When last we met on this topic, dinesh repeated to us some lies about McCain and the Keating Five that he found at a site called McCainKeatingFive.
dinesh did retract one of the lies, though not all of them. A shame.
However, I went to set the record straight at the source, and posted the comment below. It was deleted. I posted it again. I suspect it will be deleted again. But here it is, for those who care.
This article is full of lies.Let's start with the fact that McCain was NOT formally rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee. On the contrary, the Committee explicitly stated that there would be no institutional action taken against McCain.
Further, McCain never admitted to intentionally filing a false tax return. It didn't happen. You're completely making that up. There is not a single shred of evidence or even a hearsay statement that McCain's neglect of putting those gifts on his tax returns was intentional.
Further, to rectify the tax gifts problem, he never gave any money to the Treasury: he instead reimbursed Keating for the gifts. The money he paid to the Treasury had nothing to do with his taxes, but was the money that Keating had raised for McCain, that McCain was literally donating to the U.S. government.
Basically, whoever is running this site is telling a boatload of lies. They clearly do not understand what actually happened, and are twisting the few things they do know just to slander someone, irrespective of facts and truth.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 08, 2008 09:16 AM | Email ThisI hear all too often from the Dems (and more often surrogates) that they are going to "Swiftboat" McCain in retaliation for the successful 2004 campaign by the vets against Kerry.
So far their attempts look amateurish at best and lack credibility. The Keating Five stuff is a good example of this.
I may be wrong, but it seems that negative ads aren't working so well this time around. The WA Gov ones from the queen are a good example of really lame negative ads that are so bad they are more likely to give Rossi more votes than they take.
And what's this with Obama's constant whining about negative ads from McCain? I haven't seen any that are anything more than simple comparison. Negative ads don't provide comparison, but just harp on a candidates negative qualities, votes, or positions.
Posted by: deadwood on August 8, 2008 09:48 AMYou're right I think ... it's worth debunking, but not worth getting caught up in.
Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2008 09:55 AMComing from you by default I presume it is a lie ...
Seriously, nothing you say is worth even bothering caring about, because you have proven yourself completely willing to just make things up. Maybe what you say is true, maybe it isn't, but unless someone who isn't a huge liar says it, it's not worth caring about.
Strike 3, your out!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 8, 2008 11:32 AMI took those facts (?) about Cindy McCain's "investment" with Keating from the McCain-Keating site that you linked to. Since you have not called those allegations "lies", and have instead focused on the relatively minor issue of McCain's false income tax returns, I was curious what you thought was the actual truth concerning the Cindy McCain-Keating "investment".
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 8, 2008 11:50 AMYou aren't getting it. I do not care what you say, because you're a liar. So there's absolutely nothing you can possibly say to make me care, because by definition, if you say it, I don't care!
But Pudge doesn't care about anything he doesn't like to hear. Fortunately, most voters in this country don't care about what Pudge doesn't care about.
I do not care to listen to known liars, like you and Richard Pope. For example, what you just said McCain did is, in fact, another lie.
Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2008 12:45 PMAnother dem bites the dust
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 8, 2008 01:03 PMGo ahead, deny it. Call me a liar all you want to. Millions of American voters are laughing at you.
You're a p--sy, Pudge. You can dish it out but you can't take it. You're the perfect little conservative, aren't you?
Posted by: ivan on August 8, 2008 01:07 PMI know you want a story, but that isn't it.
PS care to speak about Edwards. Mr. I love my wife for 30+ years.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 8, 2008 01:10 PMAnd ivan, how on earth do you come up with, "You can dish it out but you can't take it"? What exactly am I dishing out that you have a problem with, other than truth? And what is it that I can't "take," other than lies?
Well, of course, Democrats are accusing every McCain ad of being negative.
But let's demonstrate how they think:
Obama: "Hope! Change!"
Daily Kos: "Yah!"
McCain Camp: "Uhh, he didn't really say anything."
Daily Kos Crowd: "AHH!!! NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING! STONE HIM!"
McCain Camp: "But, he actually didn't say anything. I'm just saying we should talk about the issues and not run on who's prettier."
Daily Kos Crowd: "Oh yah? Well what's so great about your plan?"
McCain Camp: "Well, I think we should drill/surge/etc. (insert McCain proposal here.)"
Daily Kos Crowd: "Your plan is a tool of oppressive capitalism!"
McCain Camp: "Uhh, OK, whatever. It's better then Obama's plan, which doesn't exist."
Daily Kos Crowd: "AHHH! NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING!!! STONE HIM!!!"
What is it about loon leftists that renders them utterly unable to distinguish between a joke and reality?
Or facts, and utter b..lsh.t?
Poor Ivan, poor Richard Pope, both attempting to deal with real life when so utterly crippled by ideology..
Oh well, I guess that is what mental health services are for....
Posted by: Hank on August 8, 2008 01:36 PMNow we know why Obama went on vacation.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 8, 2008 01:39 PMBut he and Bill can laught about it in a bar together.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 8, 2008 02:01 PMSucks to be him.
I should note a good friend of mine told me a long time ago, long before any revelations about this were known, that he was a "cheater." Kinda "funny" how he just has this bad vibe to a lot of people, comes across as a used car salesman, just the type of person who WOULD have an affair. That is not my view per se, but a view of people I know, and I think it is interesting and worth noting.
But, he's not running for office, so this doesn't really matter to me, except, of course, in using it to rebut claims about how relatively evil and immoral Republicans are. It's a shame that it comes to that, and both sides are to blame, but ... that's the way it goes, I guess.
What a resume enhancement! Dying wife, affair, baby, serial liar......why, almost as good as Jesse Jackson!!
Surely this puts Edwards solidly back in the running for VP!!
Ivan probably thinks this is a product of the right wing attackkk machine.
Posted by: Hank on August 8, 2008 02:03 PMThen he makes a comment about "Republican moral rectitude", and two sentences later calls Pudge a "p--sy".
Do our friends on the left seem even more angry and unhinged as the election nears?
It sure can't help their cause now that John Edwards has been revealed to be the lying slimeball we knew he was.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2008 02:21 PMHey ivan...how about that LEFTIST PINHEAD Johnny Edwards. What a dirtball. His wife is ill with cancer. He repeatedly lies to the press.
Typical Democrat.
On this issue it was DC Attorney Robert Bennett, on Fox News, who stated that McCain was included in the Keating Five investigation solely to make it a bipartisan scandal. The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and John Glenn be dropped from the investigation because there was no evidence that they had done anything but meet with Keating, while 3 other Democrats had made improper requests to federal regulators. Democrats ignored Bennett's recommendation, allegedly blocking the dismissal of McCain simply because he was a Republican. And John Glenn was included in the probe simply because Democrats couldn't let him go if they were going to refuse to let McCain go. On Fox, Bennett claimed that he never saw any evidence that McCain had done anything improper whatsoever.
Remember, this is the same Robert Bennett, brother of William Bennett, who defended Clinton and his cronies during the Clinton years. By no means a guy anyone would call a friend of Republicans.
Posted by: Reality on August 8, 2008 03:10 PMAlong with McCain, Gingrich, Giuliani, Vitter, Jeb Bush, Lieberman, Fosella, and other Republicans, eh?
Seems like the two Democrats have a LOT of company on the other side of the aisle.
Posted by: demo kid on August 8, 2008 04:26 PMIf you're not careful, the mental hospital is going to revoke your furlough privileges. Any normal five year old that sees that video will understand that McCain was joking.
Let's hear it for the moral rectitude of your boy John Edwards, Ivan. While his wife is dying of cancer, he is out banging some cheap slut. Edwards has shown the he is completely without conscience or concern for his family or anyone but himself.
Posted by: NW Denizen on August 8, 2008 04:53 PMWhat pleases me is that Edwards and the Democrats are serial liars that get a daily pass from their sympathetic media buddies.
I get so sick of their "I just met someone today who, (a) can't even afford gas to look for a job, (b) is a veteran who lives under a bridge, or (c) is a single mom who can't afford health care" lies they tell over and over in their stump speeches.
The fear-mongering jerk that tried to push his "two Americas" anti-business agenda while living in a 28,000 square foot house is getting just what he deserves.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2008 05:12 PMJust like Gingrich, eh?
@37: The fear-mongering jerk that tried to push his "two Americas" anti-business agenda while living in a 28,000 square foot house is getting just what he deserves.
Why exactly does that matter to you? You'd denigrate anyone with that message, or heck, anyone that suggests that maybe selfishness and greed shouldn't be incorporated into public policy.
Posted by: demo kid on August 8, 2008 06:20 PMI do not relish in his hardships, but it may be worthy of note that this is one more way in which his life does not match his stated morals.
I WOULD, however, like to ask John Kerry something. Kerry said -- in an obvious bald-faced lie -- that John McCain has changed significantly in the last four years, and that John McCain today "is not the John McCain I knew."
So I'd like to ask John Kerry if John Edwards today "is not the John Edwards he knew."
Simple question, no? :-) If he IS the Edwards he knew, why'd he pick him as VP candidate? If he is NOT, then why should we trust his judgment since apparently he is not a very good judge of character, by his own admission.
And what is it about Dem VP candidates embarassing the party? Edwards had an affair, Lieberman fled the party, Gore went insane ...
If you believe that Obama, Hillary, Gore, and Edwards aren't selfish, greedy people, demo kid, I don't think there is a therapy group anywhere than can help you.
John Edwards, the ambulance chasing politician appears more sleezy than Bill Clinton and I feel for his wife. He is to be pitied, and it could affect other Democrats running in November, like the sleeze from Republicans affected them in 2006. The MSM hid this story for as long as possible after the paparazzi spotted Edewards in LA a few weeks ago, which tells me that they are worse than Pravda. For the record -all other Republicans who philandered while married are sleeze, as well as Mark Foley, plus Bob Packwood, former US Senator from Oregon is right amongst them.
Posted by: KS on August 8, 2008 06:49 PMLet's see -- John Edwards cheating on his ill, disabled wife, then apologizing and working to restore his marriage. How terrible!
Almost as bad John McCain cheating on his ill, disabled first wife, but dumping her completely in favor of playing the field, and eventually scoring with the incredibly rich and gorgeous "Miss Buffalo Chip" Cindy Hensley McCain.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 8, 2008 07:24 PMYou've become a mere shadow of your former self. Like Obama, you've simply gone where the political winds blow. At first, you were anti-Dem. Now you've become a rabid Goldy-ite? Gimme a break.
The more scathing indictment in the Edwards affair is that it proves the Left Wing bias of the news media. Even the New York Times is having to admit that they heard the story, but didn't pursue it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/business/media/09media.html?ref=business
Posted by: ObamaNation on August 8, 2008 07:35 PMNational Enquirer 1, LA Times 0
That's a fact!
Also at Wizbang, a fellow every conservative Republican running for office should contact:
Awesome.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 8, 2008 07:37 PMCarol McCain has admitted that their marriage could not and did not stand the test of time and distance apart. She also said "John was turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again."
He met Cindy while LEGALLY separated from Carol. He did however obtain marriage license while before the divorce was final. Yes John, that was tacky.
"I have a very good relationship with my first wife," McCain said. In his autobiography, he wrote that "my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine"
Divorce is ugly. Lying about someone elses divorce when you can never be privy to what went on in the privacy of their marriage is uglier.... and to do so soley to score points in politcal gotcha is ugliest of all.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 8, 2008 07:52 PM
"I have a very good relationship with my first wife," McCain said. In his autobiography, he wrote that "my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine
I doubt an eye doctor could help you with 'willful blindness' COMMU kid.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 8, 2008 08:17 PMAsk the average 20-year old what party Lincoln belonged to and I'll bet you they'll answer, "Democrat".
That's why I prefer to call them by their real name, the Slavery Party. After all, it was the Democrats who tried to sustain slavery, who formed the KKK, who counts KKK members amongst their most esteemed politicians, who opposed the civil rights act, who opposed the voting rights act, who created Jim Crow, and on and on...
And now seek to enslave all by their attempt to wrap the chains of taxation, wealth redistribution, and energy restrictions around all our necks.
They're not the Democrats - they're the Slavers.
Oh, and back on topic... Amazing how the clowns here - Richard "I cannot win a race or not tell a lie" Pope, Slavery Party Kid, I-vana-brain Ivan - simply have to change the focus of the thread, since it's quite obvious their lies about McCain are just that.
Rather than staying positive the Obama cult members simply have to result to attacks, because their own leader has zero experience, no plan, and no substance.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 8, 2008 09:09 PMLook kid, I am going to explain this one more time. I know it has been stated on this blog before, and I am sure you have read it. Either it is not sinking in, or you are just too narrow minded to understand. Anyway, I'll give it one more try.
Republicans tend to clean their own house. Democrats don't. With Democrats, it's anything goes. Liberals continue to support and reelect Democrats no matter what they might have done. Rapist...no problem, we'll reelect you. Child molester...no problem, we'll reelect you. Killed a girl with you car...no problem, we'll reelect you. Embezzled money...no problem, we'll reelect you. Cheated on your spouse...no problem, we'll reelect you. Racist...no problem, we'll reelect you. Destroy the economy...no problem, we'll reelect you.
Seriously, why don't you do a bit of studying about the history of the Republican and Democrat parties, and then come back here and tell us how proud you are to be a Democrat.
Right. Because on the left, the ends justify the means. On the left it is about establishing a Progressive State with more European style collectivism, a much higher tax rate, much more statism, etc. Ethics are not a factor. Economic feasibility is not a factor. Individual rights are not a factor. All that can be bulldozed over in favor of the expanding state.
Whereas on the right, we seek a balance between government and the governed. It may not always be right, but there is room for rational discussion. And pragmatism, economics, individual rights, the Constitution, ethics, morality, etc. all play a role in a philosophy of limited government which requires some personal responsibility.
When the Nanny State of the left is going to railroad right over personal responsibility and assume that all plastic bags are bad, or that trains are the only way to solve transportation problems, the outcome is not going to be success, because holding a gun to the head of the electorate is never going to be as successful as incentivizing and encouraging long-term effective habits.
So the left will just keep on electing whoever gives them the most political expediency of the moment. They knew Clinton was lying like a rug, but they looked the other way. Everyone is expendable on the left. As long as they get to the Statist goal.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 9, 2008 09:50 AMThe story is the MSM having to look themselves in the mirror ...and seeing nothing reflected back. The New York Slimes is busy claiming its a story in the headline and even busier making excuses in the story itself: Move along here, there's nothing to see.".
I guess they missed the part where this vacous moron could have been VP or (horrors) President and his behaviour would lead him open for blackamil.
I guess they missed the part where he, through his campaign, did indeed pay his new toy $100K. Hush money? Child support? Blackmail? Hello, hello, NYT?! Anyone there???
I guess they missed the part where he stood and accepted Father of the Year, while playing with his new, non-cancerous, no chemo affects toy.
I guess they forgot the look down your nose comments he made about that OTHER smarmy, self-indulgent democrat with his pants under someone elses bed when he wass TRIPPed up by a stained blue dress.
"I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."
I guess they choose to ignore that the story came forward because the smarmy, self-indulgent democrat was putting his pants under someone elses bed at 2am in a LA Hotel... LAST MONTH!
I guess that while hie magnamimoulsy offered to take a DNA test, he also said he would no longer speak puplicly about his pants under somone elses bed. Does anyone elese notice that this declaration neatly excludes him from ever revealing the results of that test??
At least one guy at the LA Times, who refused to cover the story and went so far as threaten their bloggers into not discussing it, has recognized they are now dinosaurs.
With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana.
At least the New York Post is telling it like it is:
JOHN EDWARDS, SLEAZE.
Kirsten Powers, (that liberal cutie guest host at Fox) weigns in with HE WAS ALWAYS A FAKE.
Finally, I truly hope that the New York Observer IS prescient:
The End of John Edwards.
Go away Con Edwards, go and feel pretty much like the smarmy ass you have repeatedly proven yourself to be.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 9, 2008 11:09 AMTiming IS everything: "Move along here, there's nothing to see!".
I wondered if we'd ever see a revelation of this sort from/about the skinny one... but then a talk show host commented that he's probably too afraid that Michelzilla would cut off his snickers and hang them in the mansion.
Does the WA Secretary of State require a birth certificate before a Presidential candidate is placed on the general election ballot, in compliance with the Constitution of the United States?
It has popped back up today that BO has dual citizenship: Kenya and USA, fascinating. Good old BO is probably more proud of being a Kenyan citizen than a US citizen.....
Posted by: Hank on August 9, 2008 12:27 PMThank you Pretty Pony for making this Saturday in the doldrums of August so much fun!
Jenn of the Jungle has a pictoral message for the Silky Pony.
American Thinker covers the snarkiness of That Paternity Test offer
...that Edwards could take all the paternity tests in the world but if there is no matching test obtained from the child in question, there would be nothing to match it to. ... There is no father listed on the birth certificate so that makes Ms. Hunter the sole legal representative of the baby, and the only person who can submit that child for genetic testing to obtain a possible matching sample. And is Ms. Hunter likely to do that when she considers the possibility that she may someday be Mrs. Edwards, wife of one of the wealthiest trial attorneys in America? And there are news reports that she has indeed alluded to such a future with Mr. Silky Pony when he is no longer matrimonially encumbered.
Ouch!
And the Nose on Your Face has the exclusive Brit Hume interview with Con Edwards... complete with mammogram and a long-lost, sexually-addicted twin brother and "Irresponsibly Gorgeous Hair"!
Follow the links for
"Phone Transcript: Elizabeth Edwards Apologizing To Hillary Clinton"
and
"I Channeled Baby And It's Not Mine"
The Silky Pony Admits To Lesbian Affair With Rielle Hunter: Mainstream Media & Daily Kos Hardest Hit
B-Ho has bee silent.
LMAO!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 9, 2008 12:32 PMAgain, great apology, but this really doesn't advocate for the idea that Republicans are the party of "personal responsibility".
@53: That's why I prefer to call them by their real name, the Slavery Party.
Calling the Democrats the "slavery" party is quite like calling the Republicans the "gold standard" party or talking about how the Democrats favored war with Mexico. Party affiliation and party philsophies are far from constants. In fact, as I recall, some prominent Dixiecrats switched sides to the Republicans after desegregation.
Oh, and back on topic... Amazing how the clowns here - Richard "I cannot win a race or not tell a lie" Pope, Slavery Party Kid, I-vana-brain Ivan - simply have to change the focus of the thread, since it's quite obvious their lies about McCain are just that.
Lies? No... there are definite concerns about how much influence lobbyists have over McCain. To be honest, this is a pretty lightweight example for McCain, because he did not really have his hand in the cookie jar in this case. Proof isn't linked to this page, so I'm not certain about the veracity of pudge's claims, but even without that, he wasn't penalized by Congress for all this.
However, the fact that there are an excessive number of lobbyists on his campaign staff, including some that were forced out because of conflicts of interest, is most certainly an issue in my mind. Same with the number of contributions from lobbyists and trade groups. The New York Times piece in February has effectively immunized the guy against most criticism in this regard (as well as the hew and cry about a minor issue like Rezko), but that doesn't mean that this should be off the table.
In the end, the news media and punditocracy are giving McCain a free pass by focusing on the wrong issues here.
@56: Republicans tend to clean their own house. Democrats don't. With Democrats, it's anything goes. Liberals continue to support and reelect Democrats no matter what they might have done.
Alright, let me explain this one more time, and hopefully, it'll sink in.
First of all, I'm certainly not going to defend every single Democrat from charges. Don't think that the moniker means that I'm going to defend the likes, of, say, Bill Jefferson, David Scott or John Murtha, and yes, ABSCAM and the Keating Five did net Democrats. So on one level, you're right... but its not just about Democrats or Republicans here. Any time you have that much influence, money and power floating around one place, it's inevitable that there will be some wrongdoing. Not only that, but if you're a politician, odds are that you have to have the ego that would place you in many of these compromising positions.
I'm not exactly certain what you mean by "cleaning house". If you're talking about resignations, for example, I believe that Larry Craig and David Vitter are still technically in office, and the likes of Bob Packwood only left so that they could be kept from being thrown out by Congress. There also doesn't seem to be a grassroots movement in certain districts to remove the likes of, say, Ken Calvert, who is clearly a corrupt and self-serving politician, and Jerry Lewis is still running for office even while under criminal investigation.
Of course, using Bill Jefferson as an example of "not cleaning house" is great, but the House Democrats have effectively stripped him of most of his power on committees, which is all that they can do without a conviction here. The guy is a political powerhouse in his home district, and considering that the local Democratic Party couldn't unify at that level to field a better candidate against him is not really the fault of Democrats at large.
The bigger issue is with consistency, hypocrisy and blatant pandering. If you want to be solidly religious or libertarian, that's great. Be as socially conservative as you want, and hate the current institutions of government as much as you want. However, if you're running on a platform that specifically attempts to suggest to your consitutents that your opponent does not champion "family values", while you're off in a diaper in some madam's dungeon, that's just fraud. If your party presents itself as lone fighters against government waste and your state is the beneficiary of federal earmarks, that's just fraud. If your party touts itself as fiscally responsible while running up government debt, that's fraud. Fearmongering and misrepresenting yourself to pander to the electorate is not the sign of a noble party.
Again, are the Democrats different? Not in some cases, and hey, I'll admit to being quite disappointed when they come up. However, if you're going to spout off about how the Republicans are "better" and how the Democrats are "worse" in terms of professional ethics, you've got another thing coming.
Posted by: demo kid on August 9, 2008 12:46 PMI am often left speechless by the lack of rational discussion from the right, especially when dissenting opinions are dismissed as "unpatriotic" or "socialist" out of hand. Virtually the only consistent political messages coming from the Republican Party are that greed is good, and that no one should have any responsibility to their country or to the people around them.
@58: Wow... you know, this might all matter if Edwards was the nominee. But like I said above, he'll have a lot of company in amongst similarly disgraced Republicans. Perhaps Newt Gingrich will be able to give him advice on how to salvage a career after you cheat on a wife dying of cancer?
@61: And you do realize, of course, that "funny" for conservatives is not *really* funny, right? I've seen more wit and brilliance from third-graders.
Posted by: demo kid on August 9, 2008 12:51 PMhttp://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71143
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=149_1199587542
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4353
http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/08/09/obama-and-odinga-the-true-story/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvLV3d1Eq4&eurl
http://iperceive.net/obama-odinga-the-kenyan-jihad/
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-and-odinga.html
Sen. Obama travels throughout the world apologizing for the sins our country has supposedly committed. He is embarrassed because Americans speak only English, forgetting that the rest of the world is only too anxious to learn and speak our language, the language of freedom and success. He claims that we are bitter, disillusioned and frustrated, forced to carry guns and go to church. Just this week, while campaigning in Elkhart, Ind., he told a 7-year-old girl that America is no longer what it could be, what it once was.
When was the last time he said something good and positive about our great country? His wife tells us that only now has she come to be proud of America.
Obama's message is one of "change." Indeed, what is there to change? If this nation is as bad as they say it is, why do they even want to stayPosted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 9, 2008 12:56 PM
Why the Democrats run ads claiming Republicans are "against children", and "against the poor", and "against the elderly".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 9, 2008 01:04 PM"I have a very good relationship with my first wife," McCain said. In his autobiography, he wrote that "my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine."
Nice try COMMU kid.... despicable and cowarly but hey, you tried.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 9, 2008 01:05 PMI'm afraid I'll have to ask you for some examples, demo kid. When has any Republican politician said such a thing?
Otherwise one might accuse you of "lack of rational discussion". Or at the very least a lack of facts
MORE convenient and DISHONEST cherry picking from COMMU kid!
CON Edwards was CONstantly and repeatedly reported to be on the short list for VP. He WAS also condsidered to be a demo hot shot with a prime time speaking slot at the B-Ho annointing in Denver.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 9, 2008 01:11 PMbut this really doesn't advocate for the idea that Republicans are the party of "personal responsibility".
OK, so doing something wrong, confessing the transgression and owning up to it is NOT personal responsibility? Then PLEASE define for us what the Leftists/Marxists consider personal responsibility. I'm interested, since for most breathing people admitting and owning your mistakes would be considered personal responsibility.
Calling the Democrats the "slavery" party is quite like calling the Republicans the "gold standard" party or talking about how the Democrats favored war with Mexico.
The facts are there - the Democrats ARE the party of Slavery. Pure and simple. From the beginning and through today. It's called "Personal Responsibility". Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that concept!
So when do we see you write that the Democrats were the sponsors of slavery, fought a war to keep slavery, created the KKK, created Jim Crow, and fought against the civil rights and voting rights acts?
Lies? No... there are definite concerns about how much influence lobbyists have over McCain.
Influence only in your mind. The special prosecutor tried to drop McCain from the issue because HE WASN'T INVOLVED, but the Democrats couldn't let themselves be rightfully the only ones shown to be liars and thieves, so they had to include someone.
Of course, that lack of personal responsibility comes forth... Maybe if the Democrats who WERE censured and convicted had some personal responsibility neither John McCain or John Glenn would have been wrongfully attacked (and attacked against the recommendations and wishes of the prosecutor). Party trumps personal responsibility every time for the Slavery party!
However, the fact that there are an excessive number of lobbyists on his campaign staff, including some that were forced out because of conflicts of interest, is most certainly an issue in my mind.
Then I am sure you are shaken to your core knowing that more money has come from ExxonMobil to Obama than has to McCain. Or that Obama has dozens of lobbyists on his staff, and accepts more PAC money than McCain.
And the quaking must increase when Nancy Pelosi - the leader of the Democrat Party - is her husband's own best lobbyist, channeling billions of dollars of contracts right to his companies.
Shaken, indeed!
I am often left speechless by the lack of rational discussion from the right, especially when dissenting opinions are dismissed as "unpatriotic" or "socialist" out of hand
How is pulling out of a war WE ARE WINNING anything but unpatriotic? How is forcing us to become more dependent on foreign energy sources anything but unpatriotic? How is forced redistribution of income anything by socialist? How is double or triple taxing my income anything but socialist?
If you have a problem with the TRUTH being told about your positions, then the problem is with YOU, not the person telling the truth. But that's common with acolytes of the Slavery Party.
Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 9, 2008 01:25 PMEach and every conservative Republican should be running this as their defining ad.
@67: Great! He takes the blame in that statement in his book. As I can recall, no politician, Democrat or Republican, has taken the stage to declare that their infidelity was because of their spouse.
But if you can take McCain's apology in his book, what is the difference between that and Edwards' apology on TV?
@69: Again, does it matter? There are far worse things that undoubtedly come up during the vetting process for VP that would sink potential candidacies. This is a scandal, yes, but given that the guy came in a distant third in the race and isn't even in office now, I'm not sure how this is relevant. You might as well start to talk about a Ron Paul or Mike Gravel sex scandal... it's just as important.
Also funny that you would also consider the results from a close race to be an anointing when McCain was considered "nominated" in February, almost four months before the Democratic nominee was clear.
I should add, of course, that the Republicans are so desperate that they're considering a Democrat for the VP slot, and one that breaks consistently from Republican orthodoxy to boot.
Posted by: demo kid on August 9, 2008 01:42 PMI'm proud that our country is seen as the place that, if you want the best chance to realize your dream, it's the place to come to.
could be said just as well by Democrats, Libertarians, or Greens. And is.
Posted by: demo kid on August 9, 2008 02:44 PMHey, I'll freely admit that there were Democrats in the 1960s that were quite loathsome! George Wallace was a pathetic piece of crap, for example, and Strom Thurmond had some pretty nasty opinions about race. But on the other hand, considering Truman and Johnson to be members of a "party of slavery" when they actively worked for integration and equal rights is so completely wrong, it's a pathetic example of revisionist history.
Posted by: demo kid on August 9, 2008 02:53 PMToday it is worse - there's Howard Dean to begin with - that lieing POS, Harry Reid and Nancy (I want to save the environment) Pelosi who are no better than George Wallace - where Wallace is more of a racist, these people are bigger liars than Wallace and you are also a liar from your previous attempts to revise history. Oh yeah, I'll throw in John Edwards -who has no ethics and threw his wife under the bus and is another patented liar. They give the Democrat Party a bad name and you are the poster child for the lieing scum wing of the Democrats.
Posted by: KS on August 9, 2008 03:17 PMYou truly are an ass. While I refuse to watch the Olympics I recognize the President of the USA is there to cheer on the athletes of his country. Had you taken your head out of Koz, Huffington and your ass, you would have read how he spent the day.
Mountain biking on the Olympic course. Getting in a couple of hits with the women's beach volleyball team. Chuckling after being the target of a softball player's practical joke. Picking events and knowing he could get in, with a police escort ensuring traffic is no problem.
I despise punk sheep like you. Grow the hell up.
ps had you taken your head out of your ass, you might be embarassed by this little tidbit. Sucks to be a liberal jerk, eh Al, eh COMMU sheep?
"But on the other hand, considering Truman and Johnson to be members of a "party of slavery" when they actively worked for integration and equal rights is so completely wrong, it's a pathetic example of revisionist history."
Revisionist history my ass. Who are you trying to bullshit kid? Do you remember democrat Governor Orval Faubus and his ilk? In 1957 Faubus called out the National Guard to keep black kids out of white schools. Democratically controlled police were using water cannons and batons to oppress black demonstrators and their supporters. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent in Federal troops to keep order and took control of the Arkansas National Guard away from Faubus. After this debacle, Faubus was elected to four more terms...more proof that democrats continue to reelect their own regardless of the horrors they inflict on society. You're naïve if you view Lyndon Johnson as some great civil rights leader. Johnson was a crafty and ambitious politician. He was well versed in his party's political agenda. Blacks were standing up and saying "We're not going to take this anymore." Johnson and a few other democrats were smart enough to simply realize that the era of the noose and lash was over. Democrats could no longer get away with denying voting rights to blacks and they knew blacks were strong Republican supporters, so they decided that they had better start pandering to them. Unfortunately, democrats have been successful in this regard, but many blacks know the truth. Don't believe me...go here:
http://www.wayneperryman.com/
If you believe that democrats have such a great track record on civil rights and are not the party of slavery as Shanghai Dan suggests, then put your money were your mouth is and spend a few bucks to learn what many blacks believe.
McCain = McCriminal. If you want to discuss THAT or the Keating 5 come over to my place on Blather. I am a regular contributing writer over there.
BTW, I don't remember hearing Edwards ever use the C word referencing his wife. Why doesn't McCain deny that awful term on that YouTube Video?
Posted by: Joannie on August 10, 2008 09:05 AM
McCain did nothing criminal with Keating. There was never ANY evidence that he did, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise. You're welcome to try though.
And no, I won't go over to whatever "Blather" is. I've never heard of "Blather," I don't care what it is, and I won't waste time going to it. Feel free to attempt to make your "case" -- that I have already proven to be wrong -- here.
It is considered very poor form to say "hey, you're wrong, and if you disagree, come to this other site to argue about it." Good form is to discuss on the site you comment on, not to do hit-and-run redirection.
And I have no idea what you're talking about with any "C" word, but I do know that I couldn't care less about that, either. I care about actual issues. I'd prefer it if the people I argued with felt the same. I do find it extremely odd that you would think using ANY word is somehow worse than, or even comparable to, adultery, but it is not something that is, to me, worth discussion. That's your problem to deal with.
Now. If you actually want to have a discussion with me, feel free to present your evidence for McCain doing ANYTHING criminal in the Keating matter. I won't hold my breath.
Nothing on that site about Keating. And even if there were, this is still the right place for you to make your case, since YOU are the one who came HERE.
New policy: if you ask me to go somewhere ELSE for a discussion I am having somewhere, I will just respond "Flummery!" and say no more.
Oh, and in fact, I do go to non-conservative sites, quite a lot, actually. I post on "Effin' Unsound" and HA, somewhat weekly, and I WORK FOR a large left-of-center web site, one of the oldest and most-visited on the planet. So your false and off-topic accusation against me in the other discussion ("You can't stay safe on the conservative blogs all day long") is not winning you any points.
So, when I hear all the fear tactics I think, wow, we better fight Obama now when at least there is some kind of conservative movement still left then to wait until 2012 when we will have to fight him with a much weaker conservative movement.
It seems that Joseph Farah agrees with me. Watch a video of him from WorldNetDaily here.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72140">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72140
The truth is either he, or someone like him will win in 2008 or in 2012.
Since that is the case, it is better to fight Obama now than later.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2008 06:51 PM