The Questioning of McCain's past

[toybox99615]

McCain sure seems to be doing a lot of defending of his past for a guy with nothing to worry about. And the fight season has not yet begun. Just imagine how this will come to haunt McCain in the campaign once the primaries are over.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Mar...eating,00.html
Interesting story on Foxnew.com about McCain. Here he explains his involvement. Meanwhile others see the story from a different perspective. Perhaps we are seeing the past come to haunt McCain.

Its not old news when the past reveals some questionable dealing. And in those dealings it is proven that a Senator did some things that would certainly qualify as ethically questionable by by anyone but a group of other Senators examining the ethics of one of their own. The Senate ethics committee has the credibility of a wet paper bag full of eggs. They can't even find questionable behaviour when one of thier own gets sent to jail for criminal actions.

So if you take corporate donations, use a donors airplane even when your not suppose to, and are in business with those you seek favors for your ethics are not questionable according to McCain. And that is especially true when you write the rules for what is ethical.

Meanwhile here is a veterans group who seems to be unhappy with our hero. http://www.usvetdsp.com/story22.htm It looking like things are not going to be the skating party the Republicans are talking about once the primaries are over.

 

[Bruxley]

I don't recall any skating parties being pontificated. In fact, McCain is less then broadly supported to say the least.

The one shining point for McCain is that the Democrats have selected thier 2 least qualified candidates so far. Neither of them has anything to skate on either. The rejected Richardson who is far and away the most qualified, but he isn't 'sexy' or 'celebrity' enough for BUZZZ....out. I suspect he might get the VP spot when Obama gets the nomination however. His endorsement got alot more attention then others did. He''l shave if it's true.

Really comes down to that Senators (administrators) with no executive experience make poor candidate for the top Executive post. We really have no candidate ready for the job. As for experience, McCain is far and away the experienced candidate. And given we will have to choose one of these 3 people to be President for 4 years I'm in a damage control mindset. McCain has much less potential for lasting harm then the other two.

It's best when making judgments on things with alot of variables to look at it from the worse case scenario. Let's say that the candidate elected performs the acts you most wish they wouldn't but were aware they either intended to or it matched their track records.

McCain allows the Bush tax cuts to expire and maintains the open border polocies of today and even passes a 'cabon tax' . The result would be a failed re-election bid and a new crop of Republicans to choose from in 4 years that can cut taxes again and close the border. Essentially un-doing whatever McCain may do that his successor disapproves of and has mandate to accomplish.

Hillary or Obama (same platform with minor variances) you STLL get the taxes and illeagal imigrations PLUS more gun control AND socialized medicine. Probably in a seemingly benign form initially but the fix gets in. This single action will become an the entitlement program that makes Social Security look like small potatoes and will be impossible to undo. Social Security benefits are received by a few but health care is to be received by ALL. That's the promise of both Democrats. Imagine getting retirees to vote to have Social Security halted and their benefits ended. How much more difficult to have that happen when the entitlement is received by everyone.

It's time to look to our Congressional races. The reality is only your House Representative represent you and is expected to act based upon the will of the majority of individuals withing their district. Senators are to Represent their State's interest and the President the Nations interests. We are a Republic remember, NOT a Democracy as is so often misunderstood. We have a Democratically Elected Representative Republic which is a form of Democracy.

Remember, a straight DEMOCRACY cannot work because the citizens will discover the ability to vote themselves the wealth of the treasury (we call them entitlements) and destroy the democracy. Historically a dictator or invader follows soon after.

Reagan and Goldwater are still dead and their reincarnations didn't run this cycle. The conservative ideal still endures and will take a lot more then John McCain's election to stifle. It's not an 'idea' that can lose favor but rather an affirmation of the greater part of men that believes people can do far more then they think they can and possess a worth realized only be their OWN desire to excel rather then to languish.

When given a choice that is fraught with variables, make your decisions so as to maintain an exit strategy.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I have seen some questionable accusations, POW era and post POW era. They were disturbing, but most were not authenticated so I won't link them here. None are as disturbing as the Marxist links to Hillary and Barak.

 

[Unregistered]

And given we will have to choose one of these 3 people to be President for 4 years I'm in a damage control mindset. McCain has much less potential for lasting harm then the other two.

I think the world will end before the election... because I actually find myself agreeing with Bruxley on something.

 

[nate45]

And given we will have to choose one of these 3 people to be President for 4 years I'm in a damage control mindset. McCain has much less potential for lasting harm then the other two.

I think the world will end before the election... because I actually find myself agreeing with Bruxley on something.

I don't like McCain and I only agree with him on perhaps 50% of the issues. People who don't like the war don't like McCain. People who want tougher immigration law don't like McCain. Fiscal conservatives don't like McCain and the list goes on and on.

However after venting my displeasure and getting over my frustration. There is no other choice, I fully expect RP to endorse McCain as almost ever other Rep will as well. The nomination process is over, we must now put our diferences aside and rally around the nominee. The alternative is much, much worse. Even worse than....

agreeing with Bruxley on something.

 

[Waitone]

McCain has been a national establishment figure for a long, long time. He has always had a swirl about him regarding a number of questionable points of his past. The man is suspect even if you put politics over to the side.

Start with his time as a POW. A number of former POW's are suspicious of his treatment. Some have gone so far as to say McCain's version does not match the version of others in the same situation. Anti-McCain forces from both sides of the political divide will swiftboat him at an appropriate time. The focus will be his time as a resident of the Hanoi Hilton. As an interesting aside, US researchers have access to KGB records. They have discovered the KGB and its military equivelent were in charge of the interrogation of US POW's held in North Vietnam. And that includes the interrogation of McCain. Those records have been duplicated and now safely in the hands of the CIA. That being the case, one could easily see relevant information coming out at inopportune times during the election. The Clintons roledex is replete with numerous intel contacts. IF the CIA really does have McCain's records during his time as a POW we will see it. At the very least the records could be used to blackmail the good senator.

Then move on to the Keating Five fiasco. A lot was exposed but a lot was also swept under the carpet. Rumors at the time had it deals were made to go lightly on the participants.

His relationship with the telecommunications and banking industries will be examined.

Now let us move on to the hearings on POW's left in SE Asia and how McCain served as the pointman in the effort to derail congressional hearings. Families of POW's simply could not understand how it was a former POW would so vigorously oppose any examination of the subject. This particular topic will be resurrected in conjunction with his time as a POW.

OK, so now we can look at financial questions. A number of pols want to explore his relationship with George Soros, not because Soros is a political moneybag but because of noise there is some funny stuff going on. These same people are perplexed that a so-called conservative would set up an institute devoted to "reform" funded to two left wing entities: Soros and Tides Foundation. And schazaam, the money for the institute was made available right after the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Control Bill was signed. Inquiring minds find it more than interesting that the new legislation set the legal framework to enable Soros to effective purchase a political party. Was there any other financial arrangement at work? Someone will look into it.

Then there is the small matter of his volcanic temper which has some colleagues questioning his fitness to be CIC.

McCain is a long standing establishment politician. He is not a white knight on a horse. He is a power broker and really good at it.

Some like to point out the democrats have tapped two really bad candidates to slug it out. Republicans are not any better off. The only thing that is certain in this election is we will elect some kind of thoroughgoing globalist. At this point I don't think the differences between democrat and republican are particularly relevant to the problems we face.

 

[wingman]

At this point I don't think the differences between democrat and republican are particularly relevant to the problems we face.

Correct, the lessor of two evils on this round will gain America nothing.

 

[Bruxley]

Looks like ancient history (Keating 5) hyperbole and flat sohpestry (POW questions, Soros/Tides connections, and CIA files). Although I hope the aproach you discribed is the one taken. The vile of the left has never won an election. Further, it doesn't seem like Obama's style and will accentuate what people dislike about the Clinton 'machine'.

I could outline a much better capaign against McCain but leftists would never attempt it. They have the blindness of disdain as a handicap.

So far, and for quite some time, McCain is the only Republican that has consistantly out-polled both Clinton and Obama in head to head polling. That means little this far out and without a difinative Democrat candidate, but it reveals a respect for McCain that exists as a starting point, probably due to his war hero status. He does enjoy a reputation as a genuine war hero. Attacking that will prove very counter productive.

I sincerly hope the aproach you discribed above is performed as you outlined. Contrary to the intuition of folks suffering from the blindness of disdain, frontal assaults on respected figures due little to sway undecideds, in fact it repells them from the attacker, does nothing but steel up support for those considering or committed, and in fact, only effects those already NOT supporting that candidate as it stirs them up feeds their disdain. So what, they already weren't going to support the candidate.

Obama has this figured out. Promote yourself, attacking the other candidate only serves to make your own hands dirty.

Running a campaign on sucking less then the other guy isn't going to make someone a President.

McCain is a long standing establishment politician. He is not a white knight on a horse. He is a power broker and really good at it.

Leftist code for highly experienced politician with the ability to influence those with power to his way of thinking........you see how quickly ugly got looked at as such.........

 

[Unregistered]

Running a campaign on sucking less then the other guy isn't going to make someone a President.

While I generally agree with everything you said, the above statement was not true in the 2004 election.

 

[Bruxley]

True, Kerry definitely sucked ALOT more.

 

[mountainclmbr]

True, Kerry definitely sucked ALOT more.

But, not more than Monica!

 

[73 Jock]

I could outline a much better capaign against McCain but leftists would never attempt it.

In the wake of sniper-gate, Hillary cannot attack McCain's service record. Can you imagine contrasting Hillary's "hot LZ" with images of the Forrestal fire?

With Rev Wright around his neck, Obama cannot attack McCain's military experience or patriotism.

Keating is a loser because it was a long time ago (McCain obviously survived it), and because it is extremely complex -- the general electorate will not sit through reams of financial documents -- especially if American Idol is on.

I believe attacking his age will backfire on them, as it highlights their own inexperience (Reagan: "I will not exploit...") and will generate sympathy instead.

That leaves the divorce. I have done enough research to convince myself that there is nothing there to merit severe criticism. How many couples can say they would have survived POW internment and a debilitating injury? It was decades ago, and the ex-wife Carol has never shown any desire to torpedo him publicly. (She might even come to his defense.) Additionally, loose relationships and philandering are normally dismissed by liberals.

So because I thoroughly enjoy your insightful posts Bruxley, I'd like to hear what kind of campaign these weak Democrats could use against McCain (I'm guessing it's domestic issues and the war -- George Bush's third term, etc.).

The conservative ideal still endures and will take a lot more then John McCain's election to stifle. It's not an 'idea' that can lose favor but rather an affirmation of the greater part of men that believes people can do far more then they think they can and possess a worth realized only be their OWN desire to excel rather then to languish.

Very well said BTW.

 

[FireMax]

It is very simple to me. The Republican Party has put forth McCain, one of their most liberal candidates, for the nomination for President.

If I wanted to vote for a liberal, anti-gun candidate, I already have a choice as the Democrats always nominate liberal anti-gunners. As a pro-gun Conservative, I wanted to vote for a Conservative in November. The Republican Party seems to believe I and other Conservatives like me will vote for anyone they send up to us, regardless of how liberal they are. The Republican Party is mistaken. I am not a believer in "voting for the lesser of evils". That is stupid. I only vote for Conservatives. I will not vote for McCain. This will be the first time since I began voting in 1988 that I will not be voting for a Republican for President.

As for who will win the november election, all you need to do is look at voter turn out in the Democrat primaries as opposed to voter turnout in the Republican parties. Turn out for the Dem primaries has been far-higher thus far. The Republican base (Conservatives) is not very enthusiastic about McCain and this will also be the case in the November election barring some unforseen circumstances.

 

[Alleykat]

The Republican Party is mistaken. I am not a believer in "voting for the lesser of evils". That is stupid. I only vote for Conservatives. I will not vote for McCain

Pissing one's vote away is what's REALLY stupid!

 

[FireMax]

Pissing one's vote away is what's REALLY stupid!

I agree, that is why I will not "piss my vote away" by voting for McCain. Feel free to support a gun-grabber for President if that is your preference. Personally, I do not support anti-gun candidates such as McCain, Obama and Hillary.

http://www.gunowners.org/mcgungrab.htm
Nowhere is McCain's chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain's failing grade is well deserved.

John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]."

John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain's pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.

In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.

For example, if John McCain's proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

 

[Yellowfin]

I think it indeed to be a fallacy to think that McWeasel is a supporter of gun rights, but almost equally a fallacy to call the GOA "highly respected."

 

[wingman]

If I wanted to vote for a liberal, anti-gun candidate, I already have a choice as the Democrats always nominate liberal anti-gunners. As a pro-gun Conservative, I wanted to vote for a Conservative in November. The Republican Party seems to believe I and other Conservatives like me will vote for anyone they send up to us, regardless of how liberal they are. The Republican Party is mistaken. I am not a believer in "voting for the lesser of evils". That is stupid. I only vote for Conservatives. I will not vote for McCain. This will be the first time since I began voting in 1988 that I will not be voting for a Republican for President.

I agree, the lesser of two evils is no longer a choice for me,the GOP needs to
receive a clear message send us a true conservative, as for "pissing" away a
vote in this election anyone of the three is doing just that in my opinion.

 

[sasquatch]

The interesting thing about so-called "true" conservatives not voting for McCain is what will happen if Hillary or Obama become President. John McCain may not be much of a conservative, but in my opinion his presence in the White House may keep ugly things from happening. With a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate, Hillary or Obama will be able to pass new restrictions on guns (maybe), and either will certainly appoint judges to the Supreme Court which will give a case of the hives to any conservative. And socialized medicine becoming a reality with either Democrat is almost certain.

If that happens, and a real conservative becomes President in say 8 years, it'll be too late. No matter who the conservative President might be, he will not be able to unring the bell. The damage will already be done, but I guess "true" conservative voters will just bury their head in the sand, pretending it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Yellowfin]

How can we go about kicking out the party leaders who decide that backing him is a good idea? Who are the puppet masters here?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Never underestimate true believers' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

They would rather lose an election and whine if their candidate isn't ideological pure.

Why spoil the tantrums?