Letters to the Editor
-
a nomination by default ...
never quite understood the media's fawning over mccain nor why the republicans nominated him. guess the former can be attributed to a suspicion that the national pundits, a largely privileged class, gets weak in the knees by the POW storyline. in terms of nominating him, seemed like the safest choice.
but safe won't cut it for the republicans this year. yes (excepting paul), all their candidates were basically running on GB2's policies. but at least with a huckabee, romney or even guliani, something new could have been brought to the table -- faith-based initiatives, a businsessman's purported acumen, a guy who busted heads in NYC, etc. what does mccain offer? he's tired and old and reeks of washington.
also, his pull among independents will be exposed as a bit of a mirage in a general election. yes, he does well among independents ... against OTHER REPUBLICANS. but that well will dry up when contrasted to a democrat.
-
a nomination by default ...
never quite understood the media's fawning over mccain nor why the republicans nominated him. guess the former can be attributed to a suspicion that the national pundits, a largely privileged class, gets weak in the knees by the POW storyline. in terms of nominating him, seemed like the safest choice.
but safe won't cut it for the republicans this year. yes (excepting paul), all their candidates were basically running on GB2's policies. but at least with a huckabee, romney or even guliani, something new could have been brought to the table -- faith-based initiatives, a businsessman's purported acumen, a guy who busted heads in NYC, etc. what does mccain offer? he's tired and old and reeks of washington.
also, his pull among independents will be exposed as a bit of a mirage in a general election. yes, he does well among independents ... against OTHER REPUBLICANS. but that well will dry up when contrasted to a democrat.
-
@ red_gti2000
People don't necessarily tell you their motives when they act as sources for this sort of story. Your notion that Obama is behind this is utter speculation. It could just as easily be Bloomberg looking for a wedge in as a third party candidate eager to save the day for true conservatives.
Maybe you should use your imagination if you are really going to use your imagination. Without proof, no one knows.
You can be sure of this, with McCain lawyered up, the NYT did not break this story purely on speculation.
-
Excellent NYT article
Please read the entire article on NYT web page, everyone.
The main story is NOT about infidelity or romances (who cares about that) but is about McCain's long standing close ties to and with lobbyists. As early as last year he was enjoying perks from lobbyists.
What is terrifying is how he himself has gone around the very anti-special interest bill that he and Feingold crafted. I don't care if he romanced a blond 40-year old. I do care if he is this solidly in bed with lobbyists.
I find it distasteful that he has been strong arming NUT for over three months now into not pursuing or publishing this article. The article is well researched and is NOT an ordinary smear campaign.
Sigh. And I admired this man.
-
Not surprised
McCain's first wife once stated she attributes the break up of their marriage more to John being 40 and wanting to be 25 again than anything else.
He once apologized for his extramarital affairs (while being married to his first wife) - to read that he may have fooled around with a lobbyist is not a surprise.
Another Bill Clinton - and a wife with a shit-eating grin.
Second marriage for McCain and he's still messing around? He isn't even cute - he's gross.
Obama is a dedicated family man - reason enough to vote for him I'd say.
-
Look Again at the Indian Gaming Scandal
Think again about what Senator McCain didn't do to expose Ralph Reed in the gaming scandal theft of $80 million from American Indian tribes (See The Washington Spectator, February 1, 2008). McCain has picked and chosen what happens to whom before. If we look at a person's record and what they've done in public life, we can learn a lot. I have to say that as someone who wants the world to continue, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would choose McCain after what President Bush has wrought. Senator McCain is compromised on more than one front and he is just too old and his approaches too yesteryear. One should have more than lobbyists, warmongers, and questionable Christians as supporters. If Senator McCain truly represented what we want in our future as citizens of the world, we would come running. Call this runner Obamamama.
-
who dealt it
I fart Huckabee, I luv NY
-
Turnabout Is Fair-Play
Anonymous wrote: "Grandpa McCain still getting it on? Good for him! Not so good it's a lobbyist, though."
Actually, its quite apropos; the lobbyists have been screwing the public interest for years, so, its nice to see the favor returned.
You go, Mccain...
-
The bio page is down again
Thanks to anon for the cached version. I think her firm missed an incredible opportunity to drum up some business there -
"Vicki has extensive experience in telecommunications, representing corporations before the House and Senate Commerce Committees. She is also fucking a United States Senator, which gives her access and influence you just can't get from any other firm."
-
I am uncomfortable with anonymous sources,
but remember that Watergate was broken by an anonymous source, whose identity was only revealed after his death. I'm pretty sick of "senior administration officials" being quoted "on background," though, so it's become harder to tell when it's appropriate and when it isn't. In a story like this, it generally has been, but the overuse for propaganda purposes in the last seven years makes us all wary of anonymous sources. And it sounds like a team of reporters got independent corroboration of this story, which is something. But I'll take a wait-and-see approach. Maybe it will grow legs and start to croak, and maybe not. I do share Drudge's skepticism about the timing - but I don't really think he's in a position to criticize other people's journalistic creds.