McCain “Another Tacky Republican Man”?
With the nominations on both sides now clinched, it appears that the media is exploring rumors circulating about John McCain’s past – especially concerning his first wife Carol:
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: “I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is — deceit. When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it. Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better. This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.” (Daily Mail)
If you didn’t get the inklings beforehand, it looks like this is going to be a very nasty campaign with all kinds of personal charges being made against both candidates. A rather unpleasant prospect but it will be interesting to see how they both weather the proverbial storm. We’ve seen some of the airing of dirty laundry about Obama and now McCain is facing the same. One wonders what else is in store for the two that is soon-to-be-exposed and run the gamut of the media and blogosphere?
h/t – Five Feet of Fury
– John (Average Gay Joe)
22 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Gee, I thought that when we elected Slick Willie that “character didn’t matter” when it came to running the country.
Oh, silly me – it’s only when the candidate in question has a (R) after his name. /SARC OFF
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 10, 2008 @ 12:37 pm - June 10, 2008
Peter: It did for me back then and still does. Unfortunately, both candidates have their flaws. I have no idea about the veracity of this one concerning McCain. Lord knows there’s enough out on Obama now (with more to come no doubt) to give one pause. While most of us would like better candidates to choose from, we’re all stuck with the two we have now. In the end though, to me at least, it boils down to which one would make a better Commander-in-Chief? There’s no question in my mind that it is McCain. While I would prefer another choice, this past behavior (if even true) won’t dissuade me from voting for him in November.
Comment by John — June 10, 2008 @ 12:44 pm - June 10, 2008
I was never bothered by Clinton running around. Fact: I spent much of the 1990s defending Clinton and was a brief, early supporter of MoveOn.org, back when their thing was “moving on” from (what seemed like) an obsession with Clinton’s running around.
Since I was never bothered by Clinton’s (actual) running around, why would I be bothered by McCain’s (alleged)? It was other things that came to bother me about Clinton – like, his constant lying. And it is other things that bother me about McCain – like, his Open Borders stance or his Global Warmism.
I’m not saying my attitude is universal, but this claim:
…is self-refuting. The guy’s biography has built-in character. Oh wait, unless you’re a leftist. If you’re a leftist, then 5 years of faithfulness to your buddies and to the United States under Vietnamese torture doesn’t count. But that’s my point: the claim “McCain has no character” will only resonate with people who WANT to believe, and ALREADY believe, that McCain has no character and extraordinarily faithful military service is nothing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2008 @ 2:56 pm - June 10, 2008
I.e. the same kind of total morons who seriously intone, with a straight face, that McCain has had a “privileged” life.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - June 10, 2008
We have no idea what when on in McCains’ first marriage. Could be that 5 years in a vietcong prison camp were too much for his wife to handle! Maybe she wasn’t willing to deal with the man that came back.
To dig that far into his past to discredit the man tells me that don’t have much to smear him with. Oh the dirt will keep on coming, but if that’s the extent of it, I’m sure McCain can deal with it.
Comment by Leah — June 10, 2008 @ 3:27 pm - June 10, 2008
I don’t give a hoot about Senator McCain’s reasons for leaving his first wife. It isn’t anyone’s business. But I do care about his actions as a member of the U. S. Senate.
I am interested in McCain’s role in the European aircraft company, EADS, getting a $35 billion Pentagon contract to build the U. S. Air Force’s badly-needed new generation of aerial tankers.
In 2003, McCain played the key role in blocking a $23 billion deal for Boeing to lease KC-767 aerial tankers to the Air Force to quickly start replacing the Air Force’s KC-135 tankers manufactured in the 1960s.
On January 15, 2007, McCain formally called for multiple bidders, a plan that pitted EADS (and its U.S. “front” partner, Northrup Grumman) against Boeing. The next day a lobbyist for EADS gave $2,100 to McCain’s campaign, the first of what would soon total over $15,000 in campaign contributions from executives of EADS North America and Airbus North America.
Three men who were lobbyists for EADS as recently as last year joined McCain’s campiagn. Two of them gave up their lobbying when they joined McCain’s campaign, including one who left his lobbying firm after the Air Force gave EADS the tanker contract.
But former Texas congressman Tom Loeffler, who has since left the McCain campaign, served as McCain’s national finance chairman while still lobbying for EADS.
McCain denied that any of them ever lobbied him on the tanker deal. But apparently no one asked if they lobbied the Air Force as associates or about-to-be-associates of a Senator who might be the next Commander-in-Chief.
Most of the jobs will be at EADS facilities in Europe but one plant is being built in Alabama. Not long after McCain’s support helped pave the way for EADS to bid against Boeing, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, who had previously declined to take sides in the GOP presidential contest, threw his support to McCain.
Senator McCain may well have been an innocent bystander but everything that’s happened since Boeing’s lease deal was cancelled in 2003 up to this spring’s Air Force announcement that EADS would build the new tanker leaves a lot of questions in my mind about whether McCain’s integrity is all that he’d like us to believe.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 10, 2008 @ 3:47 pm - June 10, 2008
It will be even more interesting to see what the MSM/Snobama apologists absorb and cover up or pass off as “no big deal”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - June 10, 2008
Funny how McCain is given a lot of latitude about dumping his first wife for a rich, blonde one, but boy weren’t the same people calling John Kerry a gigolo 4 years ago…..
Comment by Kevin — June 10, 2008 @ 7:32 pm - June 10, 2008
Really, Kevin? Pray give us one example of that. Name one such name. One will do. One.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2008 @ 7:51 pm - June 10, 2008
#8
Well, for one thing, the McCains keep their money separate. Kerry, combined with Teresuh’s cash and Forbes trusts, would have been the third richest president in history.
Talk about limousine liberal.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2008 @ 8:05 pm - June 10, 2008
If youre a leftist that shows a lack of character. Character to a leftist would be meeting with the enemy and calling your buddies torturers and rapists.
Comment by American Elephant — June 10, 2008 @ 8:14 pm - June 10, 2008
TGC supplies his name… and, lo and behold, has a reasonable explanation for his position. Kerry used his wife’s millions to finance his own career. Per ABC News, McCain hasn’t and won’t.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2008 @ 8:17 pm - June 10, 2008
#6, So let me see…
1) McCain saved the taxpayers money by opening a “no-bid contract” up to multiple bidders,
2) Got planes that hold more fuel for a better price, and
3) the planes will still be assembled in large part by American workers
and you think doing his job shows a lack of character how again?
Comment by American Elephant — June 10, 2008 @ 8:23 pm - June 10, 2008
Re: McCain’s divorce
Let’s not forget, Obama is where he is today because in both his previous campaigns, judges in infamously corrupt Chicago took the unprecedented and unbelievable action of ordering his opponents divorce records made public.
Any bets as to whether Democrats will be pursuing similar tactics again this time?
Comment by American Elephant — June 10, 2008 @ 8:30 pm - June 10, 2008
#6 Trace brings up the controversial Airbus/Boeing tanker deal. Northrup has a large number of subsidiaries who were caught at cross purposes in this whole decision process. Furthermore, the services were also at cross-purposes in their primary interests. Had Boeing thought to redesign the plane, it would have shopped the wings out to fabrication in China and fitting in Japan. The Airbus modifications, however, would be made within the US borders. There is a great deal of classified information concerning this whole affair, but I hardly think McCain can be faulted for his stance.
I am far from a McCain fan and I am still considering how I will handle my vote in November. I will either hold my nose or skip the presidential choice entirely. However, I will not make my choice based on a one-sided report on a very complex decision.
Comment by heliotrope — June 10, 2008 @ 9:01 pm - June 10, 2008
#8 Kevin:
If you are man enough to take on a war hero, I will advise you that a fair number of long term Hanoi Hilton guests had marital problems during their readjustment to life outside of 24/7 controlled Hell. Why don’t you just say that McCain’s imprisonment made him unstable and he has never recovered? You are willing to throw almost any turd you nearly step on, so why not take the risk of the ultimate stink bomb?
Oh, please, don’t tell us you have discovered standards of decency at this late date.
Comment by heliotrope — June 10, 2008 @ 9:08 pm - June 10, 2008
I’ve seen where the liberal left is worried, supposedly, about his “apparent Alzheimer’s” and his alleged PTSD.
Of course, this is the same type of people who blame him for the fire on the USS Forestal and that the “Jewish Conspiracy” covered it up. I have to wonder if that’s the same “Jewish Conspiracy” on Snobama’s website as pointed out be LGF.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 11, 2008 @ 5:10 am - June 11, 2008
“Latitude”? By whom, exactly? Right now this is all just rumor. I haven’t the foggiest idea whether there is any veracity to this or not. If it is true, it does show a flaw in the man’s character though it’s questionable how deep given what he had just survived when this all allegedly happened. There are several glaring flaws about Obama that have been revealed, mostly revolving around his poor judgment. So if we are to be absolutists in this, both men would be disqualifed which may be ideal to getting better candidates but isn’t a reality. We’re stuck choosing between them and barring anything short of supernatural I see no reason not to pick McCain over Obama.
Comment by John — June 11, 2008 @ 9:28 am - June 11, 2008
#8 – Simple, little Kev. McCain is not some rich woman’s poodle, the way John F-ing Kerry has been by marrying not one, not two but THREE rich women in a row.
I guess you could say he got his money the old-fashioned way: by sleeping with it.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 11, 2008 @ 11:30 am - June 11, 2008
Sampley has a hardon for McCain (I have no idea why, nor do I care), and has demonstrated over the years that he will stoop at nothing. He has spread many unsubstantiated, and despicable, rumors about McCain, even that he made propoganda films for the North Vietnamese. I wouldn’t cross the street to spit on Ted Sampley.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 11, 2008 @ 3:10 pm - June 11, 2008
American Elephant, # 13:
You wrote: 1) McCain saved the taxpayers money by opening a “no bid contract” up to multiple bidders.
We don’t know that multiple bidders saved taxpayers any money. If America’s Boing had been the only company to make a proposal, the Air Force would have negoiated a price considered fair to the Air Force.
Don’t forget the lease purchase plan the Air Force and America’s Boeing put together until McCain torpedoed it in 2003. Had it gone through the Air Force would have already received a large number of new, more efficient tankers, retiring a like number of the four decades old KC-135 tankers. Because of their age, especially with the wear and tear from the heavy tasking to the Middle East, millions have been wasted keeping those aircraft airworthy.
You wrote: 2) Got planes that hold more fuel for a better price.
Yes, Airbus’ KC-40 will carry a larger load of fuel than America’s Boeing KC-767. But the KC-767 afforded the Air Force more flexibility in mission tasking — the KC aircraft don’t just carry fuel for aerial refueling of other aircraft — and America’s Boeing and many senior Air Force officers thought that was what the Air Force still wanted.
You wrote: 3)the planes will be assembled in large part by American workers.
Had America’s Boeing been awarded the contract most of the work would have been done by American aorkers (in Washington and Kansas, for example) with some work outsourced to other countries. Since Europe’s EADS got the contract most of the will be done in France with some work outsourced to the United States (Alabama).
There are some very important intangibles that the Pentagon’s procurement brass probably would have considered had there not been political pressure to give the contract to the European company and its domestic “front” partners.
First, is America’s Boeing’s reputation for the quality product it provides the American military. Boeing-made B-52 bombers still comprise an important part of the Air Force’s bomber fleet, primarily as standoff platforms for launching cruise missiles. All of the Boeing-made B-52s are over 40 years old and the Air Force envisions using them for several more decades. The 135 series aircraft — KC-135s, EC-135s, RC-135s — are the military version of the Boeing 707 and the KC-135 tankers are all 40 years old or older. They require a lot of maintenance and many have gotten new engines but they still fly.
That kind of quality and reliability is important to the Air Force and the young men and women who make up the air crews. Why go to a new supplier, especially a European company, when America’s Boring is a known quantity that uses American labor to produce quality products for the United States Air Force.
Secondly, a viable American Boeing is important for both the American economy and our national security. One of the few consistent bright spots in America’s balance of payments has been America’s Boeing’s export of commercial aircraft (and some military platforms) to foreign customers. The United States military never wants to find itself in a position where it has to rely on foreign-based companies to supply aircraft, especially those with classified avionics, etc., and, while admittedly remote, that could happen if America’s Boeing would go belly up or not have the resources to open up the assembly lines needed for a new generation bomber, for example.
I might add at this point that there are a lot of senior military people who think, other than politics, a major factor in European EADS’ favor was wide speculation that EADS was more likely to appeal a Boeing contract and even further delay the Air Force getting new tankers than Boeing was to fight an EADS contract.
Finally, there’s something else involved than just bids and the cost to taxpayers, etc. Senator McCain has spent years creating a “Mr. Clean” image, yet for days recently it seemed like every day brought news that another lobbyist with questionable clients had to leave McCain’s campaign inner circle. What especially bothers me is the fact that some of these lobbyists had been working for Europe’s EADS and then joined up with a potential commander-in-chief who has never made any secret of the fact that he’s had a hardon for America’s Boeing at least since 2003.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 11, 2008 @ 7:53 pm - June 11, 2008
Don’t forget the lease purchase plan the Air Force and America’s Boeing put together until McCain torpedoed it in 2003. Had it gone through the Air Force would have already received a large number of new, more efficient tankers, retiring a like number of the four decades old KC-135 tankers. Because of their age, especially with the wear and tear from the heavy tasking to the Middle East, millions have been wasted keeping those aircraft airworthy.
Under what can only be described as shady circumstances and for a ridiculous price.
Also, read that last part. The KC-135s are among the most, if not THE most, reliable aircraft in the fleet, even more so than the B-52 bombers whose reliability you are praising.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2008 @ 1:39 am - June 12, 2008