POLITICS <== Post Your Dumb Opinions Here

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 18:10:14

McCain's Broken Marriage and Fractured Reagan Friendship

A much more readable version, as mentioned by LAExile.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 00:20:31

Laexile wrote:
TheDude24 wrote:The Wife John McCain Callously Left Behind

For those who believe husband character counts.
Proof that there are do-overs in life.

I can't believe that the Democrats would make an issue that McCain may have cheated on his wife 30 years ago after the Clinton Presidency. The LA Times had a similar story not too long ago.

He did more than cheat on her. He rabidly pursued a woman 18 years his junior. Left his family, her two kids which he had adopted.

I don't get up in this stuff. W had enough partying expoits to disqualify him on "good moral fiber" grounds, but the Rep are the ones who came up with the propogandstic "family values" and talk about "evangelical lifestyles..." ... big HYPOCRITES.

I don't htink it should be fodder for Dem mud-slinging, but let's not act like, 'no big deal', ask his wife he left on th curb and Ronnie and Nancy too?!

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 08:31:35

'We, in Ireland, can't figure out why people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States!
On one side, you have a pants wearing woman lawyer, married to a lawyer who can't keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer who goes to the wrong church who is married
to yet another lawyer who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run.

Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate "Mc" terminology... married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.

What in Lord's name are ye lads thinking over there in the colonies??"

by **drsmooth** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 09:19:00

Laexile wrote:Bush isn't the least intelligent, least curious, or least moral President we've had in this country.

I'll bite

let's see your list

by **drsmooth** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 09:25:02

jerseyhoya wrote:republican obamaslaama ad[/youtube]

1) Who did they get to narrate this ad? A guy that volunteered to do it for $5 that they found on the street?

2) Really? They cite the NY Post? Really?

3) Why not talk about why it's bad that Obama hasn't held a hearing on Afghanistan? Mention that he's the subcommittee chair that is involved in overseeing NATO. Otherwise it seems like a weird throwaway line.

4) See 2. I mean, the mind reels.

jersey, bear with me here - in this post, are you complaining about the ad, criticizing it, supporting it, what? Serious question. Why wouldn't an ad like this quote the NYPost? Seems geared to its audience, as much as MSNBC, St Loo Post Dispatch, etc.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 09:37:01

I'm complaining about it and criticizing it. It's an awful ad.

You don't cite op-eds and then attribute them to a paper, as he did with the AJC and the NY Post. It would be like quoting the headline of a Bill Kristol column and attributing it to the NY Times. You should only do that with unsigned editorials which speak for the paper, not the op-eds. There have been plenty of editorials bashing Obama for his changes on campaign finance and other stuff, why not use a couple of those? Then you get into the fact that the NY Post is a fucking tabloid that no one respects.

The voiceover guy plain sucks. I mean, they go from Powers Booth to that dude?

And I don't think anyone who isn't following the race compulsively has any idea why Barack Obama should be holding hearings on Afghanistan in the first place. It's a weird charge to make that I don't think has any resonance without people knowing the "why."

It just looks like an ad a supporter put together and placed on YouTube. They miss Mark McKinnon, it seems.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:10:07

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146924

TV, how's this for some manufactured outrage?

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 13:00:17

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBMv-GfFwAE[/youtube]

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=tE33mU7TjxE&feature=related[/youtube]

:lol:

by **pacino** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 13:01:57

i think these guys should take a month off after the end of this week. it might do good for eveybody

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 13:07:36

If there was some way to do that, that's a really good idea. I'm sick of hearing about the race every day anyway. Come back for the conventions.

In the meantime, McCain would do well to consult a map of Europe post 1989.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 13:34:46

jerseyhoya wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/id/146924

TV, how's this for some manufactured outrage?

The Obama magazine cover flap was the reason for the blog entry. Stay tuned.

by **dajafi** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 15:10:36

jerseyhoya wrote:If there was some way to do that, that's a really good idea. I'm sick of hearing about the race every day anyway. Come back for the conventions.

Gotta admit I've largely tuned it out lately. I read Obama's big foreign policy speech the other day, but in terms of the coverage that doesn't even count--only McCain's attacks on it, Obama's counter-attacks, etc.

I think this is a point Paul might have made in the past, but at times it almost seems like the press actively works to turn people off from politics and the practice of democracy by presenting it with all the gravitas and seriousness of an elementary school playground fight.

by **Laexile** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 16:59:42

drsmooth wrote:
Laexile wrote:Bush isn't the least intelligent, least curious, or least moral President we've had in this country.

I'll bite

let's see your list

James Buchanon wasn't curious about anything and let the country devolve into a preventable civil war. Warren G. Harding paid so little attention to what was going on around him that he appointed whoever he was told. His administration was rife with scandal. Herbert Hoover's inaction hastened the country's decent into the Great Depression. What about Richard Nixon's amoral behavior? Bush has repeatedly straddled the law, doing questionable things. Nixon and his surrogates repeatedly broke the law. Where was the morality in Vietnam, where more than ten times the number of Americans dies than in Iraq?

How moral were Polk and McKinley with conducting wars that were about stealing land? Many of the Presidents in the 19th Century presided over the murder of thousands of Native Americans.

People complain about Bush denying due process to foreigners, but FDR denied due process to thousands of Americans, locking them away in camps solely based on their ethnicity. How about the Presidents that allowed slavery and even owned slaves? How was that moral?

All that said, I think the least moral, intelligent, and curious President was Andrew Johnson. He escaped being thrown out of office by a single vote.

I doubt there's anything Bush has done that hasn't been done far worse by a previous President.

by **pacino** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 17:05:55

You assign modern concepts of morality to 18th and early 19th century life in your example about 'presidents during slavery'. We could extend that further and state that everyone ever born in the US is immoral because of its past...whatever morality is believed to be.

by **Laexile** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 17:11:48

Philly the Kid wrote:
Laexile wrote:
TheDude24 wrote:The Wife John McCain Callously Left Behind

For those who believe husband character counts.
Proof that there are do-overs in life.

I can't believe that the Democrats would make an issue that McCain may have cheated on his wife 30 years ago after the Clinton Presidency. The LA Times had a similar story not too long ago.

He did more than cheat on her. He rabidly pursued a woman 18 years his junior. Left his family, her two kids which he had adopted.

I don't get up in this stuff. W had enough partying expoits to disqualify him on "good moral fiber" grounds, but the Rep are the ones who came up with the propogandstic "family values" and talk about "evangelical lifestyles..." ... big HYPOCRITES.

I don't htink it should be fodder for Dem mud-slinging, but let's not act like, 'no big deal', ask his wife he left on th curb and Ronnie and Nancy too?!

PTK, no one has said he cheated on her. Not McCain, his first wife, Nancy Reagan, or anyone else. I know you want to make that assumption, but it's not backed with facts. He may have cheated on her. Are you saying that there's something wrong with pursuing a woman 18 years younger than him? Would it have been better if he went after women 25 years younger the way Clinton did? And no, he didn't leave his family. He got a divorce but he has always been part of his children's lives. Did you know that one of the sons he adopted is a senior executive for Cindy McCain? She hired Andrew McCain even though he is John McCain's first wife's son. Oh, what horrible people.

How is John McCain a hypocrite? Can you give me things he's said that don't match what he's done?

John McCain spent five and a half years being tortured in a prisoner of war camp. He came home a changed man. Who wouldn't? It destroyed his marriage. He may have cheated on his wife. I'm not excusing that but if anyone gets a pass it's a guy who spent five and a half years as a POW. For the last 28 years he's been married to the same woman with no evidence that he hasn't acted according to his vows.

I've never been one to pound on Bill Clinton, but this guy had affairs with women for years and years. That continued while he was running for President and while President. He wasn't a POW. The two situations aren't comparable. If we're judging morality, judge what he the guy is doing now, not 30 years ago. But I don't think it should be an issue. I'm flabbergasted that you feel it's a big deal.

by **Laexile** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 17:14:41

pacino wrote:You assign modern concepts of morality to 18th and early 19th century life in your example about 'presidents during slavery'. We could extend that further and state that everyone ever born in the US is immoral because of its past...whatever morality is believed to be.

I made ten points and you've only chosen to nitpick at one. If you want to say that slavery was moral because people didn't think it was wrong at the time, fine. I'll strike that one and leave the actions of Buchanon, Harding, Hoover, Nixon, Johnson, Polk, McKinley, Roosevelt, and Johnson.

by **pacino** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 17:16:15

Laexile wrote:
pacino wrote:You assign modern concepts of morality to 18th and early 19th century life in your example about 'presidents during slavery'. We could extend that further and state that everyone ever born in the US is immoral because of its past...whatever morality is believed to be.

I made ten points and you've only chosen to nitpick at one. If you want to say that slavery was moral because people didn't think it was wrong at the time, fine. I'll strike that one and leave the actions of Buchanon, Harding, Hoover, Nixon, Johnson, Polk, McKinley, Roosevelt, and Johnson.

LOL (literally). I'm not getting into your pissing contest with drsmooth over who was the worst president, I was pointing out a flaw in your thinking. That's all.

by **Woody** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 17:18:40

Why can't some people argue without referencing the Clintons, it's like a sickness

by **dajafi** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 17:24:25

pacino wrote:I'm not getting into your pissing contest

(slow clap)

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 18:10:48

Laexile wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:
Laexile wrote:
TheDude24 wrote:The Wife John McCain Callously Left Behind

For those who believe husband character counts.
Proof that there are do-overs in life.

I can't believe that the Democrats would make an issue that McCain may have cheated on his wife 30 years ago after the Clinton Presidency. The LA Times had a similar story not too long ago.

He did more than cheat on her. He rabidly pursued a woman 18 years his junior. Left his family, her two kids which he had adopted.

I don't get up in this stuff. W had enough partying expoits to disqualify him on "good moral fiber" grounds, but the Rep are the ones who came up with the propogandstic "family values" and talk about "evangelical lifestyles..." ... big HYPOCRITES.

I don't htink it should be fodder for Dem mud-slinging, but let's not act like, 'no big deal', ask his wife he left on th curb and Ronnie and Nancy too?!

PTK, no one has said he cheated on her. Not McCain, his first wife, Nancy Reagan, or anyone else. I know you want to make that assumption, but it's not backed with facts. He may have cheated on her. Are you saying that there's something wrong with pursuing a woman 18 years younger than him? Would it have been better if he went after women 25 years younger the way Clinton did? And no, he didn't leave his family. He got a divorce but he has always been part of his children's lives. Did you know that one of the sons he adopted is a senior executive for Cindy McCain? She hired Andrew McCain even though he is John McCain's first wife's son. Oh, what horrible people.

How is John McCain a hypocrite? Can you give me things he's said that don't match what he's done?

John McCain spent five and a half years being tortured in a prisoner of war camp. He came home a changed man. Who wouldn't? It destroyed his marriage. He may have cheated on his wife. I'm not excusing that but if anyone gets a pass it's a guy who spent five and a half years as a POW. For the last 28 years he's been married to the same woman with no evidence that he hasn't acted according to his vows.

I've never been one to pound on Bill Clinton, but this guy had affairs with women for years and years. That continued while he was running for President and while President. He wasn't a POW. The two situations aren't comparable. If we're judging morality, judge what he the guy is doing now, not 30 years ago. But I don't think it should be an issue. I'm flabbergasted that you feel it's a big deal.

Ok, let me totally and completely clear:

1) The article indicated that he HAD cheated. Let's say he didn't...

HE LEFT HIS WIFE, who stood by him, went through a horrific car accident and was supposed to be the love of his life, for a MUCH younger woman. Talk about tacky cliche. He left his kids, etc...

Those are facts.

Do I care? No, not really. What I care about, is that for a generation now, almost 30 years, Republicans have tried to create this notion about how they ride the moral high road, and that they are the loyal family people.

This man did what 1000's do all the time. His wife wasn't as young and pretty and glamorous and he blew up his family for a new younger hotter woman.

2)

I have a lot of respect for the man in terms of surviving the POW experience, but it didn't make him a progressive and now, in the current climate he's talking tougher about torture all the time. Being a Hawk, not talking about how horrible needless militaristic aggressions are. He's parroting the "bogey man terrorist" fear mongering of Bush.

There is hypocrisy broadly as Repiublicans try to bring it off that they are the clean-cut family people and traditional. He was anything but a "tranitional" family values husband.

He may well be a great father, a nice guy, and truly in love with his seocnd wife. I don't know, and as I said, initially, I wouldn't be making any issue out of this. I think he can be called out on his politics alone -- but it irks me that Republicans try to "front" like they are clean as a whistle and they are jsut as messy as the next person.

And you can spin things any way you want, but the choice he made, did end up undermining his relationship with the Reagans. That's not in dispute.

Archived

POLITICS <== Post Your Dumb Opinions Here