Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJohn McCain treads dangerous ground as he defends himself against charges that he may have maintained an inappropriate relationship with a special-interest lobbyist, and that he may have done so with an individual who influenced his actions as a key player on the Senate Commerce Committee on matters involving communications policy.
If McCain had no relationship with the woman in question -- telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman -- and was not in any way influenced by her, then he has been treated unfairly by The New York Times, which clearly has suggested that wrongdoing has occurred.
On the other hand, if McCain's carefully-worded denials of impropriety are attempts to deceive the American people about his wrongdoing -- not in his personal life but in his capacity as a senator who swore an oath to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office" -- then he is and should be finished politically.
Make no mistake, the shaping of public policies to satisfy a "friend" who is in the employ of an individual who will benefit from that manipulation is the classic example of a failure to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office."
And, make no further mistake, any violation of the oath ought to disqualify McCain from consideration for the presidency.
Who says?
John McCain.
When the Arizona senator voted in 1999 to convict Bill Clinton following the former president's impeachment, he said that he was doing so because he was "persuaded that the President has violated his oath of office."
"All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society," McCain told the Senate in February, 1999. "I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard. Although I may admit to failures in my private life, I have at all times, and to the best of my ability, kept faith with every oath I have ever sworn to this country. I have known some men who kept that faith at the cost of their lives. I cannot -- not in deference to public opinion, or for political considerations, or for the sake of comity and friendship -- I cannot agree to expect less from the President."
McCain's statement on the Clinton impeachment provides an ideal standard for application in to the senator's current circumstance.
"But are these articles of impeachment of sufficient gravity to warrant removal or can we seek their redress by some other means short of removing the President from office?" McCain asked the Senate. "Some of those who argue for a lesser sanction, including the President's able counsel, contend that irrespective of the President's guilt or innocence, neither of the articles charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors. Nothing less than an assault on the integrity of our constitutional government rises to that level. The President's offenses were committed to cover up private not public misconduct. Therefore, if he thwarted justice he did so for the perfectly understandable and forgivable purpose of keeping hidden an embarrassing personal shortcoming that, were it discovered, would harm only his family and his reputation, but would not impair our system of government.
"This, too, is an appealing rationalization for acquittal," McCain continued. "But it is just that, a rationalization. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the expressed views of our founders are crimes intended to conceal the President's character flaws distinguished from crimes intended to subvert democracy."
That's tough talk, to be sure. But McCain made himself clear.
"I do not desire to sit in judgement of the President's private misconduct. It is truly a matter for him and his family to resolve," the senator said. "I sincerely wish circumstances had allowed the President to keep his personal life private. I have done things in my private life that I am not proud of. I suspect many of us have. But we are not asked to judge the President's character flaws. We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted -- for whatever purpose --the rule of law."
Using a senate seat to manipulate policies and the debate to favor the client of a "friend" who happens to be a telecommunications lobbyist is such a subversion. If McCain did what is alleged, he should apply to himself, as a candidate for the presidency, the same hard line that he applied to a president back in 1999.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Okay, that seals it in my mind....
McCain's scandal is going nowhere.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 2:18pm
Maybe I'm slow but I'm still not getting this whole McCain thing. If he wrote letters on behalf of lobbyists in support of legislation that would be favorable to them, how is that different than any other politician? I'm not condoning it, I'm just wondering what makes him different. Sure, he's said he doesn't do that but, come on! Personal morals and ethics don't exude from very many republicans (or democrats for that matter).
Posted by FritztheCat at 02/21/2008 @ 2:19pm
hee hee har har!
every 20 years or so
i guess every twenty years or so powerful serial polygamists and philanderers gotta go find themselves a younger version of the old sow, eh????
what a man of principles! gotta luvvv them family values repugnants!!!! [tinyurl.com]
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 2:22pm
and he'd been screwin' around on his first wife when he'd married barbi number two, (less than 2 months after his divorce) who was not only 17 years younger, but heiress to a small arizona fortune!!!!
and ya know...those flippy, floppy, ethics of his!!!!! keating 5, now this!
gotta luv those high gop moral standards!!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 2:27pm
McCain was part of the Keating 5 that, after being lobbied by bank executives, leaned on investigators to back off of Charles Keating who was misappropriating deposits at his banks in the Savings and Loan debacle!
McCain-Feingold was an effort by McCain to resurrect his political career in the aftermath of Keating 5, but this bill didn't magically transform McCain's character from lobbyist pusher to protector of the integrity of the democratic process.
John McCain's political instincts and operating style are still the same as they always were - he is the consummate insider who uses his political influence as a US Senator to push the agenda of Washington lobbyists!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/21/2008 @ 2:31pm
Who knows, maybe she seduced him. Maybe she turned up at his Washington apartment with one of those lacy Victoria Secret's thongs and was able to breathe new life in that limp salami of his.
Posted by Adscititious at 02/21/2008 @ 2:44pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/21/2008 @ 2:19pm
I don't think it's going anywhere. As I said on the other thread, first the case is weak...given McCain has done a LOT of stuff in OPPOSITION to what the Telecoms wanted.
Second, politically, he's playing it right. With the "Ask me anything" news conference today...it's the move you make to disarm the Media and your opponents. Then he leaves the "attack the NY Times" stuff to surrogates like "Captain Blowhard" and "Bombastic Lad".
And the timing's good...just before the "all important" Hillary/Obama debate and March 4th TX and OH primaries.
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 2:45pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2008 @ 2:22pm
dude, if you think the ladies look a like,
compare these two photos (is that bush in the photo? if yes, oops!)!
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/12352/thumbs/s-VICKIHAIR-large.jpg
AND
http://www.texasgirlschoir.org/texhalloffame.jpg
eek!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 2:45pm
Oh and as for the sex thing....since McCain has snubbed his nose at the Religious Righties and made that speech about Clinton and Lewinsky....
not much hypocrisy factor to work with.
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 2:46pm
breathe new life in that limp salami of his.
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/21/2008 @ 2:44pm
careful, karma never sleeps.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 2:46pm
His personal relationship with the Lobbyist is not the issue, but, his conduct, legal or ethical, in the performance of his duties could raise issues.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/21/2008 @ 3:02pm
Let's not forget that one of John Edwards' staffers is having his love child.
I also predict a picture will soon be release that will destroy Obama. He won't be snorting a line. He won't be having sex with an underage girl. He won't be having sex with an underage boy.
Even worse!!! He'll be hiding in the bushes sucking on a Marlboro. Oh the shame of it all!! Thank our lucky stars we have a responsible press to protect us.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 02/21/2008 @ 3:10pm
And this is the type of guy who This lost Country is probably going to elect?Why not the country is almost finished anyway. why not elect somebody who will finish the job!That way nothing needs to be changed from the policies of this failed administration.Another neocon, just what tha American workers need!
Posted by G Davis at 02/21/2008 @ 3:10pm
I've been thinking about this story all morning. I think that it IS a big story. Regardless of whether or not they had an improper relationship, McCain allowed it to progress to the point that other people expressed their concern/reservations about it. It has nothing to do with whether or not he was married, and everything to do with the fact that the woman was a lobbyist. A U.S. Senator can go to bed with almost anyone, but NOT a lobbyist. The fact that he even allowed the impression of impropriety to surface shows horrible judgement on his part.
It also suggests an affinity for the type of cronyism that has plagued the White House for the last 7 years.
It's a bright red flag...
Posted by nicR at 02/21/2008 @ 3:18pm
Let's not forget that one of John Edwards' staffers is having his love child.----Posted by RAGGEDSTEP 02/21/2008 @ 3:10pm
Yep, and one of the reasons that I think it goes nowhere....John Nichols has a BAD habit of LEAPING on things like that. (This didn't get flushed down Ms vH's "memory hole" fast enough)--
"EDWARDS AND THE ENQUIRER...If the story is true, John Edwards is finished as a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
The story is the National Enquirer top-of-the-page cover article -- which is set to go on sale at the checkout counters of the supermarkets and drug stores of Iowa, New Hampshire and the other 48 states Wednesday morning -- that claims the former senator from North Carolina is the father of a soon-to-be-born "love child."
The article claims Edwards, who has long burnished an image as the consummate family man and whose wife Elizabeth is a key player in his campaign, had an 18-month affair with female staffer who traveled with the candidate during the current campaign. According to the Enquirer, which is indeed a supermarket tabloid but which has at least some history of breaking sordid political stories that turn out to have credibility, the staffer is now six-months pregnant and hiding from the media.
Edwards and the staffer are reportedly denying the story -- with the campaign issuing an absolute and unequivocal dismissal of its validity. The Enquirer counters with a claim that it has obtained confirmations from friends of the woman who say she shared the details of the affair and the pregnancy with them. Reporters for the weekly newspaper also claims to have seen emails that were purportedly sent by the woman regarding an affair.
The Enquirer and other tabloids, it should be remembered, broke stories of Bill Clinton's affairs in 1992. But Clinton had a reputation as a rogue. Edwards has always presented himself as a dedicated husband to Elizabeth, who is currently fighting cancer, and as the doting father of young children.
Under the circumstances, it is difficult to see how the Edwards campaign could survive a legitimate sex scandal.
It may not even be able to survive an illegitimate sex scandal.
Edwards has been surging in Iowa -- a new Insider Advantage poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers has him ahead of New York Senator Hillary Clinton and just one point behind Illinois Senator Barack Obama. But he cannot afford to lose the critical days leading up to the January 3 caucuses that will make or break his campaign responding to questions -- fair or not -- about whether he got a staffer pregnant."-----Posted by John Nichols at 12/19/2007 @ 01:47am
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 3:27pm
I'm sure the New York Times has its own partisan reasons for wishing to see McCain out, and the level to which they would stoop to accomplish this would, I think, represent a violation of their own "oath of office". NYT will, of course, simply regard it all as "reporting the news".
John, the privateer Abraham Whipple once told his British pursuers, "Always catch a man before you hang him" Her position as a lobbyist is a little more damning, I agree, but if McCain were smart he'd learn one lesson from the Clinton debacle and tell his accusers his personal life is none of their damn business so they'd better have hard proof or take a hike. Yes I know, its never done that way: And untill someone has the stones to try it, it never will be.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/21/2008 @ 3:37pm
gotta luv those high gop moral standards!!!!!!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2008 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person
It has to be very liberating not to have any morals huh?
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 3:37pm
"Her" being Miss Vicki
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/21/2008 @ 3:38pm
NICHOLS: "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office" -- then he is and should be finished politically.
This kind of `Professional Ethics' pledge should be familiar to anyone who holds some kind of a license or permit....CPAs, lawyers, doctors/nurses, brokers, engineers, notary, preacher, restauranteurs, hair dressers,....even the military & cops.
Interestingly, journalists don't have such `requirement'. They don't need licenses, permits, etc....and other than to their employers, swear no allegiance to anything or anybody.
NICHOLS wants to impeach McCain so bad, he's "got thrills running up his legs"!
But John, don't stop pounding on McCain.....what we need now, is for MoveOn to come out with something truly memorable.......maybe they can run a contest, like when Clinton was looking for a song. LOL!!
Posted by Happy at 02/21/2008 @ 3:42pm
Regardless of any real wrongdoing that may or may not have occurred, the play this is getting in the press is enough to have some impact in the Court Of Public Opinion. Peolpe love this sex-scandal shit unless, of course, the shock-value of such a "scandal" has been evaporated in this day and age. The fact that he refused interviews and allegedly attempted to hide the story is, to me at least, highly significant and indicitive of guilt.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/21/2008 @ 3:43pm
The fact that he even allowed the impression of impropriety to surface shows horrible judgement on his part.
Posted by NICR 02/21/2008 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person
Allowed the impression, hmmm how does one prevent an impression being formed in another persons mind? Can you please enlighten me?
By all accounts once that impression began, aides prevented her from ever seeing him again.....and that was 8 years ago. Hardly a stained blue dress.
The crux of the matter stemmed from a letter from McCain to the FCC on behalf of the female lobbyists.
Sen McCain wrote a letter on behalf of her firm urging the FCC to merely come to a decision on a matter involving her firm. Apparently the process had taken TWICE the normal length of time and he apparently asked them to come a decision for or against. He did NOT urge ANY particualer course of action, but rather urged them to hurry; yea or nay.
OOOHHH my goodness scandalous!!!!!!! heheh what waste of space for such a non-issue
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 3:46pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 3:37pm |
no - but it must be pretty liberatin' to be perfectly comfortable to be a moral hypocrite, like most of the gop!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 3:53pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 3:46pm
actually what is truly liberatin' is limiting oneself based on what one believes. gobblin up every sinfully yummy morsal that one finds in this life regardless of consequence or who it hurts...
IS THE HYPOCRITICAL GOR WAY!!!!!!
satanists in jesus freak clothing!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 3:58pm
er - goP...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 3:58pm
It has to be very liberating not to have any morals huh?
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 3:37pm
Why don't you tell us all about it?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/21/2008 @ 4:01pm
Posted by ZERO 02/21/2008 @ 3:01pm
aw c'mon, zero! its just a little karma biting those evil hypocrites on their asses!
karma, wrath of god - whatever - what came around is starting to go around...
enjoy the weeping and gnashing of fascist teeth - its music to my ears!!! a symphony of divine justice...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 4:02pm
no - but it must be pretty liberatin' to be perfectly comfortable to be a moral hypocrite, like most of the gop!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2008 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person
Exactly what are you talking about....the whole GOP, everyone who considers themselves a conservative, Christians? or What?
And what are complaining about? I have long been curious, is it wrong to believe in a certain code of conduct? And if ONE does not adhere to that standerd are all persons of that group guilty of hypocrisey because of the actions of a few???
Was Rev King a hypocrite? He advocated the moral principle of civil rights based on morality, but he had several extra-martial affairs, did that make his cause any less right? Rev Jackson is in the same boat. And was the whole or even most of civil rights movement tainted by that?
Such sterotyping, i always believed was contrary to liberal thinking.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:03pm
It has to be very liberating not to have any morals huh?----Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 3:37pm
You mean like being in the military and still supporting an Administration that cuts veteran's benefits and gave us Building 18 at Walter Reed?
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 4:05pm
"OOOHHH my goodness scandalous!!!!!!! heheh what waste of space for such a non-issue"
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 3:46pm
If it really was a non-issue, should it not have been nipped in the bud? But instead:
"From the outset, the Times reporters encountered stiff resistance from the McCain camp. [Reporters] learned that McCain had personally retained Bill Clinton's former attorney Bob Bennett to defend himself against the Times' questioning. At the same time, two McCain campaign advisers, Mark Salter and Charlie Black, vigorously pressed the Times reporters to drop the matter. And in early December, McCain himself called Keller to deny the allegations on the record. In early December, according to sources with knowledge of the events, [The Times] requested a meeting with Bennett to arrange access to the senator and to discuss why the Republican presidential candidate had sought out a criminal lawyer in the first place... "
Why did he go to such lengths to hide what he, and the right, now call a non-story?
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/21/2008 @ 4:07pm
Sorry, that excerpt was from The Nation.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/21/2008 @ 4:08pm
Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 3:27pm
winston, winston.
ready for the rats?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 4:09pm
Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person
The admisntration gave us Building 18? Bush himself design the thing? SECDEF personally oversaw Building 18 of Walter Reed Hosptial of the US Army Medical Command, under the the Department of the Army, under the Dept of Defense? That Building 18 of the thousands of buildings under the govt control?
And which benefit got cut, there are quite a few of them so i am sorry you must be a little more specific when talking about vet benefits.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:10pm
Such sterotyping, i always believed was contrary to liberal thinking.
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:03pm
HHAHAHAH, You don't even see you're own hypocrisy. You make a statement about how you hate stereotyping then you stereotype with your last statement. Also how can you complain. How often do I have to hear Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and every other loud mouth GOP talking head bemoaning liberals and stereotyping liberals left and right.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/21/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/21/2008 @ 4:07pm | ignore this person
You mean the story that occurred 8 years ago and the NYT just now got around to telling??
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:12pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/21/2008 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person
READ my qoute that you cited......
Such sterotyping, i always believed was contrary to liberal thinking.
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:03pm
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/21/2008 @ 4:09pm
No! NO! Do it to RESE! DO IT TO RESE!
At that moment, Mask realized he loved Big Nation!
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/21/2008 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person
Oh one more thing....HAHAHAHA?
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:03pm
hey...its the party of gay bashin' catamites! the party of "christian conservative" serial polygamy!
i guess its the hypocrisy that bothers me the most.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 4:15pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:12pm
You really didn't really answer my question though, did you? Textbook deflecting, yes. Answer to the question? No.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/21/2008 @ 4:15pm
You mean the story that occurred 8 years ago and the NYT just now got around to telling??
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:12pm
HEY, Kinda like the whole thing with Obama and cocaine when he was in college. Or Clinton and the whole not inhaling thing. You're party does it ALL the time. Those are two examples of things that DON'T affect our government. A senator making decisions based on a sexual relationship and using their influence to help someone because they are having sex with them is a little bit more impacting.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/21/2008 @ 4:15pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
You can't criticize something you do. It's called being a hypocrite CPT. Exactly what you are trying to defend against.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/21/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:10pm
How many you want, CPT? Oh, and check out the Repub, Larry "Wide Stance" Craig calls the proposal "lean"!-
LES BLUMENTHAL; The News Tribune Last updated: February 25th, 2005 08:51 AM
WASHINGTON – More than 10,000 Washington state veterans could face a $1,000-a-year increase for their medical care under a Bush administration budget proposal, a veterans advocacy group says. And state officials warn that the White House spending plan could force out roughly half of the 600 residents at Washington's three veterans homes, possibly resulting in the closure of one of them.
"It's almost hopeless for the average vet to get taken care of," said John Kenny, who fought as a machine gunner in the Philippines and New Guinea during World War II. "It's a scandal."
The administration has proposed charging some veterans a $250 annual fee for access to medical services provided by the Veterans Administration and more than doubling the copayment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. The new fees would apply to single veterans making more than $26,000 annually and married veterans making about $30,000 annually.
In addition, the Bush administration budget would significantly reduce federal support for state-operated veterans homes and impose new limitations on who can be admitted.
"This is a Draconian change at time when demand is growing," said John King, a Vietnam veteran and director of the Washington Department of Veterans Affairs. "The baby boomers are right on the doorstep."
At a series of hearings on Capitol Hill last week, administration officials defended their veterans budget, saying it would increase spending by $880 million, or 2.2 percent, even as the federal deficit mounts. And it would refocus services on the most financially needy and seriously injured vets.
"This is a fair, thorough and doable budget which reflects this administration's priority for vets," said Jim Nicholson, secretary of veterans affairs, said under questioning from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Seattle).
In asking some veterans to shoulder the cost of the new fees, Nicholson said it would ensure "sufficient resources for the care of those who need us most."
Murray, however, berated Nicholson and, at a subsequent hearing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. She said they are reneging on a commitment to take care of all veterans, regardless of whether they had served in combat or had been seriously wounded.
"This is not what we promised them," Murray said in an interview later, adding her analysis of the administration's budget found only an $89 million increase in funding for veterans.
Even Republicans were cautious in their comments.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, described the proposed budget as "lean" and acknowledged the funding levels would "not be sufficient to allow the VA to continue to operate as it has."
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 4:18pm
Oh one more thing....HAHAHAHA?
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
Did you mean "Oh, one more thing....HAHAHAHA?
Yeah see I can criticize how you type too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/21/2008 @ 4:18pm
(Dang Time Warp...sorry for double, folks)--
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:10pm
How many you want, CPT? Oh, and check out the Repub, Larry "Wide Stance" Craig calls the proposal "lean"!-
LES BLUMENTHAL; The News Tribune Last updated: February 25th, 2005 08:51 AM
WASHINGTON – More than 10,000 Washington state veterans could face a $1,000-a-year increase for their medical care under a Bush administration budget proposal, a veterans advocacy group says. And state officials warn that the White House spending plan could force out roughly half of the 600 residents at Washington's three veterans homes, possibly resulting in the closure of one of them.
"It's almost hopeless for the average vet to get taken care of," said John Kenny, who fought as a machine gunner in the Philippines and New Guinea during World War II. "It's a scandal."
The administration has proposed charging some veterans a $250 annual fee for access to medical services provided by the Veterans Administration and more than doubling the copayment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. The new fees would apply to single veterans making more than $26,000 annually and married veterans making about $30,000 annually.
In addition, the Bush administration budget would significantly reduce federal support for state-operated veterans homes and impose new limitations on who can be admitted.
"This is a Draconian change at time when demand is growing," said John King, a Vietnam veteran and director of the Washington Department of Veterans Affairs. "The baby boomers are right on the doorstep."
At a series of hearings on Capitol Hill last week, administration officials defended their veterans budget, saying it would increase spending by $880 million, or 2.2 percent, even as the federal deficit mounts. And it would refocus services on the most financially needy and seriously injured vets.
"This is a fair, thorough and doable budget which reflects this administration's priority for vets," said Jim Nicholson, secretary of veterans affairs, said under questioning from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Seattle).
In asking some veterans to shoulder the cost of the new fees, Nicholson said it would ensure "sufficient resources for the care of those who need us most."
Murray, however, berated Nicholson and, at a subsequent hearing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. She said they are reneging on a commitment to take care of all veterans, regardless of whether they had served in combat or had been seriously wounded.
"This is not what we promised them," Murray said in an interview later, adding her analysis of the administration's budget found only an $89 million increase in funding for veterans.
Even Republicans were cautious in their comments.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, described the proposed budget as "lean" and acknowledged the funding levels would "not be sufficient to allow the VA to continue to operate as it has."
Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 4:19pm
hey cpt - it was you satano-aynrando hypocrites in "christian" clothing that started flingin' rocks from your glass houses - LONG AGO!!!!
and your hated opponants, as a result of their silly and much ridiculed decency just turned the cheek time and time and time again - even to the point of eschewing to point out your own "moral" tribe's perfidy - when it really existed!
but no more! i've long advocated countering youer wicked lies with...wicked truth!!!
cause there is really no need to lie about the perfidy of your satano-aynrando heroes - just TELL THE TRUTH - EVERY BIT AS UGLY AS YOUR LIES!!!! and its true!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 4:22pm
McCain probably released the affair story himself in order to get it out there and over with while the attention of most people was on the Democratic race and not have it show up just before the GE.It would be smart for him to do such things if he knows it will come out anyway..
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2008 @ 4:22pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
Bill Clinton's lawyer?? Come on, something's up. If he has nothing to hide, what's he sweating for? I'm sure he and his staff were probably practicing their evasive maneuvering technique for the "real thing" scenerio.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/21/2008 @ 4:23pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/21/2008 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person
Ok that is fair,
Well i imagine that if they had trouble getting access to him, probably bc he is on the campaign trail after all, and in December the nomination was not as locked up as it is now. Hiring people to defend himself, well i would imagine that is normal for any instance were story like this might come out.
It unlikely to go anywhere, the NYT is unapolegetically liberal, that is who they are, Bill Keller, gives money to DEMS. Thats fine it his right.....re-read my post of 3:46 pm.....it is not really going to go far, i think.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:23pm
From the body language of McCain,He looks like a person who just connected a cell phone call and looks up and sees a cop knowing it against the law to talk and drive and the cop dosen't see him and he says whew!!But then is blindsided by someone running a stop sign.
Posted by eniobob at 02/21/2008 @ 4:36pm
Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person
Ok fully of sound and fury......the story is two years old here is an update on CURRENT standerds.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) was signed by President Bush on January 28, 2008. This Act extends the period of enhanced enrollment opportunity for health care eligibility provided a veteran who served in a theater of combat operations after November 11, 1998 (commonly referred to as combat veterans or OEF/OIF veterans) as follows:
Currently enrolled combat veterans will have their enhanced enrollment period automatically extended to 5 years from their most recent date of discharge. New enrollees discharged from active duty on or after January 28, 2003 are eligible for this enhanced enrollment health benefit for 5 years after their date of their most recent discharge from active duty. Combat Veterans who never enrolled and were discharged from active duty between November 11, 1998 and January 27, 2003 may apply for this enhanced enrollment opportunity through January 27, 2011. NOTE: Combat veterans who applied for enrollment after January 16, 2003, but were not accepted for enrollment based on the application being outside the previous post-discharge two year window will be automatically reviewed and notified of the enrollment decision under this new authority.
For combat veterans to find out how this law affects you, fill out the Combat Veteran Extended Benefits Calculator.
As before, veterans enrolling under this "Combat Veteran" enhanced enrollment authority are assigned to Priority Group 6, unless eligible for a higher Priority Group, and will not be charged copays for medication and/or treatment of conditions that are potentially related to their combat service. Combat veterans are not required to disclose their income information, but may do so to determine their eligibility for a higher priority, beneficiary travel benefits and exemption of copays for care unrelated to their military service.
Veterans who enroll with VA under this enhanced enrollment authority will continue to be enrolled even after their enhanced eligibility period ends. At the end of their enhanced eligibility period, veterans enrolled in Priority Group 6 may be shifted to Priority Group 7 or 8, depending on their income level, and required to make applicable copays.
National Guard and Reserve personnel who were activated and served in a theater of combat operations after November 11, 1998, may also be eligible for enhanced health care benefits under the "Combat Veteran" authority. To qualify, they must have been discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable; and served the period they were called to duty.
For questions concerning Combat Veteran eligibility, visit Combat Veteran Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/eligibility/CombatVets.asp
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:23pm
That's a pretty creative hypothesis, CPT.
But remember that the NYT supported the war and employs Bill Kristol, among other things. Plus, did I not hear correctly that they are endorsing McCain? You can't just cry "liberal" and expect anybody but the right to buy it.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/21/2008 @ 4:38pm
the NYT is unapolegetically liberal,
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:23pm
ah, that old con-tard lie! the Nation is unapologetically liberal. the nyt just has the gall to publish a few stories now and then that are unappealing to conservatives...
librul librul!
keep saying it cappy. to a right wing psuedo fascist joe lieberman (party of one) is a "librul"!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/21/2008 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person
All i am saying is that timing is suspect, NYT endorsed McCain for REP nominee, not POTUS, i doubt they will, but merely hiring experienced people to defend him is simply SOP.
We will see in the coming days and weeks, i could be wrong but do not think that i am.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:46pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2008 @ 4:42pm | ignore this person
Nothing wrong with being a liberal....just admit that that is where your point of view is biased towards. Bias in the journalism is significant.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 4:48pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:46pm
I would think so too, that it will be dead in a couple of weeks, were it not for the "SEX" appeal that folks 'round here just love so much in politics. I'll bet TMZ already has a big show planned around this story!
It also could be, as I mentioned earlier, that people are more weary of the sex angle today than, say, a decade ago.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/21/2008 @ 4:51pm
Ok fully of sound and fury......the story is two years old here is an update on CURRENT standerds.----Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:38pm
1. Right....and "two years" ago, who controlled Congress?
2. Who controls it "CURRENTLY"?
3. And as a student of the Constitution, who appropriates money in our Federal Government?
Pick any two to answer if you like. Then answer...what party do you consistantly vote for?
For extra credit, note the amount of money the Bush Administration asks for for vets, as a percentage, versus the percentage increase of NEW veterans (many disabled combat vets) for the same fiscal year.
Compare and contrast and explain the phrase "support the troops".
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 4:55pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:48pm
again....
....left..................center...................right....
now if you are.....................................here.....
your concept of "left" or in our american context, "liberal" is subject to considerable doubt...
and considering how addicted to self serving lies the right is...whats the use???
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 4:59pm
Has John McCain let his Viagara get the best of him? He seems to have gotten his pickle in the blender this time! He has always been a sanctimonious hypocrite and liar. While the media gives him a Mr. Clean image, he does the dirty work with monied interests just like everyone else in Congress. Now it seems he was cavorting with a young shapely lobbyist. Her career rocketed from office secretary to superstar lobbyist and firm partner. I bet she knows how to take care of those old congressmen! oh my! The halo is off McCain now! And just in time for him clinching the nomination. Ya gotta love it!
Posted by philbq at 02/21/2008 @ 5:05pm
and i also find it ironic that the non sexual aspect of this scandal deals with that decades in the making fascist pet project of...
MEDIA CONSOLODATION!
lol
ok...get that tart that looks like his wife...he's been playin' that "straight talk" broken record for years now after he almost went down on the keating thing...but don't worry - he's still our boy - and a sucker for blond barbie tarts...we'll have every station in the area under our area before you know it! and if he's serious about that "straight talk crap" (chortle chortle yuk yuk) a few too many compromising jaunts on the "mile high club express" will bring him around to some sense!
make sure to have some extra viagra on board just in case!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:07pm
The Washington Post wasted little time. In its front-page story today, reporters Jeffrey Birnbaum and Michael Shear confirmed an account in the Times of a meeting between former McCain senior adviser John Weaver and Iseman in Union Station in Washington where he "urged her to stay away from McCain."
The Post reporters wrote: "Association with a lobbyist would undermine his image as an opponent of special interests, aides had concluded." The Times said aides were concerned about what Iseman was saying publicly -- whether she had given the impression of a special relationship with or special treatment from McCain.
Weaver was quoted on-the-record.
The Post then quoted unnamed sources as saying that the senator's "small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly…warning him that his continued ties to a lobbyist who had business before the powerful commerce committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions" during his first White House bid in 2000.
McCain, at his news conference, denied that his senior staff had ever confronted him about his friendship with Iseman. He said they may have had discussions among themselves, but they never approached him.
That is but one of several discrepancies between what The Washington Post and The New York Times are reporting, on the one hand, and what McCain and his campaign are saying on the other.
Here's the bottom line: I suspect this story, as we in the journalistic community say, has legs. News organizations are not going to let up – not yet, especially when a potential President of the United States is concerned. - CNN
Posted by Metteyya at 02/21/2008 @ 5:17pm
Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 4:55pm | ignore this person
Ok i will play since this is essentially phraseology that you have a problem with, "support the troops"
As a purely techinical matter..the troops refers to ACTIVE-DUTY, and in that case the phrase applies.
Veterans benefits are a whole other story....just what do i expect when i retire? After 20yrs of ACTIVE-DUTY....one expects half of your base pay for life, medical and dental care for you and dependents and access to px/commissary. And treatment on base......
Let see i have recieved education benefits that enabled me to complete my undergrad degree. I received $22,000. Now it is at least $37,000 and upwards to $70,000. That is all i expect after 20 years. Now those who do not do 20 yrs as such they are entitled to less depending on circumstances.
What does a Korean vet, not wounded who has only done 3 years of active service over 50 years ago entitled to, there are some benefits, but to what extent should these apply.
It has been made very plain to me what my benefits are when i signed up, if wounded, depending on severity i would get medical treatment and a % of disability for life. A MEDICAL board would decide how much based on the injury...and who are on these medical boards? EVIL REPS, no DOCTORS.
Now what more do you require, could MASK be advocating 100% health benefits for all those who have served in uniform regardless of the time they served? That is an awful lot of people, so rules are applied. Deal with it, sometimes they are fair other times it does not appear that way.
Vet benefits are paid out for those are wounded and incurr injuries while on active duty. Unless one does 20 yrs active duty there is no expectation coverage in perpituity.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 5:19pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 02/21/2008 @ 5:14pm |
1. mccain was getting your vote no matter what!!!! lol - you contards think we are sooo stupid!!!
2. nyt is not a librul rag. its a mainstream papaer that, unlike the majority of conservative owned media entities - rips right and left!!! thats something approaching good journalism in my book - and lord know we haven't seen that since a couple of sclobs and a guy called "deep throat" took down that neurotic criminal in the early 70's!!!
you werent going to vote for mccain - HAR HAR HAR!!! good one, JO.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:20pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2008 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person
Such Anger, man i love libbys.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 5:23pm
hmmm...now that i know mccain is a lying, compromised sack of shit...
think i'll send him a big fat check!!!!!
ah, contard morality! the delicious, wicked, hypocrisy of right wing reality!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:23pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 5:23pm
anger!!!!GRRRRRRRR!!!
no - ecstasy!!!!!
awwwwwwww...poor contards...YOU GUYS NEVER GET ANGRY, DO YOU???
but like any pathetic, lying bully - you cry the loudest when you get it right back at ya.
take it like a man!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:25pm
I don't see you criticizing your Repug media sources that do the exact same thing allllll the time.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/21/2008 @ 5:27pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 02/21/2008 @ 5:14pm
That was directed at that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/21/2008 @ 5:28pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:03pm
"Such sterotyping, i always believed was contrary to liberal thinking."
You're right, we usually leave it to scumsuckers of the Rove/Limbaugh/Ayles stamp. But it's payback, and it's been a long time coming. What was it that the Good Book said . . . something about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind?
Oh, but I forget. You Xtian right-wingers read the scriptures by the spirit and not the letter, so mere hypocrisy is never a concern for you. You know you are always in the Right and pre-forgiven, so you can commit any atrocity, any enormity and sleep with an easy conscience every night.
That comes in mighty handy when you're in the child-starving and mother-killing business, as all of you in the Tribe of Cheney are and have been these last 7+ years.
Posted by goyadad at 02/21/2008 @ 5:34pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/21/2008 @ 5:34pm
don't you love it when evil tries to appeal to your decency in order to screw you blue???
lol...
fortunately many of the decent have been so anally violated these last 7 years they are no longer the silly patseys they once were. but for those who still are -
thank god there are a few dexters out there like myself who are TOTALLY immune to such pathetic, snivelling, wickedness...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:38pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2008 @ 5:25pm | ignore this person
Who is angry? Bully? My goodness i am just getting back to this site......libs outnumber the conservatives here 10-1, yet you still pissed????
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 5:38pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 4:10pm
It happened on your boys watch, it's your boys problem.
End of story.
Now go try and find something you can blame on Clinton, you'll feel much better.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/21/2008 @ 5:44pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 5:38pm
delightfully so! after all the needless death and suffering and wasted money that is the result of your evil neofascist heroes (without even bagging the guy who attacked us) lies and stupidity, i and millions more are transformed from meely mouthed naive goody goody two shoes choking on our sense of decency and fair play, into...
an army of righteously wrathful moral ubermensch who will NEVER AGAIN lie down and let our inherent decency enable wickedness to triumph without a nasty fight!
i seem to remember a time when i and millions like me politely tried to express opinions and doubts about this and that little point of policy and you know what i remember?
being called a TRAITOR. being accused of TREASON. being subtlely and not so subtlely INTIMIDATED AND THREATENED BY A PACK OF CROWING, COWARDLY FASCISTS backed up by a little fascist enabling piece of legislation that goes by the orwellian title of the USA PATRIOT ACT.
unfortunately since wicked fascists respect not decency and kindness, in fact veiwing such as weakness to be exploited...
enjoy the karma.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 5:53pm
He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists
RIO,
You forgot that McCain was part of the Keating 5 and got lobbied by his friends in the banking industry to lean on investigators so they would back off Charles Keating who was misappropriating (gambling away) funds on deposit at his Savings and Loan banks!
Charles Keating eventually went to prison for this crime that McCain tried to help cover up.
If that is not a violation of the public trust, I do not know what is!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/21/2008 @ 6:01pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 02/21/2008 @ 5:44pm
Now go try and find something you can blame on Clinton, you'll feel much better.
LOL, mega-LOL!
You are RIGHT sir! Ain't nothing so bad but the right spin won't fix it. And all wicked roads lead back to CLINTON. Per the doctrine of Original Sin, of course.
Posted by goyadad at 02/21/2008 @ 6:39pm
"You forgot that McCain was part of the Keating 5 and got lobbied by his friends in the banking industry to lean on investigators so they would back off Charles Keating who was misappropriating (gambling away) funds on deposit at his Savings and Loan banks!
Charles Keating eventually went to prison for this crime that McCain tried to help cover up."
Posted by METTEYYA 02/21/2008 @ 6:01pm | ignore this person
Sorry METT, but you must not have watched the hearings.
Keating, a self-described John Wayne patriot, only gave chump change to McCain and John Glenn. Isn't that strange considering they were both bona fide heros? They both gave the money back and told Keating to take a hike.
Keating made the mistake of calling McCain a "wimp" and found himself on the receiving end of McCain's famous temper.
The real work was done by Senators Cranston, DeConcini and Riegel; good Democrats all.
What did my self-righteous party do to these three miscreants? Basically nothing. They censured Cranston. Yes, for taking a million bucks and selling thousands of people down the river (and out of their homes,) They told Alan he was a bad boy. Mercy!
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 02/21/2008 @ 6:52pm
McCain just got my vote...I was gonna pass and maybe still pass after he chose his running mate..----Posted by JOMAMMA 02/21/2008 @ 5:14pm
MAJOR B.S. Alert....Come on, MAASCH. You were going to "sit out" the election and let Obama or HILLARY become Prez?!?!?!
I don't think so.
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 7:03pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/21/2008 @ 5:29pm
So all it takes is a negative NY Times story ...
to make you forget "amnesty for illegals", McCain-Feingold, and "voting against the tax cuts"?
interesting.
Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 7:06pm
Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 7:03pm |
heehee...he already said that this outragous liberal smear had driven him to become a mccain man and send a big check off to mile high mccain...lol...
oh no! and i thought he was comin' around!!!! i feel so betrayed!
har har har!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 7:12pm
stereotyping liberals left and right.
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/21/2008 @ 4:11pm
you mean left and left.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 7:19pm
AND, I am gonna send him money...a big check.
Posted by JOMAMMA 02/21/2008 @ 5:15pm
a fool and his money........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 7:25pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 5:19pm
you hate america.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 7:28pm
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP 02/21/2008 @ 6:52pm
$112,000 in 1980 doesn't sound like chump change to me! And the $350,000 investment his wife made in Keatings shopping mall that he built with savings deposits sounds like a clear violation of public trust. (see McCain's Wiki below)
Keating Five
McCain's upward political trajectory was jolted when he became enmeshed in the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s. In the context of the Savings and Loan crisis of that decade, Charles Keating Jr.'s Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a subsidiary of his American Continental Corporation, was insolvent as a result of some bad loans. In order to regain solvency, Lincoln sold investment in a real estate venture as an FDIC-insured savings account. This caught the eye of federal regulators who were looking to shut it down. It is alleged that Keating contacted five senators to whom he made contributions. McCain was one of those senators and he met at least twice in 1987 with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, seeking to prevent the government's seizure of Lincoln.
Between 1982 and 1987, McCain received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[112] In addition, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family and baby-sitter made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. After learning Keating was in trouble over Lincoln, McCain paid for the air trips totaling $13,433.[113]
Eventually the real estate venture failed, leaving many broke. Federal regulators ultimately filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating, accusing him of siphoning Lincoln's deposits to his family and into political campaigns. The five senators came under investigation for attempting to influence the regulators. In the end, none of the senators was convicted of any crime, although McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" in intervening with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/21/2008 @ 7:34pm
Actually METT, $112,000 doesn't sound like chump change to me either but we don't exactly hang out with these people do we?
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 02/21/2008 @ 7:40pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2008 @ 5:53pm | ignore this person
lolol.....My goodness that tirade was very funny.
Full of fire and brimstone. But you and your millions must convince the rest of the country that your candidates uber-leftist policies are the way for the COUNTRY not merely the uber-leftists like yourself.
You can always when it is primary season, you actually think that it is the election itself, but that is a long ways off; a week in politics is like a year. So much can happen, and i suspect when B. HUESSAIN OBAMA has to actually get into the details he is going to scare the shit out of many.....lol oh i cant wait.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 8:01pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 8:01pm |
ya like that one? i got plenty more.
uber - leftist? look, mussolini, your uber leftist is not everyone elses uber leftist. indeed we will see...
WHAT WAS THAT? HIS MIDDLE NAME IS "HUSSEIN"?
oh my god! thank god you told me that! lol
i would think he will start by promising to never lie about how a country that never attacked us was in cahoots with the guys who attacked us, thereby incompetantly diluting our effort to bring to justice the guy who really attacked us...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 8:17pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2008 @ 8:17pm | ignore this person
Whatever you sound like a tired erroneaous platitude. Blah, blah blah.
Posted by CPT at 02/21/2008 @ 9:45pm
Elevated discussion here. Really I mean it. Totally serious dude.
In most informal logic books you will find a list of fallacies. Among them will normally be the tu quoque fallacy, which is basically just responding to a criticism with 'You do it too!' Its a fallacy because the impurity of your interlocutor has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of their charge. It is a rhetorical trick that is almost always used to distract from the real issue.
On the current issue we have a scandal with two elements. One is a sex scandal. The other is a lobbying scandal. As regards the sex scandal there are people who remember the position they took with regards to the Clinton impeachment stuff and say 'I don't care about the sex stuff and neither should anyone else.' To respond to this stance with 'McCain is a hypocrite on the issue though.' is to come close to the tu quoque fallacy. So what if McCain has said things which condemn his own possible behavior? Was he right to say so? I think he clearly was not. To focus on the charges of hypocrisy with regards to sexual ethics in politics is simply to play the gotcha game. We don't know yet whether he cheated on his wife. I will be fine never knowing. If the Nation focuses on the lobbying element of this scandal I have no problem with it. If it wastes time writing about the sex scandal then I have no time for it. Doing so would just be a way around acting in accordance to what I think their answer is to the question 'Should marital fidelity be an issue in deciding between candidates?' Anyway it would be to get that question wrong in my mind.
To be clear I think his fidelity to his wife matters to whether he is a good man or not. I just think it is clear that being a bad man, in certain ways, is not incompatible with doing good work as president.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/21/2008 @ 9:59pm
That was a long way of saying that we should only apply the McCain standard to McCain if it is the right standard. Does the Nation think it is or was the right standard?
Posted by dentedpat at 02/21/2008 @ 10:00pm
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 9:45pm
well la dee da dee everybody! cry me a river, you fascist apologist...
Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/21/2008 @ 10:00pm |
i don't know. i wish it would go back to the way it was before the repugnants poisoned it all in their evil attempt at fascist brainwashing, but...
what can you do?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 10:17pm
Whatever you sound like a tired erroneaous platitude. Blah, blah blah.
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 9:45pm
Oooo..Look! CPT is back and he has a new thesaurus.
...now all he needs is a dictionary.
"erroneaous"?
Posted by Malcontent at 02/21/2008 @ 10:50pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 02/21/2008 @ 10:50pm
well, in terms of spelling i live in a glass house...
but i'm a platitude????
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 11:02pm
Whatever you sound like a tired erroneaous platitude. Blah, blah blah.
Posted by CPT 02/21/2008 @ 9:45pm
oh, the irony................
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 11:11pm
karma, the orthographer, strikes again!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 11:13pm
You know as this thing unfolded, I had to laugh. The Clinton/Lewinsky mess was not a good comparison. Lewinsky was an intern, nothing to lose if she turned. McCain, having an affair with a lobbyist, different standard. If a lobbyist betrays their, trust with a client, now there's a high likelihood of some, heavy monetary fallout. My guess, something happened, and the details will go to the grave with those involved.
Posted by Ray Donahue at 02/22/2008 @ 09:23am