Republican presidential front-runner John McCain on Thursday dismissed as untrue a New York Times report suggesting he had a close and possibly romantic relationship with a female lobbyist nine years ago, a potentially embarrassing conflict of interest.
Of course, McCain has denied it. And all it is right now is an allegation. But I would find it fucking hilarious if it is true and McCain gets smeared like Clinton did.
Now it doesn't really matter to me if he did have an affair, but it would be fun to watch a Republican squirm like they made Billy Boy squirm.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
But even if it did turn out to be true you know they wouldn't do that to him. At least then neocons won't. He's one of their own, and as long as it's not as bad and dramatic as going public with his collection of shrunken baby-sitter heads, they'll spin it as best they can.
Bill was a hero maybe John is looking for the same fate.
John McCain is already a hero in my book for his service in Vietnam. I just don't want a 71 year old man, especially one with his current politics to be the next president.
And Bob, just what do you know about McCain's collection of shrunken baby-sitter heads? How did he shrink them?
CSM, I have it from an imaginary authority that he uses salt with smoke from sacred bo tree chips, and a secret aloe and alum solution that keeps the skin both supple and pale rather than leathery.
Back to reality, one thing I've noticed about some presidents acknowledged as great (such as FDR and Lincoln) is that while they did terribly unpopular things at times, even extra-legal things during a bona-fide crisis, they let go of the emergency powers and measures after the real crisis was past.
i want shrunken baby sitter heads!!
sounds like a lot of work, though.
can i just order some online?
regarding the original post:
i think the mccain camp leaked the rumor 2 the press. makes ol' john seem less ol'.
won't work though. nothing is gonna work against the obama tidal wave.
my BIG fear, though is this:
forty years ago, bobby kennedy was shot when another tidal wave was surging. not just him, but jfk, mlkjr, a liberal/progressive movement.
i hate 2 frame it this way, but it's really gonna be white men vs. everbody else this november.
and history shows that white men in america will resort to terror 2 achieve their ideals. (bullets are often instruments of terror).
i can't even say it, or spell it out. that's how REAL my fear is.
of course, obama could use the ol' dick cheney trick, and ask hilary 2 be his vp. then nobody would dare harm him! (worked 4 dubya, didn't it?)
Bob,
I understand where you are coming from as far as Lincoln is concerned, but FDR didn't have THAT much guff for his "extra legal" maneuvers and is revered by the age group affected by those maneuvers at the time(I remember discussions with my grandfather over this. He was generally very conservative(voted for Nixon and Reagan), but when it came to Roosevelt, he was a god.) I know there is some evidence FDR's programs were to be temporary, but he should have known(considering his political smarts)that those programs would have taken on a life of their own as politicians are loathe to take away programs which become part of our political landscape even if they lose their relevance.
I wish politicians/leaders would act more like financial planners/investors(like these guys are supposed to; not like they do in actuality)and legislate for the long term. Every thing is becoming so short term, the next financial quarter or next election cycle. Our problems are long term problems. Stop gap measures and short term fixes just prolong the coming of the day of reckoning and will make that day much worse. None of the candidates are discussing our long term problems and I believe they are hoping that day comes on someone else's watch which is supremely depressing to me. Knowing my luck my candidate(I have posted before I have never voted for the eventual winner in any Presidential election)will win when that day of reckoning occurs and of course this is the guy who will get the blame. Such is life.
corey,
Isn't Obama getting much of the white(Democratic, of course)male vote? As an aside, my wife, a registered Republican(who voted for Ron Paul in our Primary) has said on many occasions she will vote for Obama. Likes him alot.
John Sidney McCain III a hero?
If military service automatically makes one a hero, then definitely 'Yes.' If languishing for 5 years as a political prisoner qualifies, then we have 490 prisoners at Gitmo that will soon qualify.
The proposition that John Sidney McCain III is a hero (a remarkably brave person, a legendary man with superhuman powers or somebody admired for outstanding qualities or achievements) is truly as transparent as the myth that he is a 'maverick' and an 'outsider.' Separated from the myth of 'hero,' 'maverick' and 'outsider', he more resembles a stumbling nepotist whose main claim to fame lies in the fact that he had the good fortune to fall captive and be removed early from the theater of battle.
coreyd;
Good observation! There are however a couple mote points I think I should point out. You left Malcolm Little off your list. I don't remember the 'liberal/progressive movement' dying with the assassinations. What, in my recollection, marks the muting of the movement was the double-digit inflation of the late 70s and early 80s.
derF,
Also the fact that he considers himself an Arizonan. He moved there in 1980 and most of the old timers I know(and anymore I would have to include myself in that category, been here for all but the first three years of my life)scoff at that idea. He is no Western politician in the Goldwater or Udall mold, for sure.
bawdy,
i only meant that mccain gets his support primarily from white men. sorry if i was vague!
derf,
you're right. but... '68 seems 2 mark a shift in mojo, if you will.
derF,
A couple of other factors in the demise of the progressive movement of the sixties and seventies, hard street drugs(heroin and cocaine) and the nihilism of the puck rock movement of the late seventies(of which I will accept some blame as a participant (the latter, of course)).
Bawdy, the stuff that FDR did that I was referring to weren't the New Deal stuff, so much as things like the little end runs around laws he used to help support Britain during WWII before we joined in. At the time, largely due to WWI I think, we were very heavily isolationist in national attitude.
You are right about the pre-WWII stuff; I just consider the New Deal stuff to be much more UnConstitutional. An interesting side note to the pre-WWII maneuvers; considering how much more powergrabbing in the name of war our current dipshit(and many others after FDR) has foisted on us, it sure makes what FDR did look paltry. At least FDR got Congress to declare war.
Oh, I know this changes the subject to some degree, but this is a great day for Arizona politics. Evan Mecham died yesterday and Rick Renzi has been indicted, both wonderful news.
For non-Arizonans who probably don't know who Evan Mecham is, here is a link to the AP story on his death (with some accompanying information on his impeachment).
OK, OK, guys, maybe hero is too strong a word for me to have used regarding McCain. All I was attempting to say was that he has earned my respect for his service to our country. That said, I agree with the rest of your assessment regarding McCain as a politician, derF.
Bawdy, as to FDR vs GWB, that's exactly what I meant. He did some illegal stuff, and a bit of a power grab, as did ole Honest Abe, but once the crisis was done, they let it go. They didn't make any seemingly permanent alterations to the way the office of President works. And don't even get me started on torture...
As I recall, the counter-culture grew exponentially after '68, if the affectations of clothing and style are any indicators. Admittedly, I personally had serious doubts about the commitment of the converts. We seemed readily able to absorb any drugs that came our way. (What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.) The same was true of the advent of new genres of Rock n Roll. We weren't subverted by The New York Dolls, Handsome Dick Manitoba, Richard Hell or even The Sex Pistols. Pop stars are only cultural projections.
Anyone can see the road that they walk on
Is paved in gold
And it's always summer
They'll never get cold
They'll never get hungry
They'll never get old and grey
What halted the movement was it success. Its success stopped the Vietnam War. Its success created Earth Day. Its success questioned authority then demanded an answer. It was a success that shocked and frightened the forces of imperialism. So the 'unseen hand' froze and halted the market with it.
Bear in mind that at the same time, in the Seventies, during the Nixon years, was when Cheney began his work to make an imperial presidency. Unfortunately for him Nixon got paranoid (and sloppy), and the counterculture reached its apex, so we wound up with events such as Kent State and Watergate, and the intended unitary executive had to step down.
Of course, how much one had to do with the other is very debatable
derF,
You may not have been subverted but the stream of new comers was to some degree. Every movement needs new recruits or it dies or goes into hibernation. I was subverted at nineteen, twenty and I love your Dictators reference. It was spot on. Oh, but calling any of them "stars" is inflating their actual status at the time.
The pendulum goes back and forth and once the pendulum went so far to the left the left got complacent and then lost its relevance to the next generation(this is why I consider myself part of Gen X, though I had a great respect for the left in the 60's(they did accomplish quite a bit)I never felt a part of it so by the time I became a thinking human being the left had petered out, divided into factions or sold out)and then the pendulum swung to the right through the eighties. I feel you probably think I got stuck there, but believe it or not, I still consider myself a work in progress.
As are we all, Bawdy, as are we all.
well guys, i'm gonna have 2 just take your word on some of this.
my parents were seniors in high school in 1968. they met as students at purdue, married, and i was born in 73.
if i had 2 guess, i'd say they both voted 4 nixon, so they have been of no use at all in my quest 2 find "counter-culture".
--help us, obi-derf. you're our only hope!--
seriously, though, i'm piecing a lot of this stuff 2gether 4 myself.
i won't take your perspective as gospel, but the insights you (all) lend are invaluable in my search.
speaking of the 80's, i can remember the very day reagan succeeded carter; i was in the first grade, and the ONLY one who needed 2 know why they all worshipped the man.
over the next 8 years, i wasn't aware of conservative politics or counter-culture. all i knew at that age was that i REALLY didn't like the tone of america under reagan. i was 2 young 4 punk and actually thought mtv was a revolution (doh!), but i caught the next train, punk & rap's bastard jewish children, da beastie boys.
humble origins, i know. but they are mine. : )
---
on a completely different note:
if you guys could pick any school in the states 2 study philosophy, where? and why?
i realize you're probably not all the philosopher-type, but your opinions have value 2 me. and i may have an opportunity 2 shift focus soon, so...
By the time Reagan came on the scene (an ACTOR running for president? HA! Or so some of us thought at the time. When he actually won, we couldn't understand it, and dreaded what it would bring) the 60's type counterculture was gone, and the punk counterculture was not really politically active.
During the Reagan years the word 'Liberal' was somehow given a negative connotation it had never had before.
As to a school to study philosophy, I can't help, I'm afraid. Good luck.
Unfortunately, the the word "liberal" is still viewed negatively by many these days due mostly to Reagan.
Regarding a school to study philosophy, my immediate thought is Cal Berkeley, but I don't have any knowledge about their program. It just seems like a place to go for long hairs and philosophers.
Yep. And that alone is why I have always resented Reagan. Well, that and his idiotic 'economic' plan.
Well, he also made ketchup a vegetable.
Yeah, that was an "idiotic economic" plan which was enacted by a Democratic Congress(Congress is supposed to hold the pursestrings, guys.) I just love selective memories.
True, true. But then I've never considered our congresscritters to be beings of ethics or integrity, whatever party they may pretend to belong to.
This has been one of my biggest political pet peeves, the President getting credit, good or bad, over government spending and the performance of the economy as a whole. The biggest disappointment of the Republican Congress of the 90's and the 00's was the fact they couldn't keep the federal governments spending in check. They proved to us all they are no different than the spendthrift Democrats. The power went to their heads and the deficits grew. This is one of the main reasons why I am in favor of gridlock in Washington. As much as I abhor Congress for laying down in the shadow of the Presidency in the realm of Constitutional and foreign matters; the expenditures of the federal government should have been gone over with a fine-toothed comb and the fact it wasn't/hasn't is a slap to all of our faces.
History question: Under whos administration was the US gumming completely debt free for the only time to date? (or so I've heard on the History channel)
OK, I give.
Andrew Jackson. A man who, while incredibly charismatic, would today be villified and hated by a number of the things he did. Or so I imagine.
I think it is patently absurd to continue to use phrases like "spendthrift Democrats" given what happened between 2000 and 2006. It should be turned around to say that the Democrats will in all likelihood be as bad as the spendthrift Republicans. Let's give them that title, after all, they've earned it.
And re: Reagan. Yes, Dems were in charge of congress during his tenure. The Dems are to blame for allowing such bullshit to be enacted, but they did not dream that bullshit up, no matter how hard anyone tries to say they did.
csm,
I believe I did in essence. The Republicans are as bad as the Democrats; that doesn't mean I have any more of a fondness for Democrats now, it just means I have placed the Republicans on that same shelf labeled "Bad Ideas".
csm,
They may not have dreamed up the "bullshit", but it is also true the Democrats have no problem dreaming up enough of their own "bullshit".
Universal healthcare obviously sounds like a good idea to you, but have you really thought of the consequences of concentrating the power to make medical decisions in the hands of Washington. What happens if the Republicans(and real right wingers to boot)get control of the reins? What happens to abortion rights then; you might be able to have them, but I bet the government won't pay for it. There will be rationing of healthcare, there will be price controls, there will be a deficit of healthcare workers(that is what happens when you dictate what someone gets paid)and on top of that you will get our rights as individuals run over by whomever is in power at the time.
Oh, another thing, the government has never done a very good job at keeping our private information private have they? I wouldn't trust them with my information; and don't think they will not find someway to sell that info for the right price to people you might not want to have that info. Paranoid, maybe, but I have less and less trust of the behemoth of power being formed in Washington and on this question I would rather be right and crazy the wrong and fucked.
That should have been "right and crazy than wrong and fucked".
Right and crazy and fucked is probably our lot in life, though.
Upon further reflection, Bawdy, I think I disagree with you. You say "the government has never done a very good job at keeping our private information private have they?"
Well, yes they have, actually. The government has all of my earning information ever since the first year I got a paycheck, and I cannot say I've seen that information sold or exposed in any way.
And I would say that Socisal Security, that government program, has been a fairly good example of a good government program, run reasonably well for a long time. Yes, there are porblems upcoming with it, and yes, those problems are due to the social security trust being used as a bank by congress... and I can see how that is troubling. But my solution would be to impose more controls on government than to simply say government does not work, let's just live with the porblems or hope the "free market" (which does not exist) will work it out...
Post a Comment