that he didn’t actually answer the question with the very wholesome “yes” or the family valued “no” or even the work safe “I don’t recall.”
johndsays
Certainly the bloggers on this page will demand irrefutable proof of such a charge or a similar charge leveled against BO.
<
p>Come on guys, time to be consistent!
tbladesays
…the three anonymous reporters cited used as sources by Schecter and campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. This can be put to rest by John McCain stating unequivocally that this did not happen and by getting on record the testimony of said witnesses.
<
p>It remains a very plausible rumor, especially in light of McCain’s history of sexism. See:
p>Given his history, I don’t think it is was too much for that Baptist minister at the town hall meeting to expect an answer from McCain. All McCain has to do is state “I did not call my wife a trollop and c*** that day”. And if Cole and Gullett honetly did not hear McCain utter those insults, or if they are still loyal to McCain, they can deny it as well. That would force the unnamed sources to put up or shut up and no further legs would be given to the left on this story.
<
p>I file this in the plausible but unverified category. I’m not convinced he said it, but I don’t doubt the strong possibility that he did.
kbuschsays
D’uh. It’s an extraordinary charge. If we make it without our ducks in order, we look obtuse dumb.
huhsays
He and EaBo should blindly accept it and post it in every forum they can find. Don’t want to be inconsistent, right?
joetssays
being quoted by a lifetime anti-conservative being quoted by a blog? I don’t believe this for the same reason I didn’t believe the Deval buying a private jet crap.
stomvsays
but the blog part is unnecessary. It’s being claimed by Cliff Schecter in print, who is quoting three unnamed reporters.
<
p>Yeah, it seems a stretch, but the linking is far tighter than you suggest.
p>But as John wrote above, it didn’t seem verifiable. Maybe he said it, and maybe he didn’t. Absent any real proof, this seems like a lousy rumor to me. So I didn’t write about it. But I guess some people didn’t have any such reservations. This YouTube video may be more relevant than either of the two posted above:
<
p>
johnksays
johnksays
I found the full video … that was fake. I wanted to clear that up as soon as I found it.
stomvsays
link to it if ya can…
stomvsays
the video above doesn’t seem to space the words correctly according to the print on the screen [he couldn’t have inserted f*** that quickly]. It smells fake to me too, which is why linking the actual video serves as a nice rebuttal with fact.
johnksays
Youtube. It’s 8 minutes but it’s at the end, he does lose it and walks off in the middle of questioning, pretty bizarre, but didn’t use any profanity.
theysays
what was McCain “shutting down” that she wanted to keep going, and why?
tbladesays
REPORTER 1: John McCain called his wife the worst word there is.
REPORTER 2: She’s not even black…
petrsays
I’m not sure why this is important. Do we need to go looking for reasons not to like this guy? Seems to be plenty of reasons, in the public sphere, to think him offensive.. why we gotta delve into a supposedly private conversation? Icing on the cake? Ya know, I never really got bothered by George Bushes all-to-obvious alcholism or his past wilding days. I still boil over, however, when I think of his getting away with not going to Vietnam and THEN getting away with not even showing up to the Texas AG.
<
p>McCain? Same thing. I could care less about the language he uses in private. I care far far more, and with more knotted stomach and weepy eyes about his complete lack of backbone when it comes to torture. A real honest-to-god human would have ripped George Bush apart. (Yes, I mean that literally: if I was emasculated by Bush in the same way that McCain has been and over torture, no less I’d have marched into the Oval Office and thrown down without quarter. Not the right thing, this I know, but there it is…)
<
p>I guess the point is just this: What does it matter? Reagan defeated Carter. Bush 41 beat Dukakis. Bush 43 beat Gore and Kerry. How many instances of a jackass defeating the able and stolid do you need to prove to you that moral condemnation is impotent in the face of the shameless? Every Republican victory in my lifetime has featured a demonstrably weak and fallow slut of a man gaining victory over a clearly upright person. Duh. Why is opprobrium going to work this time?
<
p>As for the language: I suppose I don’t like the word and I suppose I’m not supposed to use it… But I’m also a huge fan of some of the best TV ever… and I further suppose I can’t call myself a a fan and not be a hypocrite if I hold this against McCain. But just because he uses the word, don’t make him Al fucking Swearingen…
<
p>Or, as Swearingen did say: “For outright stupidity, the whole fucking trial goes shoulder to shoulder with that cocksucker Custer’s thinking when he went over that ridge. ”
It was in front of a bunch of reporters. Just FYI.
kirthsays
Even though I think McCain is perfectly capable of saying that to and about his wife, it’s pretty much hearsay. It’s also trivial when compared to what he did to his first wife: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…
kbuschsays
and that is in the public record.
joetssays
If you are, we should lock you up in a vietnamese pow camp for 5 years and then give you back to your wife and see if you’re the same person, regardless of anything that’s happened to her.
tbladesays
I’m not saying I wouldn’t bang several women that are not my wife upon return from 5 years in a torture camp (I’m not saying I would, either – I don’t know), but I’m not a social conservative, a member of the Christian right, or a member of the party of “family values”.
joetssays
nobody is willing to consider that he might have had some serious PTSD or was just a different person when he came back.
<
p>Would he have been any better a person to have stayed with her and essentially lived a lie in the marriage?
tbladesays
…I’m saying I don’t care about a serviceman’s relationship with his wife, especially after living in a torture camp. That’s me and my morals.
<
p>But, McCain has cultivated a base from the rigid religious right. So many people use the Bible against homosexuality and so many other things they don’t like in a simplified all-or-nothing dichotomy and apply it to the way they see other people. One of the 10 Commandments is don’t commit adultery. Using the same rigid standards that many of his supporters use, McCain is no better than Bill Clinton or the boss who stays late with his secretary. McCain can be for “strong family values”, but his actions show otherwise. What’s the point of being a social conservative if you can say “Yeah, but John McCain is different…it doesn’t count for him”?
<
p>Like I said, might react the same way if I was away for 5 years (let alone tortured in a Vietnamese prison), but I’m not going to run as the favorite son of the Christian right. I’m not going to pay lip service to the 10 commandments or pretend to be all about “Strong family values”.
<
p>Hell, if John McCain did all this and never saw combat, I still wouldn’t care if he did all that stuff – relationships are messy things. Who am I to judge? But I thought it was interesting that someone tied to your faith as yourself could find a loophole in one of the commandments, especially for a guy courting the Christian right and following the GOP script on faith.
joetssays
would think that the man who left his wife to fight for his country came back a different man. Not just broken physically, but to the core a different person. I would be one to think that the man his wife married was left back in that prison cell.
stomvsays
would agree that it’s inappropriate to cheat on your spouse, whether or not she’s lying in a hospital bed at the time. Furthermore, I think that a reasonable person would think that a person who did this sort of thing and then preached that others shouldn’t do that sort of thing was a hypocrite.
<
p>
<
p>If McCain was running on a platform that womanizing while married is a reasonable thing to do, that would be one thing. But, he’s used the “family” argument on everything from schools to adoption, and yet he couldn’t bother to keep his penis in his pants until he got a divorce.
joetssays
means that McCain is not and can never be a family man? Even though it happened over 25 years ago? So much for forgiving and allowing people to redeem themselves.
tbladesays
…other teachings of the Bible should be approached with the same pragmatic exegesis that allows for modern understandings of the human condition and science and that the all-or-nothing polarizing that occurs in many issues where faith, politics and policy intersect is unreasonable.
joetssays
and very few religious people I know are. However, I have met some, but those were evangelicals from the Midwest and south. Not many Catholics hold such a strict adherence without regard for the flawed condition of humanity.
petrsays
Character is a constant….
<
p>
*[new] you married, kirth? (0.00 / 0)
If you are, we should lock you up in a vietnamese pow camp for 5 years and then give you back to your wife and see if you’re the same person, regardless of anything that’s happened to her.
<
p>This is completely counter-textual, even slightly contrapuntal, when referencing Commander Character hisself… Which way you want it? Either he’s a man of character and his marriage vows mean something to him irrespective of the intervening stay at the Hanoi Hilton… Or he’s a mendacious stick-at-naught with pretensions of honor. Which way you want it?
<
p>I know which way it is and I’ll tell you… if you ask nice.
kirthsays
Here’s the nut, which they conveniently put on the last page:
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.
‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.
‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.
‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’
. . .
But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.
‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.
‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’
<
p>Also, yes, I am married. Thank you for asking. Even though I am not a ‘family-values’ conservative, I have never cheated on my wife, nor would I abandon our marriage should she become ill or disabled. I also have not, and would not, abandon my moral principles to further my career.
<
p>I don’t think infidelity is necessarily a disqualification for high office, but what McCain did really stinks, and it says something about his approach to being a human being. Combined with his public actions, his handling of his private life tells me that he’d be a rotten President.
lodgersays
“his handling of his private life tells me that he’d be a rotten President. “
<
p>So how did you feel about Bill Clinton or Henry Cisneros, the former mayor of San Antonio and Clinton administration Cabinet member, or Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or Gavin Newsom? Does “not being from the party of family values” mean it’s OK to be unfaithful? Lets be consistent, there are plenty of creeps from BOTH parties. Makes Willard look like a pretty decent guy, eh?
kirthsays
You’ve successfully taken half of my statement and managed to pretend that it’s all I wrote. You’ll go far in the wingnut world – I’m sure of it!
<
p>Here’s the whole of that statement: Combined with his public actions, his handling of his private life tells me that he’d be a rotten President. See, it’s not just that he was an utter prick to the woman who obviously holds him in such high regard. It’s that he’s been a prick to everyone who doesn’t serve his agenda. That’s most of the US population. It’s not a new thing – see “Keating Five.”
<
p>The Daily Mail article includes character assessments by two well-known men who know him personally. They weren’t exactly damning him with faint praise. They came right out and said what they thought of him.
<
p>McCain spent a long time as a POW and suffered enormously. He deserves a lot of credit for that; he probably deserves a pass on a bunch of things that other men would be roundly criticized for. If you think it’s a great idea to have a short-tempered lobbyist tool with no discernible ethics as President, you’re entitled to that opinion. I don’t share it.
lodgersays
and line after line about his infidelity. In the context of this thread and the majority of your post, I commented on that part of your statement upon which which you have elaborated, and I did it without any name-calling. But you never addressed my questions.
<
p>If YOU think it’s a great idea to have a limited experienced, empty suit, ego-maniac for President, you’re entitled to that opinion. I don’t share it.
kirthsays
as I recommended. There’s some public actions, for a start.
lodgersays
Your first post said nothing about the Keating five incident. I don’t have to look it up, I remember it, and I’m not happy about that aspect of McCain’s background. You wouldn’t get an argument from me if THAT was the reason you choose another candidate. But back to this thread.
You you still haven’t answered my questions.
FWIW it would be THERE ARE not THERE IS.
kirthsays
You mean these?
So how did you feel about Bill Clinton or Henry Cisneros, the former mayor of San Antonio and Clinton administration Cabinet member, or Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or Gavin Newsom? Does “not being from the party of family values” mean it’s OK to be unfaithful? Lets be consistent, there are plenty of creeps from BOTH parties. Makes Willard look like a pretty decent guy, eh?
<
p>1. I do not care much about those people, because A: They are not running for President; B: None of them, so far as I know, dumped their wives because of disabilities; C: With one exception, I never had a chance to vote them into or out of office.
<
p>2. No, not being a “family-values” conservative (which is what I actually wrote) means that you’re not quite as big a douchebag hypocrite if you cheat on your wife. It doesn’t mean it’s OK to be unfaithful. If you’d been paying attention, you’d have seen where I mentioned that I’d never done that, and if you were really sharp, you’d pick up on the implication that it has something to do with morality.
<
p>3. If by ‘Willard,’ you’re referring to Mitt Romney, it makes him look like a faithful husband. That can be one component of being a decent guy. It can’t be the only component, unless you’re simple.
<
p>My first comment didn’t say anything about the Keating 5 because at that point, the thread was all about McCain’s personal life. What’s your point?
lodgersays
I haven’t been rude to you. Why do you insist on implying that I am “simple” or stating “If you’d been paying attention,” or saying I’d go far in the “wingnut” world, I’d rather discuss the thread, not my personal attributes. While I may be “from the dark-side” politically, I ALWAYS try and remain polite here and show respect to those whom I visit, even while in disagreement, otherwise I’d have called you a dork. But I didn’t. That’s all.
kirthsays
Really?
I wrote
Even though I am not a ‘family-values’ conservative, I have never cheated on my wife…
which you made into
Does “not being from the party of family values” mean it’s OK to be unfaithful?
and that’s your idea of respectful? You don’t like having your attributes talked about, how about having misquoting and misrepresenting other peoples’ words not be among your attributes? You keep saying I should stick to the thread, then you make some off-the-wall distortion of what I write in response to your last off-the-wall distortion, and I should be ‘polite’ like you supposedly are? You’re not. Your debating tactics are dishonest and yes, disrespectful. That started with your very first comment in this thread, and it is not something I have any patience for.
lodgersays
You write a post about how John McCain has treated his wives in a thread about how John McCain treated his wives and state that this is partly why you could not support him. I asked you if you felt the same way about Democrats who also have issues regarding their marriages and you complain that my question didn’t address the 1/2 of 1 sentence which had nothing to do with the thread or your comments. Then you begin the name calling and personal attacks and complain about MY debating tactics. Here it is. Do you give the Dems a pass because you’re a Dem? Do you hold politicians of your own persuasion to a lower standard? Sounds like it to me but I’m simple.
joetssays
What do you know about his private life aside from this? Did you know he’s been married longer than I’ve been alive? Did you know he adopted a 3 month old child from Bangladesh who needed out of the country for medical treatment? Did you know one of his sons is in Iraq and another is in the Naval Academy?
<
p>Frankly, the only person who has the right to bemoan that divorce was his ex wife, and even she speaks well of him.
kirthsays
Since I never knew you were alive, let alone how long you’d managed to be that way, I did not know that McCain has been married longer than that. Assuming you’re talking only about his second marriage, I guess that means he’s been incredibly rich longer than you’ve been alive, too. As for the rest of your insider tips, yes, I did know those things.
<
p>Did you know his son came safely back from Iraq in February, after serving half a tour? It seems that some miscreant in the press published the fact that PFC Jimmy was in country, and McCain Senior blew a gasket. He thought his son was made a special target by having it known he was over there. That’s why John’s own visits to Iraq, like Bush’s and other high members of government, were never announced in advance. Well, except for Obama. Apparently, McCain felt Obama was intrinsically bulletproof, or something, so it was OK for McCain to tell everyone OB was going.
joetssays
geo999says
…knew that the savior was making a campaign stop in Iraq. McCain had nothing to do with it.
<
p>Nice try, though.
kirthsays
Perhaps you could supply a link to some news report or announcement that precedes McCain’s speech. If you can’t do that, I’d say you’re full of it.
In terms of the campaign, anecdotes like this one are very useful for undermining McCain’s “moderate” pretensions. Some people might remember that his voting record is a very immoderate 100% anti-choice, but it would be easier to remember that he called his second wife a c*** in front of reporters.
<
p>It’s sort of a mnemonic aid.
petrsays
In terms of the campaign, anecdotes like this one are very useful for undermining McCain’s “moderate” pretensions. Some people might remember that his voting record is a very immoderate 100% anti-choice, but it would be easier to remember that he called his second wife a c*** in front of reporters.
It’s sort of a mnemonic aid.
<
p>George Bush is caught on camera flipping the bird. Does it undermine his moderate pretension? No. Consequences for the election? Nil.
<
p>George Bush mocks a death row inmate (and fellow Christian) directly to a reporter. Does this undermine his moderate pretensions? No. Consequences for the election? Nil. Dubya gets religion and stops drinking, turns his life around and all that… Karla Faye Tucker does the same exact thing and all she deserves (says he) is scorn. Flip-flop.
<
p>George Bush defeats Al Gore with pretensions of moderation. Spends four years governing with a hard right incompetence unmatched since Herbert Hoover. Re-elected.
<
p>Shall I go on?
<
p> When has such a tactic (against a Republican) EVER worked? Ever? (I’ll grant that it works quite often against a Dem/Liberal but a double standard isn’t a double edge… )
<
p>
kbuschsays
One of the problems off of the primary is that there appear to be a number of Democrats who haven’t migrated from Senator Clinton’s camp to Senator Obama’s despite Senator Hillary leaving some very delicious and tasty bread crumbs to get them there. A month ago, I recall seeing polling that indicated Obama hadn’t quite sewn up the Democratic base even to the degree Senator Kerry had. Also, as the McCain campaign will happily crow to you, Senator McCain does much better than Mr Generic Republican. That suggests that there’s a certain kind of work to be done.
<
p>So we might be in the unusual position of needing to appeal to usually Democratic voters in order to convince them that McCain is bad for women and bad for the environment despite what his handlers in the Press would have you believe. This little anecdote is useful on the former issue.
<
p>Yes, you are very correct in talking about the double standard that has prevailed in the Press to the benefit of Republicans and their “unimpeachable characters”. Yes, yes, yes, Republicans are all dripping with authenticity, know exactly how ordinary people feel, and can connect so much better than any Democrat. I’ve noticed that too.
<
p>Nonetheless there are a few things that are different in ’08:
The press seems more willing to like Obama than previous Democratic candidates.
McCain has not tied up the conservative base, particularly the religious conservatives. Unlike Bush, he has not gone through a redemptive period that washes away the previous sins. If I’m not mistaken, that corner of conservatives likes redemption. The more you’ve sinned the better as long as you’ve repented and accepted religion. To McCain, that story does not apply. So his anger and use of bad language are actually quite a bit more distasteful to that kind of Christian than it would be to me or (I’m guessing) you. He doesn’t get the pass Bush got.
As tblade points out, some of these anecdotes about McCain resonate because they are similar to some things that are incontrovertible and in some cases on video.
It’s difficult to figure out what to do with this material. The Obama campaign is not going to touch it — and they shouldn’t. Probably it’s our job to hound the press until it does touch it.
theysays
How many instances of a jackass defeating the able and stolid do you need to prove to you that moral condemnation is impotent in the face of the shameless?
<
p>Wait, what makes you think they’re shameless? Because they aren’t checking into McClain’s? I think the way they carried their shame was what people liked about it. Kind of like Frank Gifford on Monday Night Football just always looking out at the field, never at the camera, for that whole season after his affair. You’re not supposed to try to get out of it and unload it on the public with a good speech at a press conference or a medical diagnosis.
<
p>I think there is a corollary to the “republican’s shouldn’t try comedy” rule, which is “liberals shouldn’t try moral condemnation”. As you say, it’s hypocritical. But see: You should be hypocritical, and that’s what liberals don’t get. At least, you should if you are not perfect, which no one is, but only liberals think they have to be. In fact, thinking that you have to be perfect is like the cause of being a liberal. And that’s why liberals don’t like “imposed morality”, because they won’t be perfect under it. Nor would anyone be, but non-libs accept that they don’t measure up.
garysays
I guess the point is just this: What does it matter? Reagan defeated Carter. Bush 41 beat Dukakis. Bush 43 beat Gore and Kerry. How many instances of a jackass defeating the able and stolid do you need to prove to you that moral condemnation is impotent in the face of the shameless?
<
p>Instances, still waiting for one.
kbuschsays
From the NewsMax story David referenced:
McCain’s outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the Republican nomination for president. A former Senate staffer recalled what happened when McCain asked for support from a fellow Republican senator on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
“The senator explained that he had already committed to support George Bush,” the former Senate staffer said. “McCain said ‘f- you’ and never spoke to him again.”
Later:
“McCain used the f-word,” the former senator said. “McCain called the guy a ‘sh–head.’ The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you’re still a sh–head.’ That was in front of 40 to 50 Republican senators. That sort of thing happened frequently.”
Media bias:
When people have come forward to relate their bizarre experiences with McCain, only minor publications or the foreign press have run their accounts.
I’ve also heard stories of how the Arizona media has a much less positive view of McCain than the national one does. This story describes that and points to why that might be.
<
p>Another source on McCain’s temper is this Washington Post article.
laurelsays
think about it. keeping the wife in her place is important to the xtian right. mccain apparently is someone who feels similarly. this should put the xtian righties quite at ease. after all, this is the sort of family values they extol in from southern baptist convention.
stomvsays
It wouldn’t kill you to spell out C-h-r-i-s-tian, and it’s also worth noting that Southern Baptists are facing a possible schism over politically charged social issues, and that not all in the so-called Christian right are even Southern Baptists.
<
p>I know tons of people who clearly are members of the Christian right who believe in earnest that the place of the wife is at the side of the husband, not before nor after, above nor below.
<
p>So please, there’s a kernal of truth there, but you’re hiding it behind some nasty tones and an awfully broad brush, and that isn’t fair.
p>[For whatever reason, soapblox was not allowing me to post an excerpt from this article in the comment space. Sorry for not including it.]
stomvsays
and it just feels out of place, especially when used in a post that overly-broadly criticizes Christians. Had she written the entire post in text-message language, that would be one thing [omg! xians r grrrl h8rs! ttyl] but choosing to use the Chi as a non-capitalized ‘x’ just seemed not much different than referring to the Democrat party. Not overly offensive, but sort of petty.
<
p>Just my opinion and observation and interpretation, of course.
tbladesays
..and Christian scholars still use. And Laurel tends not to capitalize much of anything.
<
p>As for your title, in the spirit of good-natured ribbing, I would say that Greek words and 1000-year-old+ nomenclature is used routinely here and yours is the first objection of this sort. Latin is also used here fairly frequently – BMG is not Latin!
laurelsays
trying to bail me out, but in truth i wasn’t trying to use the Greek Chi. i deliberately used “x” to spell “xtian”. the thing is, stomv, that i believe there are Christians, and then there are xtians. when i refer to xtians, i refer to people who use the bible to their own selfish ends of power, control and/or greed. this would currently include the hagees and dobsons of the world, as well as the official leadership of the southern baptist convention. most certainly there are southern baptists who are true Christians. i’ll venture to say that Jimmy Carter is the best known and perhaps most highly regarded among them. but i wasn’t talking about mccain’s appeal to true Christians of the Southern Baptist variety. i was talking about his appeal to this sort.
stomvsays
to what I thought you were getting at. The problem is that without that explanation, it’s not at all clear which subgroup of all people who consider themselves Christian you were writing about… and hence easy for folks [like me] to not see your differentiation.
<
p>Fair play on the non-caps though; you didn’t cap anything else in that post either.
laurelsays
i sometimes forget that i’m writing in cultural short hand. next time i use the term “xtian”, i’ll try to remember to link back to the explanation above.
centralmassdadsays
Too many anonymous sources.
<
p>Plus, it seems really, really sleazy, and is discordant in the context of the Obama campaign thus far.
<
p>I suspect that, even if true, this episode illuminates nothing other than that McCain spent a lot of time in the military, and consequently has a potty mouth.
<
p>In other words, BFD.
<
p>Just because this is the race appears to be a hell of a lot closer than Democrats think it ought to be, doesn’t mean that you should be at any-weapon-to-hand mode just yet.
<
p>You guys did the same thing to Romney, which dissipated the force of even reasonable arguments by putting them in the context of unhinged rants.
laurelsays
that’s what this boils down to and that’s why it is important. but i agree that we can disregard this report since mccain has said so quite clearly many times in well documented circumstances (thx tblade). mccunt in ’08!
kirthsays
McCain felt so comfortable at the event that he even volunteered his wife for the rally’s traditional beauty pageant, an infamously debauched event that’s been known to feature topless women.
“I encouraged Cindy to compete,” McCain said to cheers. “I told her with a little luck she could be the only woman ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip.”
that he didn’t actually answer the question with the very wholesome “yes” or the family valued “no” or even the work safe “I don’t recall.”
Certainly the bloggers on this page will demand irrefutable proof of such a charge or a similar charge leveled against BO.
<
p>Come on guys, time to be consistent!
…the three anonymous reporters cited used as sources by Schecter and campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. This can be put to rest by John McCain stating unequivocally that this did not happen and by getting on record the testimony of said witnesses.
<
p>It remains a very plausible rumor, especially in light of McCain’s history of sexism. See:
<
p>
<
p>Given his history, I don’t think it is was too much for that Baptist minister at the town hall meeting to expect an answer from McCain. All McCain has to do is state “I did not call my wife a trollop and c*** that day”. And if Cole and Gullett honetly did not hear McCain utter those insults, or if they are still loyal to McCain, they can deny it as well. That would force the unnamed sources to put up or shut up and no further legs would be given to the left on this story.
<
p>I file this in the plausible but unverified category. I’m not convinced he said it, but I don’t doubt the strong possibility that he did.
D’uh. It’s an extraordinary charge. If we make it without our ducks in order, we look obtuse dumb.
He and EaBo should blindly accept it and post it in every forum they can find. Don’t want to be inconsistent, right?
being quoted by a lifetime anti-conservative being quoted by a blog? I don’t believe this for the same reason I didn’t believe the Deval buying a private jet crap.
but the blog part is unnecessary. It’s being claimed by Cliff Schecter in print, who is quoting three unnamed reporters.
<
p>Yeah, it seems a stretch, but the linking is far tighter than you suggest.
I just don’t think it’s terribly important.
<
p>But as a supporter of Democrats, I’ll root for enough people to think otherwise and get upset by it, thereby helping Democrats.
A few weeks ago.
<
p>But as John wrote above, it didn’t seem verifiable. Maybe he said it, and maybe he didn’t. Absent any real proof, this seems like a lousy rumor to me. So I didn’t write about it. But I guess some people didn’t have any such reservations. This YouTube video may be more relevant than either of the two posted above:
<
p>
I found the full video … that was fake. I wanted to clear that up as soon as I found it.
link to it if ya can…
the video above doesn’t seem to space the words correctly according to the print on the screen [he couldn’t have inserted f*** that quickly]. It smells fake to me too, which is why linking the actual video serves as a nice rebuttal with fact.
Youtube. It’s 8 minutes but it’s at the end, he does lose it and walks off in the middle of questioning, pretty bizarre, but didn’t use any profanity.
what was McCain “shutting down” that she wanted to keep going, and why?
I’m not sure why this is important. Do we need to go looking for reasons not to like this guy? Seems to be plenty of reasons, in the public sphere, to think him offensive.. why we gotta delve into a supposedly private conversation? Icing on the cake? Ya know, I never really got bothered by George Bushes all-to-obvious alcholism or his past wilding days. I still boil over, however, when I think of his getting away with not going to Vietnam and THEN getting away with not even showing up to the Texas AG.
<
p>McCain? Same thing. I could care less about the language he uses in private. I care far far more, and with more knotted stomach and weepy eyes about his complete lack of backbone when it comes to torture. A real honest-to-god human would have ripped George Bush apart. (Yes, I mean that literally: if I was emasculated by Bush in the same way that McCain has been
and over torture, no lessI’d have marched into the Oval Office and thrown down without quarter. Not the right thing, this I know, but there it is…)<
p>I guess the point is just this: What does it matter? Reagan defeated Carter. Bush 41 beat Dukakis. Bush 43 beat Gore and Kerry. How many instances of a jackass defeating the able and stolid do you need to prove to you that moral condemnation is impotent in the face of the shameless? Every Republican victory in my lifetime has featured a demonstrably weak and fallow slut of a man gaining victory over a clearly upright person. Duh. Why is opprobrium going to work this time?
<
p>As for the language: I suppose I don’t like the word and I suppose I’m not supposed to use it… But I’m also a huge fan of some of the best TV ever… and I further suppose I can’t call myself a a fan and not be a hypocrite if I hold this against McCain. But just because he uses the word, don’t make him Al fucking Swearingen…
<
p>Or, as Swearingen did say: “For outright stupidity, the whole fucking trial goes shoulder to shoulder with that cocksucker Custer’s thinking when he went over that ridge. ”
It was in front of a bunch of reporters. Just FYI.
Even though I think McCain is perfectly capable of saying that to and about his wife, it’s pretty much hearsay. It’s also trivial when compared to what he did to his first wife:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…
and that is in the public record.
If you are, we should lock you up in a vietnamese pow camp for 5 years and then give you back to your wife and see if you’re the same person, regardless of anything that’s happened to her.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t bang several women that are not my wife upon return from 5 years in a torture camp (I’m not saying I would, either – I don’t know), but I’m not a social conservative, a member of the Christian right, or a member of the party of “family values”.
nobody is willing to consider that he might have had some serious PTSD or was just a different person when he came back.
<
p>Would he have been any better a person to have stayed with her and essentially lived a lie in the marriage?
…I’m saying I don’t care about a serviceman’s relationship with his wife, especially after living in a torture camp. That’s me and my morals.
<
p>But, McCain has cultivated a base from the rigid religious right. So many people use the Bible against homosexuality and so many other things they don’t like in a simplified all-or-nothing dichotomy and apply it to the way they see other people. One of the 10 Commandments is don’t commit adultery. Using the same rigid standards that many of his supporters use, McCain is no better than Bill Clinton or the boss who stays late with his secretary. McCain can be for “strong family values”, but his actions show otherwise. What’s the point of being a social conservative if you can say “Yeah, but John McCain is different…it doesn’t count for him”?
<
p>Like I said, might react the same way if I was away for 5 years (let alone tortured in a Vietnamese prison), but I’m not going to run as the favorite son of the Christian right. I’m not going to pay lip service to the 10 commandments or pretend to be all about “Strong family values”.
<
p>Hell, if John McCain did all this and never saw combat, I still wouldn’t care if he did all that stuff – relationships are messy things. Who am I to judge? But I thought it was interesting that someone tied to your faith as yourself could find a loophole in one of the commandments, especially for a guy courting the Christian right and following the GOP script on faith.
would think that the man who left his wife to fight for his country came back a different man. Not just broken physically, but to the core a different person. I would be one to think that the man his wife married was left back in that prison cell.
would agree that it’s inappropriate to cheat on your spouse, whether or not she’s lying in a hospital bed at the time. Furthermore, I think that a reasonable person would think that a person who did this sort of thing and then preached that others shouldn’t do that sort of thing was a hypocrite.
<
p>
<
p>If McCain was running on a platform that womanizing while married is a reasonable thing to do, that would be one thing. But, he’s used the “family” argument on everything from schools to adoption, and yet he couldn’t bother to keep his penis in his pants until he got a divorce.
means that McCain is not and can never be a family man? Even though it happened over 25 years ago? So much for forgiving and allowing people to redeem themselves.
…other teachings of the Bible should be approached with the same pragmatic exegesis that allows for modern understandings of the human condition and science and that the all-or-nothing polarizing that occurs in many issues where faith, politics and policy intersect is unreasonable.
and very few religious people I know are. However, I have met some, but those were evangelicals from the Midwest and south. Not many Catholics hold such a strict adherence without regard for the flawed condition of humanity.
Character is a constant….
<
p>
<
p>This is completely counter-textual, even slightly contrapuntal, when referencing Commander Character hisself… Which way you want it? Either he’s a man of character and his marriage vows mean something to him irrespective of the intervening stay at the Hanoi Hilton… Or he’s a mendacious stick-at-naught with pretensions of honor. Which way you want it?
<
p>I know which way it is and I’ll tell you… if you ask nice.
Here’s the nut, which they conveniently put on the last page:
<
p>Also, yes, I am married. Thank you for asking. Even though I am not a ‘family-values’ conservative, I have never cheated on my wife, nor would I abandon our marriage should she become ill or disabled. I also have not, and would not, abandon my moral principles to further my career.
<
p>I don’t think infidelity is necessarily a disqualification for high office, but what McCain did really stinks, and it says something about his approach to being a human being. Combined with his public actions, his handling of his private life tells me that he’d be a rotten President.
“his handling of his private life tells me that he’d be a rotten President. “
<
p>So how did you feel about Bill Clinton or Henry Cisneros, the former mayor of San Antonio and Clinton administration Cabinet member, or Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or Gavin Newsom? Does “not being from the party of family values” mean it’s OK to be unfaithful? Lets be consistent, there are plenty of creeps from BOTH parties. Makes Willard look like a pretty decent guy, eh?
You’ve successfully taken half of my statement and managed to pretend that it’s all I wrote. You’ll go far in the wingnut world – I’m sure of it!
<
p>Here’s the whole of that statement: Combined with his public actions, his handling of his private life tells me that he’d be a rotten President. See, it’s not just that he was an utter prick to the woman who obviously holds him in such high regard. It’s that he’s been a prick to everyone who doesn’t serve his agenda. That’s most of the US population. It’s not a new thing – see “Keating Five.”
<
p>The Daily Mail article includes character assessments by two well-known men who know him personally. They weren’t exactly damning him with faint praise. They came right out and said what they thought of him.
<
p>McCain spent a long time as a POW and suffered enormously. He deserves a lot of credit for that; he probably deserves a pass on a bunch of things that other men would be roundly criticized for. If you think it’s a great idea to have a short-tempered lobbyist tool with no discernible ethics as President, you’re entitled to that opinion. I don’t share it.
and line after line about his infidelity. In the context of this thread and the majority of your post, I commented on that part of your statement upon which which you have elaborated, and I did it without any name-calling. But you never addressed my questions.
<
p>If YOU think it’s a great idea to have a limited experienced, empty suit, ego-maniac for President, you’re entitled to that opinion. I don’t share it.
as I recommended. There’s some public actions, for a start.
Your first post said nothing about the Keating five incident. I don’t have to look it up, I remember it, and I’m not happy about that aspect of McCain’s background. You wouldn’t get an argument from me if THAT was the reason you choose another candidate. But back to this thread.
You you still haven’t answered my questions.
FWIW it would be THERE ARE not THERE IS.
You mean these?
<
p>1. I do not care much about those people, because A: They are not running for President; B: None of them, so far as I know, dumped their wives because of disabilities; C: With one exception, I never had a chance to vote them into or out of office.
<
p>2. No, not being a “family-values” conservative (which is what I actually wrote) means that you’re not quite as big a douchebag hypocrite if you cheat on your wife. It doesn’t mean it’s OK to be unfaithful. If you’d been paying attention, you’d have seen where I mentioned that I’d never done that, and if you were really sharp, you’d pick up on the implication that it has something to do with morality.
<
p>3. If by ‘Willard,’ you’re referring to Mitt Romney, it makes him look like a faithful husband. That can be one component of being a decent guy. It can’t be the only component, unless you’re simple.
<
p>My first comment didn’t say anything about the Keating 5 because at that point, the thread was all about McCain’s personal life. What’s your point?
I haven’t been rude to you. Why do you insist on implying that I am “simple” or stating “If you’d been paying attention,” or saying I’d go far in the “wingnut” world, I’d rather discuss the thread, not my personal attributes. While I may be “from the dark-side” politically, I ALWAYS try and remain polite here and show respect to those whom I visit, even while in disagreement, otherwise I’d have called you a dork. But I didn’t. That’s all.
Really?
I wrote
which you made into
and that’s your idea of respectful? You don’t like having your attributes talked about, how about having misquoting and misrepresenting other peoples’ words not be among your attributes? You keep saying I should stick to the thread, then you make some off-the-wall distortion of what I write in response to your last off-the-wall distortion, and I should be ‘polite’ like you supposedly are? You’re not. Your debating tactics are dishonest and yes, disrespectful. That started with your very first comment in this thread, and it is not something I have any patience for.
You write a post about how John McCain has treated his wives in a thread about how John McCain treated his wives and state that this is partly why you could not support him. I asked you if you felt the same way about Democrats who also have issues regarding their marriages and you complain that my question didn’t address the 1/2 of 1 sentence which had nothing to do with the thread or your comments. Then you begin the name calling and personal attacks and complain about MY debating tactics. Here it is. Do you give the Dems a pass because you’re a Dem? Do you hold politicians of your own persuasion to a lower standard? Sounds like it to me but I’m simple.
What do you know about his private life aside from this? Did you know he’s been married longer than I’ve been alive? Did you know he adopted a 3 month old child from Bangladesh who needed out of the country for medical treatment? Did you know one of his sons is in Iraq and another is in the Naval Academy?
<
p>Frankly, the only person who has the right to bemoan that divorce was his ex wife, and even she speaks well of him.
Since I never knew you were alive, let alone how long you’d managed to be that way, I did not know that McCain has been married longer than that. Assuming you’re talking only about his second marriage, I guess that means he’s been incredibly rich longer than you’ve been alive, too. As for the rest of your insider tips, yes, I did know those things.
<
p>Did you know his son came safely back from Iraq in February, after serving half a tour? It seems that some miscreant in the press published the fact that PFC Jimmy was in country, and McCain Senior blew a gasket. He thought his son was made a special target by having it known he was over there. That’s why John’s own visits to Iraq, like Bush’s and other high members of government, were never announced in advance. Well, except for Obama. Apparently, McCain felt Obama was intrinsically bulletproof, or something, so it was OK for McCain to tell everyone OB was going.
…knew that the savior was making a campaign stop in Iraq. McCain had nothing to do with it.
<
p>Nice try, though.
Perhaps you could supply a link to some news report or announcement that precedes McCain’s speech. If you can’t do that, I’d say you’re full of it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
<
p>
In terms of the campaign, anecdotes like this one are very useful for undermining McCain’s “moderate” pretensions. Some people might remember that his voting record is a very immoderate 100% anti-choice, but it would be easier to remember that he called his second wife a c*** in front of reporters.
<
p>It’s sort of a mnemonic aid.
<
p>George Bush is caught on camera flipping the bird. Does it undermine his moderate pretension? No. Consequences for the election? Nil.
<
p>George Bush mocks a death row inmate (and fellow Christian) directly to a reporter. Does this undermine his moderate pretensions? No. Consequences for the election? Nil. Dubya gets religion and stops drinking, turns his life around and all that… Karla Faye Tucker does the same exact thing and all she deserves (says he) is scorn. Flip-flop.
<
p>George Bush defeats Al Gore with pretensions of moderation. Spends four years governing with a hard right incompetence unmatched since Herbert Hoover. Re-elected.
<
p>Shall I go on?
<
p> When has such a tactic (against a Republican) EVER worked? Ever? (I’ll grant that it works quite often against a Dem/Liberal but a double standard isn’t a double edge… )
<
p>
One of the problems off of the primary is that there appear to be a number of Democrats who haven’t migrated from Senator Clinton’s camp to Senator Obama’s despite Senator Hillary leaving some very delicious and tasty bread crumbs to get them there. A month ago, I recall seeing polling that indicated Obama hadn’t quite sewn up the Democratic base even to the degree Senator Kerry had. Also, as the McCain campaign will happily crow to you, Senator McCain does much better than Mr Generic Republican. That suggests that there’s a certain kind of work to be done.
<
p>So we might be in the unusual position of needing to appeal to usually Democratic voters in order to convince them that McCain is bad for women and bad for the environment despite what his handlers in the Press would have you believe. This little anecdote is useful on the former issue.
<
p>Yes, you are very correct in talking about the double standard that has prevailed in the Press to the benefit of Republicans and their “unimpeachable characters”. Yes, yes, yes, Republicans are all dripping with authenticity, know exactly how ordinary people feel, and can connect so much better than any Democrat. I’ve noticed that too.
<
p>Nonetheless there are a few things that are different in ’08:
It’s difficult to figure out what to do with this material. The Obama campaign is not going to touch it — and they shouldn’t. Probably it’s our job to hound the press until it does touch it.
How many instances of a jackass defeating the able and stolid do you need to prove to you that moral condemnation is impotent in the face of the shameless?
<
p>Wait, what makes you think they’re shameless? Because they aren’t checking into McClain’s? I think the way they carried their shame was what people liked about it. Kind of like Frank Gifford on Monday Night Football just always looking out at the field, never at the camera, for that whole season after his affair. You’re not supposed to try to get out of it and unload it on the public with a good speech at a press conference or a medical diagnosis.
<
p>I think there is a corollary to the “republican’s shouldn’t try comedy” rule, which is “liberals shouldn’t try moral condemnation”. As you say, it’s hypocritical. But see: You should be hypocritical, and that’s what liberals don’t get. At least, you should if you are not perfect, which no one is, but only liberals think they have to be. In fact, thinking that you have to be perfect is like the cause of being a liberal. And that’s why liberals don’t like “imposed morality”, because they won’t be perfect under it. Nor would anyone be, but non-libs accept that they don’t measure up.
<
p>Instances, still waiting for one.
From the NewsMax story David referenced:
Later:
Media bias:
I’ve also heard stories of how the Arizona media has a much less positive view of McCain than the national one does. This story describes that and points to why that might be.
<
p>Another source on McCain’s temper is this Washington Post article.
think about it. keeping the wife in her place is important to the xtian right. mccain apparently is someone who feels similarly. this should put the xtian righties quite at ease. after all, this is the sort of family values they extol in from southern baptist convention.
It wouldn’t kill you to spell out C-h-r-i-s-tian, and it’s also worth noting that Southern Baptists are facing a possible schism over politically charged social issues, and that not all in the so-called Christian right are even Southern Baptists.
<
p>I know tons of people who clearly are members of the Christian right who believe in earnest that the place of the wife is at the side of the husband, not before nor after, above nor below.
<
p>So please, there’s a kernal of truth there, but you’re hiding it behind some nasty tones and an awfully broad brush, and that isn’t fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X…
<
p>[For whatever reason, soapblox was not allowing me to post an excerpt from this article in the comment space. Sorry for not including it.]
and it just feels out of place, especially when used in a post that overly-broadly criticizes Christians. Had she written the entire post in text-message language, that would be one thing [omg! xians r grrrl h8rs! ttyl] but choosing to use the Chi as a non-capitalized ‘x’ just seemed not much different than referring to the Democrat party. Not overly offensive, but sort of petty.
<
p>Just my opinion and observation and interpretation, of course.
..and Christian scholars still use. And Laurel tends not to capitalize much of anything.
<
p>As for your title, in the spirit of good-natured ribbing, I would say that Greek words and 1000-year-old+ nomenclature is used routinely here and yours is the first objection of this sort. Latin is also used here fairly frequently – BMG is not Latin!
trying to bail me out, but in truth i wasn’t trying to use the Greek Chi. i deliberately used “x” to spell “xtian”. the thing is, stomv, that i believe there are Christians, and then there are xtians. when i refer to xtians, i refer to people who use the bible to their own selfish ends of power, control and/or greed. this would currently include the hagees and dobsons of the world, as well as the official leadership of the southern baptist convention. most certainly there are southern baptists who are true Christians. i’ll venture to say that Jimmy Carter is the best known and perhaps most highly regarded among them. but i wasn’t talking about mccain’s appeal to true Christians of the Southern Baptist variety. i was talking about his appeal to this sort.
to what I thought you were getting at. The problem is that without that explanation, it’s not at all clear which subgroup of all people who consider themselves Christian you were writing about… and hence easy for folks [like me] to not see your differentiation.
<
p>Fair play on the non-caps though; you didn’t cap anything else in that post either.
i sometimes forget that i’m writing in cultural short hand. next time i use the term “xtian”, i’ll try to remember to link back to the explanation above.
Too many anonymous sources.
<
p>Plus, it seems really, really sleazy, and is discordant in the context of the Obama campaign thus far.
<
p>I suspect that, even if true, this episode illuminates nothing other than that McCain spent a lot of time in the military, and consequently has a potty mouth.
<
p>In other words, BFD.
<
p>Just because this is the race appears to be a hell of a lot closer than Democrats think it ought to be, doesn’t mean that you should be at any-weapon-to-hand mode just yet.
<
p>You guys did the same thing to Romney, which dissipated the force of even reasonable arguments by putting them in the context of unhinged rants.
that’s what this boils down to and that’s why it is important. but i agree that we can disregard this report since mccain has said so quite clearly many times in well documented circumstances (thx tblade). mccunt in ’08!
<
p>http://politicalticker.blogs.c…
<
p>That ought to be “Mrs. Buffalo Chip,” right? Which would make John “Mr. Buffalo Chip.” Straight talk, eh?