The Real McCain

[diamond]

Originally posted by Diemen


It's not that the Clinton's don't squash stories like this, it's that you jump with glee at the chance to point out the Clinton's dirtier side, and yet seem to want to just gloss over McCain's. It looks just a wee bit hypocritical.

big D-

Look up proportionality in the dictionary.

Clintons are synonymous with dirty, John McCain isn't.

<>

[diamond]

Originally posted by financeguy


That's impossible. I have been reliably informed on FYM that, in the US, the 'c' word is exclusively used as a term of abuse directed at women.

Some consider me a woman.


<>

[Diemen]

Originally posted by diamond
Clintons are synonymous with dirty, John McCain isn't.

<>

Prior to his presidency Clinton was certainly not synonymous with dirty. It took 8 years in office with an opposing party focusing a huge amount of effort on tearing him down to get that. (not that some of the dirty reputation is undeserved)

It looks like the dirt is beginning to come out on McCain. Time will tell just how dirty he is/gets.

[financeguy]

Originally posted by anitram
Given that he already commented on the story 16 years ago

Where does it say that?

[diamond]

D-

Yep, and we're not worried.
The Clintons have lowered the bar so low, Mccain looks like a boy scout, and the Clintons thugs.

<>

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by financeguy


That's impossible. I have been reliably informed on FYM that, in the US, the 'c' word is exclusively used as a term of abuse directed at women.

1. in the US, it is
2. consider your source

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by financeguy


That's impossible. I have been reliably informed on FYM that, in the US, the 'c' word is exclusively used as a term of abuse directed at women.

It's been pointed out in the other thread that it's extremely unusual to be used against men in the US, which does in no way mean there are no exceptions.
Would be the same with the German equivalent, by the way.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by financeguy


Cuts both ways. Have you ever seen a liberal poster start a thread about the rape accusation made against Bill Clenis?

Who the hell is Bill Clenis?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Diemen


Who the hell is Bill Clenis?

i'll give you a hint.

he's married to Hillary Clagina.

[MaxFisher]

Larry called a guy a c*nt in an episode of "Curb".

[BVS]

Originally posted by financeguy


Where does it say that?

I'm assuming she's referring to:

McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day

[Diemen]

Originally posted by Irvine511




i'll give you a hint.

he's married to Hillary Clagina.

Dammit, Irvine. I wanted financeguy to take me seriously.

[meegannie]

I used to know people who worked for him when I lived in DC, and he always sounded like a huge turd.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Diemen


Dammit, Irvine. I wanted financeguy to take me seriously.

[deep]

Originally posted by anitram


Rest is here.

What a pig. There is no man on this earth who would get away with saying such a thing to me.

FYM has gotten pretty silly lately

this story does not have any creditability

on the condition of anonymity

The exchange between McCain and his wife was not reported anywhere when it happened, Schecter said (a LexisNexis database search confirms this). In 1992, McCain's mention in the national media revolved mostly around his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, and only local reporters closely followed his re-election bid.

this is akin
to the swift- boating of John Kerry

because McCain is a public person

anyone (especially anonymous) can say just about anything they want and not be sued for libel

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep

this is akin
to the swift- boating of John Kerry

it's not even close.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by meegannie
he always sounded like a huge turd.

lol

If it's true that he called his wife that well isn't that special, I have the warm fuzzies.

[deep]

Originally posted by Irvine511
it's not even close.

would you say it's worse?

at least we knew who the Kerry accusers were


most of the time you are able to be objective

I know BonoVoxSupastar is capable of such
an investigation of the author and the using of anonymous sources
- should make one pause

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by diamond

This is weak, though-it's from 1992.

You constantly mentioned McCain's temperament and anger when Mitt was still in it, but now you're downplaying it?

[U2387]

Originally posted by Irvine511






however, i kind of don't care about all this. i have friends on the Hill, i know McCain is a gigantic asshole and media whore and that most of his image is a media fabrication.

and i don't think it matters all that much.

unless, of course, you're going to run a campaign on someone's greatest qualification for being president is a star-spangled life story, then little anecdotes like this are going to harm you.

I agree. McCain is a genuine war hero, do not get me wrong. That does not mean he should not be subject to serious questions about his issue positions and his character traits. Its not like people are defaming his war record w/baseless lies like the Republicans found so fit to do- first w/ McCain himself in South Carolina then with John Kerry. You are right to point out his image is largely fabricated-

In my mind, that image has 2 parts

1.)War hero- there are plenty of those in public life- Jack Murtha, Chuck Hagel, Jim Webb, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Bob Dole, the list goes on.

2.)Maverick, crusader for truth and against special interests- well, look at the Keating 5 scandal, then to his conversion from one of the most corrupt congressman to campaign finance reform advocate. He gets McCain-Feingold passed, but it is largely symbolic- this legislation actually puts the burden on the INDIVIDUAL senator or congressman to disclose contributions, not the contributor. We all know how prone to telling the truth these guys are! He then goes on to found an organization dedicated to getting money out of the system that he staffs completely w/ lobbyists and PAC people, strange to day the least!! Cant he still be a maverick on issues, though?? Well, yes, until you consider his courageous, rational stance against the Bush tax cuts for 6 years until it became politically necessary to support them wholeheartedly. Iraq and the religious right pandering is just him trying to win over a skeptical Republican establishment. He rails against home state earmarks, as long as they are by Democrats, yet takes $10 million in federal money for a William Rehnquist named building at ASU.(Hits Hillary on this, and conveniently ignores that in 2007, Democrats in congress drastically CUT earmarks down from previous Republican years.)Abandonment of principle hardly is the mark of a maverick.

The temper is a widely known thing, combine that with his admitted lack of knowledge or care about the economy, his ludicris Iraq stance(goodbye moderate voters) and the fake maverick image and that is John McCain for you. My only fear is that he is probably going to win, given that we have Hillary and Obama up against him, the 2 weakest Democrats who ran this yr by far. (We needed Biden or Richardson)