That's the thing, Patricia. She's NOT his only child. Perhaps she did "mis-speak" but it's not the first time she's said the same thing. She's consistantly said the same thing - time and time again. She's consistantly been "the only child."

And yes, she is the only child of that particular union - the one between her mother and father - but she's not her mother's only child nor is she her father's only child - each of them had a child before they had her.

Do you really think it's an accidental "misspeak" if it's said repeatedly? Or is it a deliberate misreprentation?

[**sigh**]

Supposed she'd said:

My father was a cowboy, and he really loved me very much, but I think he wanted a son occasionally. I grew up with my dad. I'm his only child.

Would <u>that</u> put what Mrs. McCain was saying in context? For some readers, it's a plain ole yep!; but, for others, it'll be nope, nuh-uh, no-way never-never, no, I <u>know</u> she's lying!

Whatever! Have a nice day.


I'm outta here . . . gotta pack . . . big week ahead.

Yep...and the Keating 5.

Oh and don't forget the yearly $58,548.00 in tax free disability money that's being given to a man who boasts loudly and often of his "perfect health" and who insists that he is ready and capable of walking across the Grand Canyon if need be.

Um, you do understand what we're saying here, don't you, Patricia? She really isn't his only child. Really she isn't. It doesn't matter what context she (or you) put it in. Saying you're a someone's only child when you're not is a lie.

She is lying. She is not his only child. She has two half sisters. One of which belongs to her father. That means her father had TWO children - not one. Not just her. Another one, too. When there are two of something one of them is not an only.

Brian,

Read my paragraph. The only facts I was referring to are these two: "was allowed to stand" and "only removed."

Best,
Slipp


Sorry to be tedious, but what was allowed to stand, what was removed?

To re-iterate, a quotation of something said by Mrs McCain herself, or an excerpt of the original wording of the campaign website, would be helpful in determining if there is any merit to the accusations.

I hope Obama wins, but if he does it will be in spite of his supporters.

Only child that matters.

See also her cavalier redefinition of "still married" (with reference to John McCain's first wife) from last night's CNN interview.

Sorry, I just don't get a good feeling about these people (not that it matters what I think).

Brian,

Cross-posted. Simply the claim that it was at Mother Teresa's urging that they adopt. I can't reconstruct the history of the campaign web-site, have no quotations from Cindy McCain, but all of the accounts agree on this neutral fact, that the claim was there and was subsequently taken down. Cindy McCain may be completely innocent of this; that's irrelevant. Isn't John McCain ultimately responsible for whatever represents him on his own campaign web-site? I think almost anyone would agree that to self-aggrandize by exaggerating a relationship with the soon-to-be sainted (I'd say literally but that's such a cliche!) is comically dishonorable. But, this is all from me on this topic.



[This message has been edited by Mike Slippkauskas (edited August 21, 2008).]

Well that explains it!! LOL

I agree with you, Mike. I don't get a good feeling, either. I did not catch the CNN interview - how did she redefine "still married?" That's gotta be a hard one to do.

It's hard for me to reconcile the charitable Mrs. McCain who gives so much to so many - and yet her step-nephew is out of work and she can't send a few bucks? Her beloved father leaves her a multi-million dollar company and leaves his other daughter $10,000 and she can't augment that money with a few dollars a year? Not only that but immediately upon his death the credit cards he had given the older daughter are cut off? Who cut 'em off?

Having been both an executor and an heir I'm pretty sure only one person could have given the order to either cancel or continue the card.

Call me old-fashioned but I still believe real charity begins at home.

By offering up the fact that the marriage was failed and offering up the amount of time they had been separated and, the Senator added, this was all 30 years in the past anyway. But I feel I could get in trouble if I can't cite chapter and verse, to quote directly, so that's all from me.

That's not what happened at all. According to this article in the LA Times,

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.

That makes John McCain separated from his first wife for less than two months before requesting a marriage license.

Jim

In the same article is another of my beefs, the death of any meaning in language:


In a recent interview, McCain said he did not want to revisit the breakup of his marriage. "I have a very good relationship with my first wife," he said. In his autobiography, he wrote: "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine."

Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, said: "Of course we will not comment on the breakup of the senator's first marriage, other than to note that the senator has always taken responsibility for it."


What is this hogwash that he has "taken responsibility" for his marriage's collapse? To "take responsibilty" for a failed marriage must surely include being totally celibate for the rest of your life. Not only can't he be celibate for 30 years, the guy can't be celibate for 30 minutes it seems.

Same goes for our beloved Gipper saying, on national TV, that he "took responsibility" about the deaths of our Marines in Beirut. If he really "took responsibilty" he would have resigned the presidency the day the tragedy was confirmed. But he did not resign, therefore he did not take responsibility.

If you teach kids that "taking responsibility" is just a bunch of words, why be surprised at "irresponsible" youth? In fact, in both cases, it was worse than being merely irresponsible; it was (1) being irresponsible and (2) lying about it, saying "I take responsibility" to a cheering crowd. Again, what do you expect from the next generation?

Robert Meyer