
Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.
McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it. "
The only people who claim Andrew Sullivan is a conservative journalist are the Libs who pay him to carry their water. Quick, someone Google and post a conservative piece Sully has written in the last five or six years. I doubt one exists.
He supported Bush in 2000 BFD, that doesn't make him a conservative. Read the dupe bag's bio.
Sullivan can't even participate in our political process, so it would be more appropriate for him to naff off. How much do you think Brits would care about your opinion or mine on UK politics?
Oopsy...
Is McCain saying here that mayors or governors for a short period of time aren't ready to be president? Hmm...wasn't his running mate a:
Mayor of a small town for a short period of time?
Governor of a state for a short period of time?
Flip-flop much now that you've chosen one?
quote:
"I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism. "I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzhFDQIgGSg
McCain has a solid lead in this state:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ok_mccain_63_obama_32_rasmusse.php
Don't get neo-conned again!
A Tangled Story of Addiction
Consequences of Cindy McCain's Drug Abuse Were More Complex Than She Has Portrayed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103928.html?hpid=topnews
"It's not just about her addiction, it's what she did to cover up her addiction and the lives of other people that she ruined, or put at jeopardy at least," Gosinski said in an interview this week.
Cindy and John McCain declined repeated requests to be interviewed for this article. The McCain campaign also declined to comment. "
Backing McCain is easy for hypocrites like Limbaugh and Cindy who lied about their addictions.
Do we really need these types in our White House?
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html