Extra! McCain Divorced First Wife! Reeeeaad Aaaaaall About it!
Did you know that John McCain got DIVORCED from his first wife?!?!?!?!?!
And that Ronald and Nancy Reagan were UNHAPPY ABOUT IT because they liked his first wife?!?!?!?!?!?!
Read all about it in the Los Angeles Times!!!!!!!!
Of course it’s front page above the fold! Why do you ask?
You can’t close the Washington bureau. You just can’t! Look at the sort of hard-hitting expose we’d miss out on!
When will McCain get the same powder-puff treatment vis a vis his family life as Obama? Oh yeah, his sons are in the military; so don’t hold your breath.
Alta Bob (e43e07) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:41 amDid the Times give such a treatment to Ted Kennedy’s divorce? I hear crickets chirping and Mary Jo Kopeche is not saying anything.
PCD (5c49b0) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:45 amForget Nancy Reagan; what did Jane Wyman think about it? Seems a bit odd to ask one second wife for her blessing on another.
Xrlq (b71926) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:21 amYellow journalism at its worst.
They use the hook that Nancy Reagan is particularly close to McCain’s first wife and was upset by the divorce 28 FREAKING YEARS AGO to run the story, but the point they really want to make is that McCain hooked up with his second wife months before he filed for divorce but has lied about the timing for years.
All this is intended to do is tag McCain with having cheated on his first wife before divorcing her.
What it completely lacks is any kind of context as to the status of his first marriage. I remember reading a multiple part story on McCain’s military years and his entry into and rise in politics. That story made it clear that McCain’s first marriage was in serious trouble for years before they finally divorced, and it really had nothing to do with either of them being unfaithful to the other. McCain had to deal with some real demons following his years as a POW and the spotlight that he found himself under once he returned from Vietnam. At the same time Carol McCain was dealing with demons of her own stemming from her near fatal car accident and the lingering serious health problems she had. The article suggested that they both were in need of a partner who could help each of them get past the problems they were dealing with, but neither was in a position to help the other because of their individual problems.
McCain has always taken the blame for the breakup of the marriage, and he’s always admitted that in the year’s following Vietnam he spent a lot of time trying to recapture his youth — i.e., acting light a jet jockey on the loose.
WLS (02df99) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:06 amWhen will the LAT give us the meat about Cindy? Voters need to be reminded that wife #2 was addicted to drugs and stole them. Also she is a filthy rich beer baroness. On the other hand Michelle and B Hussein O struggled to pay off their student loans and put fresh fruit on the table and their associations with scumbag crooks, terrorists and racist preachers for twenty years or more counts for little.
Did you know Dubya was DUI thirty years ago? Clinton did not inhale ganja? Obama did hard drugs but doesn’t count when you’re from the ‘hood? Dubya did not get called to ‘Nam because he wasn’t trained on whatever jets were then in service in war? Lurch got rice shrapnel in his arse during his nearly four months as a war hero? Laura Bush killed someone while driving? These are all pertinent questions reflecting on republican candidates but are more like assets for dems.
madmax333 (c79b08) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:30 amAnd if you ask McCain wife #1 about Juan, she adores him.
Xrlq,
You beat me to it.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:37 amObama from da hood????
You ever seen Punahou’s 54 acre campus in the middle of Honolulu???????????
WLS (02df99) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:39 amLA Times complains that 87 year old Nancy Reagan gave an endorsement that was “less than exuberant”.
Wesson (f6c982) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:40 amCan you really blame McCain for what he did? I mean REALLY?
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:12 amThis is on a par with the fraudulent lobbyist – romance story from the NYT, as well as those rumors regarding an unfortunate term he allegedly used to call his present wife. The MSM’s trying real hard to distract everyone from Obama’s documented problems, so they’re attempting a feint in any direction possible. Hey everyone, McCain’s got a temper, and was mean to some congressperson at one time! Hey, look – he might have used an expletive while he was being tortured in NV! That last one was a parody, but how much you wish to bet that they’ll come up with something similar in short order?
Dmac (416471) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:12 amDid Marc Cooper read this article before he decided that the Times is not biased?
Rochelle Funderburg (ae9c58) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:51 am#7 all the good times as a Muslim yoot in Indonesia and as a community organizer in Chicago count for something as far as getting down with the brothers, even if he is somewhat lacking in color. He did land that babelicious junk in da trunk hottie Michelle though. The times he figuratively fellated Ayers, Wright and Rezko don’t count. And don’t forget that Juan McCain cracked under torture and spilled the beans plus cost taxpayers mucho dinero in lost planes.
madmax333 (04ed85) — 7/11/2008 @ 10:26 amI guess they’ll do a detailed look at Obama’s parents next. Like how his dad has already married when he wed Obama’s mom. I mean, as long as we are digging up bodies….
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/11/2008 @ 10:29 amWyman was famously decorous about her marriage when Reagan became governor of California and later president.
“It’s not because I’m bitter or because I don’t agree with him politically,” Wyman said in a 1968 interview.
“I’ve always been a registered Republican. But it’s bad taste to talk about ex-husbands and ex-wives, that’s all. Also, I don’t know a damn thing about politics.”
nk (6a0113) — 7/11/2008 @ 10:33 amReally?
*grabs for Quick-Quotes Quill*
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 10:33 amI always thought Reagan would have been better off with Jane Wyman.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:00 amThe article reads like its straight out of Wiki with a dash of People mag thrown in. And this is professional journalism?
This makes me more convinced that all columnists, op-ed writers, editors and anyone else short of the janitor at the LAT should be requried to read the dust-up every day. And then be tested on it. Obviously the message is not getting through.
Jane Wyman seemed like a real dame, tough and gutsy – Nancy, well, she does adore her Galanos…
Dana (aec96d) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:06 amComing next;
Perfect Sense (23c691) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:12 amWhile engaged in a series of reckless maneuvers, and in broad daylight, McCain flew into a missile, destroying millions of dollars of government property.
Perfect Sense, I think I’ve already seen that attack among the nutroots.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:16 amOnly when the Moon is in the fifth House. (Age of Pisces, donchaknow?)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:19 am“He did land that babelicious junk in da trunk hottie Michelle though.”
– madmax333
I’ve always refrained from saying this explicitly – at least I think I have, until now – but you’re an idiot.
Leviticus (5d926d) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:28 amSir,
Thanks for bringing that piece to my attention. I learned something new, some stuff I hadn’t come across before under huge, above-the-fold headlines. And it does go to that, uh, character thing.
Many of us, religionists in particular, are interested in such matters when voting for our secular gods.
Did you perhaps speed-read past the comparison the LATimes made between McCain’s 2002 memoir and actual court records?
In a political climate in which one’s lapel pin or lack thereof can be pregnant with soooooooooooo much meaning, then surely this in the Times story has some significance:
“I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow,” McCain wrote. “I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.”
An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had “cohabited” until Jan. 7 of that year — or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.
Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:38 amHow many “religionists” in the audience? Show of hands for anyone who self-identifies as a “religionist”…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:47 amUh, I think Moby has his hand up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:48 amThe Ed Meese part of the story struck me as interesting, in a random and unexpected way. Be interesting to hear his take on John McCain after reading this.
Aplomb (b6fba6) — 7/11/2008 @ 12:11 pmDrumwaster:
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 12:14 pmThere is a world outside this chatter room. It includes readers of the LATimes. It includes religionists.
Raise your hand if you don’t live solely in this comments section.
See what I did there? I seem to have surpassed your understanding of the subtleties of the English language by using a metaphor.
Please show me anybody who self-identifies as “religionist”.
The reason I ask is that the ONLY time I see that specific word used is in derision by someone who speaks casually of “Xians” and how odd they are being today…
I’d love to see evidence that I might be wrong, but if that does describe your opinion accurately, you have no right to speak for them or what they might actually believe, or even to speak of an “us” in reference to you and any alleged “religionist”.
And, what was the point of the first comment, if not to speak to this audience on this issue.
I am just (having much fun) pointing out your invalid assumptions.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 12:20 pm“…while still legally married to his first wife.”
Aieeeee! McCain lied, and thousands died! How dare he fudge the time period – this is a moral outrage, another example of the type of mendaciousness that we can expect from a President McCain. Run for your lives! Eeeeek!
Dmac (416471) — 7/11/2008 @ 12:22 pm#23
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/11/2008 @ 12:26 pmI have my left hand up and the other hand behind my back with my fingers crossed. 🙂
Larry Reilly wrote: In a political climate in which one’s lapel pin or lack thereof can be pregnant with soooooooooooo much meaning…
Stop right there, pardner. It wasn’t Republicans who made a to-do about the flag lapel pin, it was Obama.
One day last year, when he didn’t wear one in a campaign speech during the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, he explained why he didn’t to a local Cedar Rapids TV reporter thusly (bold mine):
It was nobody other than Obama himself who attached “soooooooooooo much meaning” to the flag lapel pin, implying that perhaps pols who wear one weren’t ‘true patriots.’ But Mr. “I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest” resumed wearing that pin again after his “bitter clingers” comment to San Francisco elitists earned him the distrust of small-town patriots in Pennsylvania. More here.
BTW, Larry — you may want to think twice about extrapolating inaccuracies in a candidate’s memoirs into serious character flaws as a battleground.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 7/11/2008 @ 12:52 pmI don’t know any idiots who are self-identifying but I come across idiots frequently. I can’t speak for religionists, but I most certainly do, no matter what anyone here might say, have the right to speak about them.
And if dumwaster enjoys quizzes on grammar and syntax, he or she might look again at my original post and notice that my use of “us” has to do with any and all of us who might vote, and that surely includes religionists.
If you need some sort of proof of religionists’ interest in matters political of late — and whether someone not only divorced but who committed adultery before doing so might give them concern — I commend this recently published account of what had been a hush-hushed meeting Barack Obama had with 30 evangelical leaders from around the country — more than a few of them antagonistic. I anticipate puerile jabs at the publication itself. Just try to be big and go at the facts.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080714/blumenthal
The McCain story in the Times is what it is, and some read into it what they bring to it. Heck, I recall when a lot of folks got so excited about a president getting a bj from a chubby gal showing her thong that it caused a constitutional crisis……because he didn’t want to face his wife on it and quibbled over the meaning of “is” as far as a bj being the same as coitus is concerned. Some people found it all pretty silly.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:08 pmAlthough I doubt his motives, I think Larry Reilly makes a good point. McCain treated his first wife badly. His behavior reinforces that he was fickle and a maverick as a young man, something he’s still known for today. That is a characteristic I don’t like about McCain and one of the main reasons I didn’t support him in the GOP primary.
Nevertheless, McCain is more conservative on issues than Obama has been or ever will be. Even if I thought McCain and Obama agreed on every major issue, I’d vote for McCain just to keep Obama from putting another Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:10 pmDont miss the whole point of this post. The aim is to cast doubts on McCain’s integrity. If he cant be faithfull to his wife of how many years but dump her (while she was on the wheel chair, needing care and love)for a fresh, young, hot, rich heiress, how can he be trusted. The aim is to paint a picture of him before the core conservatives,(whom he desperately needs) who frown at such things as extra marital affairs, adultery and the like. A picture of an unreliable husband and father who is ready to dump his marital commitment for the sake of his own personal pleasures. The question is, will they bite? It’s all part of the dirty side of politics 2008. Expect more of this as Nov, approaches.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:11 pmI won’t be voting for McCain, but his having a first wife has nothing to do with my decision.
Once more, for those of you in the stupid seats, you have no right to speak for, nor to assert the alleged views of, any individual or group you clearly hold in such disdain.
You wouldn’t accept me speaking for snotnose liberals using the pseudonym “Larry Reilly”, because I clearly don’t hold your best interests at heart, nor have I shown the least interest in treating your apparent belief with any respect whatsoever, so I would have no right to speak for you.
Similarly, you have no right to claim “us” when speaking with such derision, nor to be the spokesidiot for any such group. Your attempt is nothing short of putting words in the mouths of others with whom you clearly disagree.
To then argue that their decisions are wrong is a straw man argument that proves nothing at all, except for your own opinions.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:22 pmIf John McCain gets his ham glazed in the Oval Office by a chubby intern I will probably get upset. Otherwise I am content that he has been married to the same woman for 27 years in spite of the best efforts of the NY Times to manufacture extra marital scandals.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:30 pmI find it amusing that when it is a Democrat, it is a “purely private thing” and that we should “move on (dot org)”, but a Republican?
The. End. Of. The. World. As. We. Know. It.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:34 pmWhat I wrote is what I wrote:
“Many of us, religionists in particular, are interested in such matters when voting for our secular gods.”
I am interested in learning of significant foibles in persons for whom I’m being asked to vote. An apparent lack of straight-up candor by McCain concerning his first wife raises some red flags in my mind.
I don’t believe it takes any great leap of imagination for me to say that religionists, and I assume we all are working with a textbook definition of the term, IN PARTICULAR are concerned about such matters. I’m not putting words into their mouths. I listen to what they say and read what they write. And from that I’ve learned that they often are PARTICULARLY
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:38 pm(cont.)
in moral rectitude.
And you complain that perhaps my parents didn’t name me “Larry Reilly.”
And yours stuck you with Dumwaster?
Again, read carefully my sentence that gives you so much grief. The only derision there concerning religionists is what you bring to it.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:41 pmLarry Reilly,
His a/k/a is Drumwaster, not Dumwaster. You either have bad eyesight or a bad attitude, and we all know which is more likely.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:46 pmI would have a far bigger problem with McCain’s ‘maverick’ status if he had not publicly (and one assumes privately) assumed all the responsibility for his marital collapse,
“My marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine.”
That does reveal something about his character that shouldn’t be overlooked (not that I feel very good about his treatment of his first wife but I will give that his circumstances were extraordinary upon his return).
“There is a world outside this chatter room. It includes readers of the LATimes.”
Yes, well, may I point you to the wonderful dust-up taking place with our host and an L. A. journalist. Its quite a fun read.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup-2008-jul07-11,0,2252373.storygallery
Dana (aec96d) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:47 pmLet me amend #35 – It’s getting his ham glazed and then flat out lying about it to the American people the way Blowjob Bill did that would be upsetting.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:48 pmBut that “us” includes religionists, and I repeat that you have no business saying what they do or do not believe about any given subject. You are asserting that their belief towards a man who was a fighter pilot, a POW, and a man who has been happily married for 27 years has been affected by a story from almost three decades ago?
Are you honestly asserting that this decades-old story has suddenly changed your mind to the point where you can speak for your faith-based opponents?
Not to mention the fact that any of the people you term “religionists” would find it rather offensive to suggest that they would be voting for a “secular god”. Even Jesus (you know… the ‘X’ you use? that’s the guy) said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto God the things that are God’s”, pointing out the fact that earthly leaders are NOT gods.
If you wish to worship Obama as a god, then don’t ever poke fun at the “religionists” again.
(The intellectual discontinuity that resulted in the concept of a “secular god” I leave for later yux.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:48 pmThanks, DRJ, but my IRL name got me much worse when I was growing up. I quit caring what people thought about personal appellations in third grade.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:50 pmI think personal appellations are silly.
JD Esq. (75f5c3) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:52 pmWanna watch Larry’s head asplode?
Have McCain address this with, “I’m not perfect, just forgiven.”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:53 pm#44, LOL
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:55 pmLarry, in your use of the royal we in your first sentence, why would you assume some people have more concern over a lack of candor than others?
What do you view McCain has been less than candid about given that his divorce has been picked apart in the media in the past? Did you just happen to miss it the other times?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:55 pm#34
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:59 pmI won’t be voting for McCain, but his having a first wife has nothing to do with my decision.
Really Drumwaster? Are you a closet Obamaniac? 😉 It’s nothing to be ashamed of really. You are not alone, comrade. (with a deep Russian accent)
JD Esq.,
I’m with you.
DRJ Esq. (cfa65f) — 7/11/2008 @ 1:59 pmPCD nailed it at #2. And a few others here, too. Not much I can add except the Times hasn’t been this serious about marriage since men were allowed to wear bridal gowns.
Guess McCain should’ve stayed in his first marriage to win votes. We know how traditional the left is.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:00 pmWaving hand! Religionist here! (aka bitter clinger)
Purely anecdotal, however, my conversations with my co-religionists indicate they are much more disturbed by BHO’s 20-year membership in his BLT UCC church than McCain’s deplorable treatment of his first wife.
While some secularists were dismissive of the Rev. Wright tapes and the Trinity UCC website, many in the Evangelical/Fundamentalist community were appalled. Obama is not going to get much traction with these folks.
Just my opinion.
Lesley (c36902) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:02 pmNo, but my eldest daughter is.
I love her anyway.
JD & DRJ can count me in… 🙂
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:08 pmIrrelevant! Hagee! Look over there! nothing to see here! MoveOn!
{/Obamaniac}
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:09 pmLarry Reilly — I guess you slept through the whole part about Bill Richardson giving the chubby intern a job interview to work for him at the UN in an effort to get her out of the White House when the Paula Jones lawyers were beginnig to ask about her, or Vernon Jordan making calls on her behalf seeking employment for Monical Lewinsky with Revlon, American Express, or Young & Rubicon — all in order to keep Lewinsky happy and prevent her from disclosing her relationship to lawyers for Paula Jones.
Some people call that witness tampering, others call it obstruction of justice.
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:11 pmLOL Drumwaster, ESQ!
Sin? We’ve got a remedy for that. Its called true repentance and forgiveness of sin.
Goofy theology? We’ve got a remedy for that, too. Its called anathema.
(I keed)
(I keed, well sorta)
Lesley (c36902) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:19 pmdaleyrocks:
First question: Huh? Are you saying all people have precisely the same concern about lack of candor? If so, we live on different planets.
Second question: See answer to third.
Third question: Yes, I did happen to miss it the other times. That’s what I said to Patterico in my initial post when I thanked him for pointing me to: “….some stuff I hadn’t come across before.”
I had never seen the information put together in one place about the dates in court records compared to the dates in question provided by McCain in his memoirs and elsewhere.
My own question, though it doesn’t matter because I made my ignorance of the issue clear at the beginning: Has that been parsed elswhere previously?
As for my use of the term “secular gods”……I live and work inside the beltway, literally. And in that magic land, especially the Federal City, you can’t help but see that many office holders and any member of Congress, especially the better-known and especially in the Senate, are treated like “secular gods.”
It’s a metaphor, drumwaster.
And again, anyone who wants to argue that religionists aren’t particularly sensitive to matters of marriage and family is arguing with himself.
And you keep accusing me of putting words in the mouths of others, which I’m not, but here you say I worship Obama. Other than point you to a story elsewhere about him tap dancing for a crowd of prominent evangelicals, I haven’t mentioned him. And you can’t draw some inference of that because I’ve denounced McCain, because I haven’t.
I’ll join your game: Some of us cherish winter, when we can build snow men. I expect you prefer autumn, when the hay comes in and you can build more and even bigger straw men.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:21 pmRight now on latimes.com there is a big photo of a nuclear plant next to the story on … how the EPA refuses to regulate greenhouse gases as pollution.
Consider for a moment what these clowns at LA Times must be thinking. Bush bad. Nuclear bad. Global warming bad. Therefore they are all related and the same story!
Wesson (f6c982) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:26 pmLove 2008 @ 33:
Lets not misrepresent the timeline here:
McCain marries Carol in 1965. He adopts Carol’s two sons, and they have a daughter together.
McCain is shot down in October 1967, and isn’t released until March, 1973. So, he spent 2 years married, and then 5 1/2 years in a North Vietnamese prison.
This multi-part piece in the Arizona Republic from last year covers all this ground in a much more professional manner than does the LAT today:
“McCain needed a divorce from Carol, his wife of 14 years from whom he was separated. After McCain’s dramatic homecoming from Vietnam, the couple grew apart. Their marriage began disintegrating while McCain was stationed in Jacksonville. McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs.
…
In February 1980, less than a year after he met Cindy, McCain petitioned a Florida court to dissolve his marriage to Carol, calling the union “irretrievably broken.”
….
In his book Worth the Fighting For, McCain offers his own post-mortem on his failed marriage. He “had not shown the same determination to rebuild (his) personal life” as he had to excel in his naval career.
“Sound marriages can be hard to recover after great time and distance have separated a husband and wife. We are different people when we reunite,” McCain wrote. “But my marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine.”
And the LAT’s adds what to the story today?
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:29 pmThe link I posted didn’t work. Here is the whole thing:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:30 pmMore’s the pity. They are Civil SERVANTS, not Civil MASTERS. They work for US, not the other way ’round.
Like I said, if you want to worship them as secular gods, don’t you dare speak about “religionists” with such derision.
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:33 pmWhew! Lotta lawyers suddenly in here suddenly. FUNNY lawyers to boot! (Well not to boot, but you knowmsaynrite?) You guys are too much.
Oh, and Larry? Would you do me a favor and define “religionist” for me? I don’t think you have yet and am truly very interested in what you think one is, not being familiar with the “textbook definition” you said that you assume we’re all using. Thanks.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:35 pmLarry Reilly wrote: Heck, I recall when a lot of folks got so excited about a president getting a bj from a chubby gal showing her thong that it caused a constitutional crisis……because he didn’t want to face his wife on it and quibbled over the meaning of “is” as far as a bj being the same as coitus is concerned.
Your recollection is faulty. There was no “constitutional crisis.” And the “excitement” was not about the sex act itself, it was about the President of the United States using his power to try to fix a civil suit against him that the Supreme Court agreed should proceed while he was in office. IOW, Perjury, and suborning perjury. Look it up.
Some people found it all pretty silly.
I’m sure people like you do.
Being a bad President isn’t enough to get you impeached — if that were so, it would have happened more than twice in the 232-year history of this republic. But when a POTUS is proved to be a perjurer with DNA evidence, there isn’t much choice for someone who takes the Constitution seriously.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:52 pmWLS wrote: And the LAT’s adds what to the story today?
1. Bias.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:53 pm2. Bile.
Next time I sidle up next to one of those very important folks at a D.C. cocktail party, I’ll tell’em drumwaster says they work for him. I expect they’ll nod and say, “Yes, of course.” And, oh, the sparkle of power that will shine in that eye. It will burn as brightly as a civics lesson from drumwaster.
As for the definition of religionist. How ’bout not bothering to pull a dictionary from the shelf and just click on MSWord’s Encarta dictionary for the noun version under religionism, which is religious enthusiasm regarded as excessive or affected. And those folks could be trouble for someone with a thorny divorce, but even moreso (read: Obama) for someone who can’t not support abortion rights.
Ya know, I finished a long-running project this afternoon and thought I’d go throw a firecracker in an echo chamber. Found a good one here.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:54 pmWell, first of all, congratulations on finishing your project. Am playing’ a little hooky from a long running one myself.
Re: “religionist,” I’m sorry you think the rest of us are on the same page; however, even Googling the term gives very different shades of meaning to it (this is just the first link which popped up when I Googled “define religionist.” But now that I know you mean the derogatory one (see # 3 in that first link, as opposed to 1 and 2, which are not derogatory), now “we” “all” know where you’re coming from. Thanks for clarifying.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:03 pmSmithee,
When one of our three branches of government sets out to take down the head of one of the other branches, how can you day that is not a Constitutional crisis?
I would say an impeachment is by definition a Constitutional crisis. Quite critical, in fact.
As for all that perjury and DNA: It’s still a story about a guy who got a bj from a chubby gal and when put in the embarrassing position of being asked about it……LIED. Yup. Lots of husbands do that. Could quibble about the definition of “is” as far as coitus and bj’s are concerned. But he told an untruth. Yup. Geez. JFK had Marilyn Monroe brought in to the White House for trysts. And all Clinton got was Monica.
You can link to all the definitions and explanations you want, but I fall back to “Animal House,” when the Deltas were in front of the equivalent of a grand jury and a hanging jury: “cough-cough-Blow-Job-cough-cough.”
You can rest in the comfort that the affair innoculated Mr. Bush from same for what some reasonable thinking people believe are true high crimes and more than misdemeanors, oh, like fudging about reasons for war. (For drumwaster: I didn’t say me, I said “some reasonable people, meaning people with whom you can usually reason.)
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:14 pmLarry Reilly–I’m not particularly religious; I have issues with lack of faith. But I suppose you could call me mildly religious. Until I met a Schmuckist like you I’ve never heard the term “religionist” or “religionism”. I have heard the term secularist, and I suppose you may be one.
And as Lloyd Bentsen might have said, “Larry Reilly , I know religionists. Some of them are good friends of mine. And you’re no religionist”. So stop blowing smoke up our skirts.
My wife’s and my reaction to the story about McCain’s marital troubles some 28 years ago as an item of current news–top left hand corner front page above the fold–was “Why is this so much more important than any other story in the paper today?” Well the answer is that it was that important to the Los Angeles Times. If Obama had murdered a puppy in the street yesterday, the LAT would have run the story on page A-28.
I think our first Black President (or so Clinton styled himself) admitted in an interview in 1992 (trying to tamp down the Bimbo Eruptions) that he had “caused pain in his marriage”. He got a pass from the press, and managed to get elected.
McCain has already and long ago admitted that the problems were his fault. For Clinton, that gets him a pass; for McCain, it gets him front page top left corner coverage in the Los Angeles Times 28 years later.
I guess there a lot of “Schmuckists” and “Putzists” down at the L. A. Times.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:15 pmFTFY. And the difference is just a bit more than a husband trying to cover up a marital infidelity (although Hillary already knew, since the details had been splashed across the front page of the NYTimes), especially when that husband is a lawyer AND represented by counsel.
The fact that the President was such a lying scoundrel that he could not help himself is what caused the crisis. (It wasn’t a Constitutional crisis, since the Constitution had a very clear method of dealing with behavior like his. See Article II, Section 4.)
Thank you for making the distinction between yourself and “people with whom you can usually reason”.
Sheesh.
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:23 pmWould you say a Presidential election is also a Constitutional crisis? If not, why not?
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:25 pmLarry, next time you wish to make a point by linking to source material, you’ve got to do a whole lot better than Katrina Van Maoist at her paper mache’ mouthpiece. As a famous writer once said about another rival, “every word from her mouth is a lie, including ‘the’.”
Dmac (416471) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:32 pmTo Mike Myers:
Gee. I hereby promise not to teach you any more new words. Seems to make you froth and go all ad hominem. Words are dangerous things in some folks’ hands.
Dmac: As I wrote that I anticipated: purile.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:37 pmYou can link to all the definitions and explanations you want, but I fall back to “Animal House,” when the Deltas were in front of the equivalent of a grand jury and a hanging jury: “cough-cough-Blow-Job-cough-cough.”
Comment by Larry Reilly — 7/11/2008 @ 3:14 pm
Well…haven’t seen Animal House but I hadn’t expressed any opinion about what I thought the grand jury was all about. I just find it amusing how much you just assume. Like, on this site we all think alike (“echo chamber”), everyone understands a word exactly as you do even when two seconds of Googling would show you otherwise, all religious people can be lumped as “religionists,” all “religionists” think the same, all conservatives care about are “blow jobs” etc etc.
So keep assuming, Mr. Reilly. It’s nothing new that we haven’t seen before, but it’s rather fun watching, to be honest.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:43 pmDmac: As I wrote that I anticipated: purile.
Comment by Larry Reilly — 7/11/2008 @ 3:37 pm
I’m sorry, I don’t know that word either. Or did you mean puerile? If you’re going to insult someone’s maturity you could at least look it up (like an adult) first, you know, to get the invective right.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:51 pmLarry Reilly – I’m not an American, merely a resident alien, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not an Officer of the Court in any way – and *I* know that President Clinton had other options, including that well-known Constitutional option of imply saying “I plead the 5th Amendment” (or however you say it legally) …
Instead, he chose explicitly and deliberately to commit perjury … remember, this *is* President Clinton we are talking about, whose deliberateness is well-known …
Thus, it wasn’t “one of our three branches of government sets out to take down the head of one of the other branches”, it was President Clinton himself, in ongoing arrogance, who preciptated the potential Constitutional crisis … President Clinton could have chosen to take President Nixon’s path to avoid a Constitutional crisis – instead, in characteristic arrogance, he relied upon the members of his own party in the Senate to protect him …
And you remain proud of him, Larry Reilly …
Alasdair (0c1945) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:52 pmLarry Reilly wrote:
Try to retell The Ballad of Slick Willie in slap-on-the-back, “c’mon boys, we’ve all been there” terms if you want, Larry, but at the end of the day, the fact remains: Bill Clinton tried to screw Paula Jones out of a fair trial (despite the fact her suit was dismissed…by a former student of former law prof Clinton, but that’s another story). That’s small-town hick corruption, true, but it should be absolutely intolerable in the highest office in the land.
JFK had Marilyn Monroe brought in to the White House for trysts. And all Clinton got was Monica.
I don’t know enough to believe the stories about MM in the WH with JFK. What we do know is JFK was fooling around, and put himself at risk for extortion (see Giancana, Sam). Not what you want in your CiC, unless you think part of the job should include carte blanche to make sure dead girls tell no tales (see Kopechne, Mary Jo).
Uh huh. I refer you to links to the text of the Articles of Impeachment, and you “fall back to Animal House. I’m starting to get a pretty good idea of the kind of guy you are, Larry.
This is precisely what I meant when I wrote “Being a bad President isn’t enough to get you impeached.” You have to commit a crime to qualify. That’s why despite the best efforts of that handsome devil Henry Waxman, Bush WILL be there in January to pass the torch to the next President.
I have yet to hear a cogent, rational argument for impeaching Bush that has any roots in legality or precedent as opposed to hysteria. Got one?
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:52 pm“…and put himself at risk for extortion (see Giancana, Sam).”
Don’t forget his affair with the operative from Stasi (a.k.a. East Germany – that one could’ve really blown up in his face).
“…but I fall back to “Animal House,” when the Deltas were in front of the equivalent of a grand jury and a hanging jury: “cough-cough-Blow-Job-cough-cough.”
Gosh, Larry – that’s so “poorile.”
Dmac (416471) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:28 pmLarry, one might say that you were skilled in pumping a lot of hot air into a nothing issue.
But that would be wrong, you don’t really have the skill.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:43 pm#52
No, but my eldest daughter is.
I love her anyway.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:50 pmSmart kid.
Drumwaster (#15):
and
From Obama Sr article on Wikipedia. At least until Obama’s Wiki-polishers get to it.
Not that this means much in the modern world … unless of course one is bashing another candidate for a sloppy divorce. Why one is suited for the Times, and the other only suited for the Enquirer is left for the reader to decide.
Kevin Murphy (eb4d6c) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:03 pm#79
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:10 pmThe only difference Kevin is that Obama senior is not contesting for the office of the president of the United States of American. Come on, the man is dead for Christ’s sakes! How much lower can you sink?
United States of “America”. Not American
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:13 pmlove2008, with people like Wesley Clark in the world, the bar is pretty low.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:17 pmIt’s merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left screaming that McCain should be punished for having married again, yet not a peep is heard about the active polygamy practiced by Obama’s father.
In the United States, especially Hawaii, that would make Obama a bastard (since Hawaii wouldn’t recognize a polygamous marriage, nor does it recognize common-law marriages). In many States, such illegitimate children cannot inherit to this day.
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:22 pmSorry, Dmac…I was typing in a hurry to run to a cookout…….check my first post…where I anticipated your kind of response…… and you’ll find a spelling voucher. Please note the appropriate spelling of puerile: “I anticipate puerile jabs at the publication itself. Just try to be big and go at the facts.”
And in that same hurry I wasn’t able to fully respond to Mike Myers. Mike, thank you so much for sharing the details of your spiritual journey. Absolutely fascinating.
SPQR: Here it comes right back at your level: I know you are, but what am I?
Smithee: Bush won’t be impeached. Don’t worry about it. But I betcha a buncha pooh comes out into the light while you’re still around to see it. Just betcha. Buncha poo. You know some rats are jumping ship; rats who speak English and know words that would give Mike Myers here the vapors.
And I’m really sorry you didn’t get to pick the judge for the Paula Jones case.
Dmac and Smithee: Clinton’s impeachment was about a blow job. bjbjbjbjbj. He was investigated by a man whom some would call a religionist. (RAnd what we got was a report about a man who enjoyed a particular carnal pleasure written by a man who probably never has experienced that particular carnal pleasure.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:52 pmcough-cough. Back to you, Dean Wermer.
As for the definition of religionist. How ’bout not bothering to pull a dictionary from the shelf and just click on MSWord’s Encarta dictionary for the noun version under religionism, which is religious enthusiasm regarded as excessive or affected.
This definition doesn’t apply to Obama . . . why?
Anon (439b9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:56 pmAnd pray tell, troll reilly, how many clinton cohorts did Ken Starr manage to have hauled off to prison? What if Hillary couldn’t get away with all those convenient memory lapses or Susie McDougal came clean? Funny how Jim McDougal managed to have his meds messed up in prison and ended up pushing daisies. Don’t forget a sitting dem governor convicted also. Denigrate Starr and praise an impeached judge who goes on to represent Dade county in Congress and was even Pelosi’s first choice to head Intelligence commitee. It is only about politics and corruption with liberals. I spit on your fallacies.
madmax333 (602429) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:02 pmROTFLMFAO @ 73
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:05 pmNo, it was about testimony given under oath where he LIED (lying under oath = PERJURY = felony), and conspired with others to get them to lie (getting others to lie under oath = Subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering = more felonies).
Felonious activity in relation to a lawsuit that was started long before that blowjob.
“Felony” is the modern term for “high crimes” as opposed to “misdemeanor”, but even if it was “just about a blowjob”, that includes the fact that he was 1) a married man; 2) her employer; and, 3) should have known better. He had been caught in such delicate situations before, so you can’t pretend that it was a surprise. Do you think that the head of an Executive Agency (say, Secretary of HHS) should be allowed to keep his job after getting caught diddling one of the help?
(Not to mention that adultery is against the law in Washington, DC.)
The man is a criminal, and plea bargained his way out of a jail sentence by offering a large fine and suspension of his law license. (Mark that point. He was a lawyer, so he knew that what he was doing was a felony. He had no excuse. He did it anyway. And you are defending a proven felon as “not so bad”.
But I’ll bet you were cheering when Scooter Libby got convicted for remembering something differently than a DC reporter (who couldn’t possibly have gotten anything wrong, what with their multiple layers of fact checking and editorial control). Maybe he should have said he was getting a blowjob…
(I was being sarcastic about the fact checking and editorial control.)
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:07 pmThat there Larry, he sure is a silver-tongued devil. Funny, I always thought that impeachment was because Clinton perjured himself, badly, while a sitting President. Had I known it was just about a hummer, I would have felt differently. Thanks for teaching us rubes.
Racist.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:13 pmThe L.A. times is covering for McCain.
His support for wars and more wars for Greater Israel is surely a more important issue than some long-ago divorce.
The Reverend Terence Fformby-Smythe (a757fd) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:16 pmReilly, by the way, your attempt to smear Ken Starr was pretty lame.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:17 pmSheesh, how did “Smythe” get in here, did everyone check the bottom of their shoes?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:18 pmBTW, just to second what everybody else here has said, I have never heard anybody describe themselves as a “religionist.” Ever.
From Larry’s definition — “Excessive or affected” are not words I normally use to compliment somebody.
Anon (439b9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:19 pm“…and more wars for Greater Israel…”
Wow, the left brings its A game.
Anon (439b9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:21 pmKen Starr only went after Clinton because his religious sensibilities were offended?
Please!!!
Icy Truth (d84bd5) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:34 pm#84
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:53 pmClinton’s impeachment was about a blow job. bjbjbjbjbj.
No it wasnt.
While the House Judiciary Committee hearings were perfunctory and ended in a straight party line vote, there was lively debate on the House floor. The two charges passed in the House (largely on the basis of Republican support but with a handful of Democratic votes as well) were for perjury and obstruction of justice. The perjury charge arose from Clinton’s testimony about his relationship to Monica Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit (later dismissed, appealed and settled for $850,000)[54] brought by former Arkansas-state employee Paula Jones. The obstruction charge was based on his actions during the subsequent investigation of that testimony. The Senate later voted to acquit Clinton on both charges.[55] The Senate refused to convene to hold an impeachment trial before the end of the old term, so the trial was held over until the next Congress. Clinton was represented by Washington law firm Williams & Connolly.
It was for perjury and obstruction of justice.
#90 correctomundo you are. LAT throws out ancient history about McCain’s first marriage and what certain associates thought of it all because the LAT wanted a smoke screen to cover the mendacious ways McCain kisses the Joos asses in support of Zionism and Israel. You should be a close advisor to Urkel Obamalamadingdong for sure.
Funny how the big, bad A-rabs have puny-sized Israel sticking in their craws all these years. No room for the beloved Palis in all those vast desert wastelands nor enough money to raise their own lackeys standard of living, but plenty of bile for the dirty Jews. I thought we had exposed the vaunted Republican Guard for the actual pussies Arab fighting men really are and still we quiver at prospect of sending those mad Iranian mullahs to see allah and gain their 72 arafish-faced virgins. Anyway keep that thought about the powerful jewish cabal running US foreign policy.
madmax333 (602429) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:06 pmIf Clinton didn’t lie about a blow job, then what’s the problem?
Did he perjure himself over perjury? Did he obstruct obstruction? How much do you want to twist this? What is your definition of “is”?
The perjury and obstruction of justice stuff was all about a blow job. bjbjbjbjbjbj……slurp.
Me, I think he lied about it, and for damned good reason. (Boy, does that sound Republican, or like a good line from William Shatner in “Boston Legal”, or what?)
But you exonerate him on the blow job thing. You don’t think he lied about a blow job?
I think there’s proof right here in this little echo chamber. I wonder if Smithee bought the jizz-stained dress on eBay just to be able to say he has the, uh, DNA.
Now, madmaxx whatever your subsequent number, them’s the words of a troll. I started out with a legitimate if provocative repost to Patterico on the main subject of this thread. I understand the concept of a “troll” in such forums, but fall away in expertise on the rest of the lexicon. I just know my statement was straight forward and that I was set upon pretty quickly by dwarves, or whatever ‘net metaphor is appropriate.
And that SPQR wishes he could find it so easy to swat them away. Cut-and-paste boiler-plate don’t work — the seams show because that’s all that’s there.
I think I’ll end my visit now after someone here called me a racist. I won’t wait around to find out just what race it is thought I might be and just which race or races it is thought I might be agin’.
Can the echo chamber hear-hear-hear-ear-ear-ar-ar me-me-e-e?
There’s a bigger world out there guys. And it has more than one, heck, more than two, sides. But don’t be bothered with that.
And waster-of-drums, I bet you’re really good at that day job that is your craft, e.g. working with your hands. I respect that. I’ve rebuilt some car engines in my day. Worked a coupla years on a trawler. Keep calibrating the language. Words can be fun.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:24 pmReilly, that you are clueless about the events you wish to opine upon does not surprise me. That you pretend to be so sophisticated when your comments are so cardboard does not surprise me either.
That you do it so incoherently is merely par for the course.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:26 pm#98
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:42 pmLarry its very simple. There is a big difference between being impeached because of a blow job (which is hardly a criminal offence) and being impeached because he lied about it. And by lying he obstructed justice. Lying under oath is a serious offence. Actually a criminal offence. I am sure you understand that.
Whatever the alleged reason, he was still a lawyer lying UNDER OATH (a point you fail to grasp).
He was not impeached for lying to the entire nation when he waggled his famous finger at the cameras and said “I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinsky”, even though his lies were exposed for all to see.
He was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH. And OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. And SUBORNING PERJURY.
Those are all FELONIES. Which means jail time if you or I were to do it.
His lies were not about the blowjob. They were about the existence of the relationship itself.
Better than you can imagine, boychik. If it weren’t for people like me working with my hands, you would not be sitting there in your comfort playing on equipment built by smarter people than you.
Why? Looking for work? I don’t hire losers.
Was that before the warden sent you back to the laundry?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:03 pmBack to McCain for a moment … US News has published photos of McCain’s prison cell in Vietnam. He endured hell, survived, forgave, and moved on with his life. That goes a long way in my book.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:10 pmMe, I think he lied about it, and for damned good reason. (Boy, does that sound Republican, or like a good line from William Shatner in “Boston Legal”, or what?)
So breaking the law is only problematic when you have a problem with it, cool.
I think I’ll end my visit now after someone here called me a racist.
For a guy who tossed out a bunch of punches in the last 90 posts, that is some remarkably thin skin and a fairly brittle glass jaw.
I started out with a legitimate if provocative repost to Patterico on the main subject of this thread.
You started out using the term “religionist” and, then, insisting that it was a common word and calling yourself one rather than a derogatory term — i.e., you started out appearing disingenuous and coming across as a Moby (a liberal who pretends to be a conservative on the internet).
If you had started being straightforward instead of pretending to be a religious person upset over this, (and, yes, I’m putting pretending there; I have never heard of a religious person calling themselves a religionist) you would have been treated with more respect.
(We probably still would have ripped you for acting upset over this and defending Clinton, though. So…Clinton only broke a minor law? Since when is that your standard? Last time I checked, McCain didn’t break any law. We were arguing over character and McCain has more in his pinky than the guy you’re defending has ever pretended to have–and that goes well beyond married life, though it should be pointed out that McCain has at least the capacity to keep his dick in his pants unlike the guy you feel compelled to defend.)
I won’t wait around
Famous last words – yeah, you will. Whether you post another comment on this thread or not, you know damn well you’re going to log onto this thread tomorrow morning and read what the replies were.
Anon (439b9a) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:30 pmI could not agree more, DRJ and said as much back in June with this comment:
“The other aspect to McCain’s service that I find remarkable is that although he returned to the United States physically broken he did not spend the subsequent years embittered toward the country and government which kept us in the questionable conflict to begin with.
“What did McCain do to excel in the military?”
How about he managed to stay alive and lived to tell. That in itself is profound. That to this day he continues to serve, even moreso.
And that Aravosis even had to ask the question tells me all I need to know.
Comment by Dana — 6/30/2008 @ 2:08 pm
Only speculating, of course, but the depth of strength and faith that it must of taken to forgive his captors and move on may have been another unspeakable agony… that act seems to get so trivialized in the politicking.
Dana (aec96d) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:38 pmDana –
forgiveness isn’t very flashy.
A bunch of liberal nuts standing up and mocking religion with their self-serving ravings, blaming all their pet “wrongs” on The Allowed Target Of The Week, that gets the blood pumping, that makes impressive theater.
“I suffered greatly at your hands…and I forgive you. I won’t let bitterness destroy me” is much less exciting.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/12/2008 @ 10:25 amAnd waster-of-drums, I bet you’re really good at that day job that is your craft, e.g. working with your hands.
My father worked with his hands all his life and you would not make a pimple on his behind. Up yours, sissyboy.
nk (6a0113) — 7/12/2008 @ 11:46 amNK-
Quite right.
A trained monkey can shuffle paper– doing real work, skillfully? That’s another thing.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/12/2008 @ 4:26 pmYou guys give your own game up.
If the details of McCain’s divorce aren’t relevant to the election, then there’s no cause for concern that publishing those details will affect his chances for election.
If, on the other hand, the details of his divorce are relevant to the election, how can you argue the Times should repress this information?
Just because some of the details were previously reported in the Arizona Republic or a biography or somesuch doesn’t mean they are general knowledge. McCain’s now running for president, so thorough, renewed scrutiny is the standard he and every single other candidate faces.
I do understand why McCain’s fans feel the information should be suppressed. The facts about the divorce, and McCain’s inability to play straight with the public about those facts, paint a pretty dark picture of the man’s character.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 6:37 pmSo we can look into the decisions made by “the candidates” about who they choose to hang out with (and sit on boards with and buy property from and refer to as “close personal friends/advisers”, etc.) that dates back to (say) the last twenty years, right? Because now they are fair game, right?
(IOW, if the worst you can come up with is a divorce from thirty years back for which he has already claimed responsibility, then you’d better divest yourself of any sharp implements come Halloween…)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 6:52 pmI look forward to the front-page above the fold story on Obama’s cocaine use.
This comment failed to set forth two mistakes on my blog as suggested by DRJ. You are dead to me, and welcome here only as long as you serve as a plaything for JD.
Patterico (ccb8db) — 7/12/2008 @ 6:53 pmOoooooh. That’s gonna leave a mark.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 6:55 pmBossman, can I join in the slapping around, too? (I promise not to use the “leonine fornicator” remark.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 6:57 pmSorry, that should be ‘hircine’.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 6:57 pmBye-bye, bb.
DRJ (ec597e) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:22 pmPatterico – I am ambivalent about blunderbluster. He/she/it is really not a very good troll. Quite transparent and predictable.
David Petranos Esp and MDKP, on the other hand … now that is some quality krazy.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:52 pm“I look forward to the front-page, above-the-fold story on Obama’s drug use.”
Sorry Pat, but NYT has that covered.
“Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life” New York Times, front page, Feb. 9, 2008.
I strongly suspect that L.A. Times will revisit the theme on it’s front page soon enough. I’d throw down a wager on that, in fact, but I understand you’re not one to put your money where your mouth is.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:20 pmPatterico – I changed my mind.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:11 pmIf the details of Obama’s wife aren’t relevant to the election, then there’s no cause for concern that publishing those details will affect his chances for election.
If, on the other hand, the details of his wife are relevant to the election, how can you argue the Times or the Republicans should repress this information?
Following this logic, I fully agree with bunkerbuster that the past statements, racial, social and religious opinions of Michelle Obama are perfectly relevant to this election and that she should be considered perfectly fair game.
I also believe whether or not Obama wears a flag pin is relevant to this election, because if it weren’t relevant to this election what would Obama have to worry about re: attacks over it?
Likewise, whether or not Obama knows there are 50 states in the U.S. vs. 57 states is a perfectly relevant and timely topic.
Think it’s petty?
Nonsense. If any topic is petty, you have nothing to worry about–ergo, no topic should be considered too petty and too irrelevant to report on.
Now that you have all been enlightened, please continue.
Anon (439b9a) — 7/12/2008 @ 10:39 pmIf you’re on, join our live chat. Top post on the main page.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/12/2008 @ 10:44 pm