If so then you may want to attack the rest of the country when reaction to this story and the fallout settles.
A lot of people see McCain as a straight shooter. But this flat out lie and revelations of innapropriate relationships with lobbyists and Paxton donating $20,000 to his election campaign while he's trying to get his applications passed.
It doesn't look good G-Ma, and trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer because in the past he was seen as an upstanding memeber of the community and avid church goer.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
As for this stupid right wing obsession with the phrase "flip-flop". Do you mean to say that if we found out Barak Obama killed someone tomorrow that it would be a "flip-flop" for his supporters to abandon him?
You act as if being stubborn and hard headed in your support is some virtue in the face of new evidence. Which explains why you're still proud to call yourself a conservative Republican.
BTW, shooting the messenger isn't going to help McCain much.
There. I removed the offending phrase "flip flop". Better?
You're not fooling anyone, whomod. For years, you wrote about how admirable McCain was and how dispicable personal attacks against him were.
But as soon as he became the undisputed frontrunner for the GOP nomination, your irrational hatred for all things Republican kicked in and you had to start attacking him, including on his personal life.
Seriously. It's so obvious.
Hell, if the GOP decided to cross-endorse Obama, you'd probably start attacking him too.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
...it doesn't erase MCain's lie or the fact that he's not exactly what he's advertised
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
...it doesn't erase MCain's lie or the fact that he's not exactly what he's advertised
Originally Posted By: whomod
the last great desperate hope for a gOP win goes down in flames.
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
The New York Times failed to establish a sexual relationship had existed between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman and therefore should not have published the salacious claims it made last week suggesting otherwise, the newspaper’s public editor wrote in Sunday’s online edition.
“I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide,” Hoyt wrote.
On Thursday, McCain held a press conference to deny charges that he and Iseman, 40, had had an affair nine years ago while she was lobbying for his assistance to get the Federal Communications Commission to rule on her client’s application for a broadcast license. McCain, 71, who was the Senate Commerce Committee’s chairman at the time, wrote the FCC asking the commissioners to make a decision but did not ask them to rule one way or the other.
In Sunday’s post-mortem, Hoyt wrote, “The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether (McCain aide John) Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance.”
Hoyt said as a result, the newspaper is in the “uncomfortable position of being the story” because “although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.”
G-man you got to admit that you probably would be posting very differently if Rudy was still in the race as it concerns this story.
This story was really unfair though & there is some justice in having it become a rallying point for many in the GOP who were having trouble with McCain being the pick. It would have happened anyway but this made it happen alot quicker.
maybe Karl Rove put out this story the same way he smeared McCain in 2000 and the same way the New York Times published false info which helped Bush invade Iraq.
New York Times Ombudsman Faults Paper on McCain Story [list]The New York Times failed to establish a sexual relationship had existed between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman and therefore should not have published the salacious claims it made last week suggesting otherwise, the newspaper’s public editor wrote in Sunday’s online edition.
That person has integrity to admit that there was a lack of consistency and that a mistake was made.
John McCain’s attempted politically motivated gaming of the public financing system is already drawing the attention of the Federal Elections Commission, with the chairman of the FEC firing off a letter to McCain’s presidential campaign asking them to explain why, after they had been certified to become a part of the program, they believe they’re able to pull out without approval. Now the Democratic National Committee is joining in the act, and will file an FEC complaint against the McCain campaign.
John McCain's cash-strapped campaign borrowed $1 million from a Bethesda bank two weeks before the New Hampshire primary by pledging to enter the public financing system if his bid for the presidency faltered, newly disclosed records show.
The crucial issue here is John McCain’s integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question. McCain financially benefited by accepting this agreement; he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million loan to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should be held to the law.
More than this, his campaign also got free ballot access, worth millions of dollars, because of his public financing. But now — after he’s received all this financial help — he wants to unilaterally withdraw from the program.
This is about more than spending limits and the FEC; this is a question of integrity.
It's a shame some Republicans are still on yesterdays news and trying to bury the ever expanding story by simply trying to contain it as a story about a sexual affair. It's always been about inappropriate relationships with lobbyists and questionable judgement and ethics.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
John McCain’s attempted politically motivated gaming of the public financing system is already drawing the attention of the Federal Elections Commission, with the chairman of the FEC firing off a letter to McCain’s presidential campaign asking them to explain why, after they had been certified to become a part of the program, they believe they’re able to pull out without approval. Now the Democratic National Committee is joining in the act, and will file an FEC complaint against the McCain campaign.
John McCain's cash-strapped campaign borrowed $1 million from a Bethesda bank two weeks before the New Hampshire primary by pledging to enter the public financing system if his bid for the presidency faltered, newly disclosed records show.
The crucial issue here is John McCain’s integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question. McCain financially benefited by accepting this agreement; he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million loan to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should be held to the law.
More than this, his campaign also got free ballot access, worth millions of dollars, because of his public financing. But now — after he’s received all this financial help — he wants to unilaterally withdraw from the program.
This is about more than spending limits and the FEC; this is a question of integrity.
It's a shame some Republicans are still on yesterdays news and trying to bury the ever expanding story by simply trying to contain it as a story about a sexual affair. It's always been about inappropriate relationships with lobbyists and questionable judgement and ethics.
You should see if Drudge has any coverage about this. It's a source G-man respects
He may be a 25-year veteran of Washington politics, and he may be a two-time leading GOP presidential candidate, but John McCain apparently still needs to work a bit on his “message discipline” problem.
Quote:
John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can’t, “then I lose. I lose,” the Republican said.
He quickly backed off that remark.
“Let me not put it that stark,” the likely GOP nominee told reporters on his campaign bus. “Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the county both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security.”
“If I may, I’d like to retract ‘I’ll lose.’ But I don’t think there’s any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge,” McCain added. “Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree.”
Clearly, he is tied to Iraq, which is possibly why he was right the first time.
I find it fascinating that McCain, even now, just blurts out the first thing that comes into his head. McCain has been on the campaign trail now for over a year — and that’s just this cycle — answering questions about, among other things, Iraq. But he can’t quite answer a question about what will happen if Americans reject his policy come November? As someone hoping McCain loses, it gives me hope that he has a habit of answering questions one way, and then wanting to give a different answer a few moments later.
I surprised he didn't go back and edit those posts like he did with his "we will never catch Saddam" not-so epic take........................
He might have if I hadn't found them first. Maybe I oughtta get some screen caps just to be sure.
G-Man, i fail to see how McCain's dwindling stock has anything to do with past admiration. Ever since the election, he's tried to embrace the far right and their idiotic stances in stark contrast to the McCain of years past. All in trying to pander to them and win their support. So oooooh, 'whomod used to admire him'. So frickin what? A lot of people used to. Then they saw McCain who'll do anything, say anything to win. McCain who wants to stay in Iraq 100 years in order to appease the dwindling minority of people who live in some alternate reality, that actually think this is a winning position.
My folks use to like McCain but really see him as Bush part two for much the reasons Whomod states. I give him a bit more wiggle room because he's just doing what politicians do to get elected by their party. Yet some of McCain's about faces will really make it tough for me to vote for him. I may have to vote for the less experienced guy if Obama wins the nomination. Looking at G-man's posts on the Obama thread helps alot getting past that. (and he thought he couldn't influence people on this board)
After all, it isn't like I predicted you'd do this back last year or anything.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:I can also say I've been consistent with McCain & plan to do so if he winds up winning the Republican primary. I like him now & I'll like him in '08.
Bullshit. You'll be crawling all over yourself to attack him. And build up support for the Democratic nominee. Your record precedes you my friend.
That exchange was February 17, 2007. Just slightly over a year to the day.
He's never been for raising taxes to my knowledge, and repealing the cuts would do just that. That would be especially dangerous if, as is often claimed, we're in a recession.
Furthermore, didn't he oppose the tax cuts primarily because he wanted a corresponding cut in spending also?
I don't really see that as a major change. If he had been in favor of tax INCREASES and now wanted new cuts, I could see your point. But to act like he hasn't always been a small government candidate on taxes and spending is a little specious.
Yes I reallize McCain has his rationalizations but that wasn't what he said then...
Quote:
In a May 2001 speech on the Senate floor, he said he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."
Yesterday one of the big stories was when walkie-talkie Bill Cunningham voraciously attacked Barack Obama warming up a crowd for John McCain. He was so over the top that supposedly the McMaverick campaign told John about his performance and after the crowd left—McCain apologized to Obama. Cunningham was so incensed over being repudiated by McCain that he pulled the Limbaugh trick of saying he’s now supporting Hillary Clinton.
Quote:
Cunningham: His people told me to give the faithful red meat. Give them red—raw—meat.
All that slime leaves one feeling soiled after watching them.
He’s a big favorite of Shaun Hannity and so it was not a surprise to see him on H&C last night to comment on the day’s events. If he’s to be believed then McCain has more more splainin’ to do because he said that McMaverick’s people told him to throw out the red meat for his opening.
Even if McCain wasn’t familiar with his act—his camp knows it and to tell Cunningham to go all out only means one thing—the apology was a fraud. The straight talk express is being as disingenuous here as it has been with regards to his own finance law that he’s failed to comply with. And that’s really the story here. Who cares if a wingnut walkie-talkie is upset about being dissed.
Watching that clip, Bill Cunningham contradicted himself within a matter of minutes about whether he refers to Obama as a “Manchurian candidate”:
Quote:
CUNNINGHAM: And the Daley — the Daley political machine gave us this — this stealth candidate, this Manchurian candidate. We don’t know who in the heck he is. I’d like to know more about Obama.
VERSUS
Quote:
CUNNINGHAM: No, I did not concur with any caller. I do not believe Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist or a Manchurian candidate. I do believe we know nothing about this guy from the Daley political machine.
But what do you expect from this nest of lying slime merchants.
I don't know what's more troubling, the fact that this Cunnigham comes off as one of those lunatics that hang out in donut shops and bus stations or that you find his comments insightful.
i enjoy the brutal honesty. look it's obvious you are blind to anything a liberal does, as g-man is to a neo-con. it's funny to watch someone tell the truth and people get their panties in a bunch.
if it had been a neo-con tied to a crook like obama is, youd want his head, but since he's a liberal you ignore it. obama is using you, he acts like he's for the poor man but in reality he's pulling the wool over your eyes. it's just so funny becaus eyou think your so smart and your being duped.
Dude, a few posts above, I clearly show that this guy can't even get his stories straight. It's true I'm for Obama but man, that doesn't negate the fact that the guy contradicted himself in a matter just a few minutes time.
thank you for proving my point, if it had been a neo-con being buds with the con artist youd have been all over it. so naive. dont worry Obama will save us all
Dude, a few posts above, I clearly show that this guy can't even get his stories straight. It's true I'm for Obama but man, that doesn't negate the fact that the guy contradicted himself in a matter just a few minutes time.
That lady who made the charges against Rove on 60 Minutes contradicted herself too. And other witnesses also contradicted her. But in her case, you're taking her comments as gospel.
I gotta say that BSAMS really nailed you on this one.
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
i enjoy the brutal honesty. look it's obvious you are blind to anything a liberal does, as g-man is to a neo-con.
I also gotta say, before this latest dust-up, I'd never even heard of Cunningham. The conservative radio show hosts I'm aware of (at least the national ones) are:
Rush Limbaugh Hannity O'Reilly Glenn Beck Mike Gallagher Laura Ingraham Neal Boortz Lars Larson and, of course, G. Gordon Liddy
Is this Cunningham guy somebody famous?
Also, I defended Hillary, not McCain, on the charges from Obama. I said that she had every right to bring up his Muslim background, his middle name or the fact he dresses like a terrorist when he travels abroad.
Now, the New York Times is trying to rewrite the Constitution to claim that McCain isn't a natural born U.S. Citizen and, therefore, ineligible to be president?
Are they trying to commit ritualistic suicide or something?
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
