Cindy McCain has history of controversy; McCain's mistress while he was still married, their wedding one month after his divorce, her addiction to prescription drugs and theft of drugs from her own charity (linked some quick summaries below) to more recent allegations she stole a cookie recipe and posted it as her own, and that she has been quick to atttack M. Obama's 'proud' comment with repeated assertions of her own pride.

How will Cindy McCain's past and present controversies affect her husband's campaign? How will they affect her performance if she finds herself in the role of First Lady?


Quick History of the Keating FIve


Drug Scandal

[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited June 23, 2008).]

nevermind

[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited June 23, 2008).]

Another one? How about giving it a break for a while, Jerry?

You've now got about four threads going, all of which could be summarized as JERRY HARTWIG GOOGLING AND GETTING EXCITED AND PONTIFICATING ABOUT WHATEVER HE FINDS WHENEVER HE UNEARTHS A NEW (TO HIM) POLITICAL STORY.

It's heartening to know that you discovered the the two leading contenders for the Presidency both have wives and backgrounds. And I encourage you to keep abreast of important information like this on a regular basis. But is it really necessary to launch another thread - shoving everything else down a notch - every time you do a Google search and come across information that most of us have been following and thinking about for months and months?

Cantor -- Take your damn medication and go sit on the beach. There's no rules for posting a bunch of topics in General Talk and two of Jerry's four current posts are ones he started a while ago. They have lots of replies. Perhaps their popularity is encouraging Mr H. to read and post more. Which brings up another point that you seem incapable of grasping:

If you don't like something and want it to go away, don't reply to it.

Jebus H. Koresh,
Miguel

fwiw Cindy McCain could well be an albatross if the tenor of the election heads south.
Which it probably will.

Makes sense to me.

Speaking for myself, I've been enjoying the various political discussions. They're interesting, informative, and they speak volumes of the people writing them. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

There's not much difference between a political thread which keeps popping back up to the top and a poem which refuses to die because the author insists on responding to each and every comment individually or on making innumerable small changes in the poem in an attempt to keep his/her poem "on top." The motive is probably different but the end reaction from the readers can be the same - if it bothers you, ignore it; if it interests you, read it.

I'm pretty sure Jerry doesn't give a damn if his political thread gathers more responses than the next guy's - and I doubt he's trying to "stay on top" for personal reasons. The thing is, if you look, Jerry's certainly not the only one who's writing responses to any of the 4 threads in question.

It's educating, Michael. Some of us read things here more frequently then we read things elsewhere - and therefore some of the finer details that we wouldn't have been aware of are now being brought out and we can investigate each one deeper if we like - or, as Mr. Palmer points out - ignore it if we don't like.

Sorry - just my 2 cents worth.

L

P.S. For instance, I was unaware of "The Keating Five" and I knew very little about Cindy McCain and nothing at all about their relationship before their marriage. I was only vaguely aware of her drug problem and knew none of the details. I'm not sure it's going to end up being important to the election - altho I just might give some thoughts on it later when I'm not so pressed for time. It's been good to find these things out - if for no other reason than it's given me a damn good excuse not to clean the house or write another stupid cat poem.

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited June 24, 2008).]

You have to excuse Michael - he often suffers the delusion the 'Sphere is his own private domain, and if it doesn't fall into his into area of interest it doesn't belong here.

Anyway, he and I have had disagreements before and neither one of us takes them personally. I generally just smile - it's rather comforting to know there are things in the world that will always remain consistent.

I had originally planned a series of discussions here covering all the people involved in the campaigns, and then various issues. I hesitated about posting the C. McCain thread, due to the coverage she got n the M. Obama thread, but I figured 'fair's fair' and there might have been someone who wanted to include some comments without getting embroiled in the arguments there.

I enjoy hearing other people's opinions and have learned a great deal myself, which is the purpose of these threads.

I'm still trying to figure out what the American flag lapel pin issue is all about.

If it's a dead issue, the thread will drop into obscurity...

America

I was at that concert and I heard that performance live. I was so far from the stage, however, that I couldn't even be sure which was Simon and which was Garfunkel.

I had a much better view (about thirty feet directly in front of them) when they reunited for a concert in the Paramount Theater. Their first two songs were "America" and "The Boxer," and I was in heaven.

Alexander - I have a wonderful version of that 'America' on my ipod performed my Josh Groban. He sings it quite beautifully, as is the case with pretty much everything he touches. Its a funny/sad song. Thanks for posting this.

Anne

To get even further off-topic, but maybe not, the only time I saw Paul Simon was he was touring with Bob Dylan in 1999. The song out of all the others by both men was when Dylan sang a somewhat obscure song off of <u>Freewheelin'</u>, his second album, called "Masters Of War." It seemed a little out of place and irrelevant at the time (1999), but his delivery was haunting. Now it seems prophetic, with the last two verses being:

MASTERS OF WAR

....Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

- Bob Dylan

written decades before the Blackwater scandel and performed years before, but is seems more appropriate now than ever before.

Robert Meyer

If we had given such critical attention to the spouses of the candidates, or lack of same, would we have elected Thomas Jefferson? Abraham Lincoln? Harry Truman?

As for myself in 2008, I know which presidential candidate I prefer, but I'm still undecided about candidates for the equally important offices of First Spouse, First Daughter, First House-Pet and First Pool-Boy.

G/W



[This message has been edited by Golias (edited June 26, 2008).]

Roger:

Wow. The Boxer is a masterpiece of a song.

Probably not.

But then again, there wasn't the same sort of media access that there is today.

Personally, I think spouse-wariness might be one good reason Hillary won't get the VP nod.

While the two women are about equally liked, Michelle Obama is twice as disliked as Cindy McCain.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25494172/

Huh?

McCLAUDIUS


The empress Messalina lists her sins:
Anheuser-Busch, with charity,
and drugs; but this one needs a doctor's spins,
"romantic" ...say... "vulgarity."


Robert Meyer

Cindy wouldn't be the first First Lady to run into cookie trouble.


Hilary's Cookie Crack

C is for Clinton

I thought "C" is for "Cindy." Maybe it's "S" for "Sin-D." But if that's the case, what letter is for "sex"? Maybe it's "H" for "harlot." You can't accuse Hillary of that, but it has always been Cindy's stock and trade. But if that's the case, what letter is for "hypocrite" (Greek for "actor")? That has to be reserved for our beloved Gipper, leaving the letter "M" (previously for "movie star") free so it can stand for "McCain" ...or "money." Still there is the problem of what letter is for "Cindy." I know, "W" for "whore" - now the alphabet makes sense!

Robert Meyer

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=93708729

Interesting story. Says something about Cindy, I think.

Not very nice, either.

Didn't Jesus of Nazareth say that when giving to charity to be quiet about it or it's worth nothing? Bragging about a (non-existent?!) relationship with Mother Teresa of Calcutta has just gotta fall under that category somehow.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...046/192/571356

Truly prompts the question, as does so much else, "What if this were Michelle Obama? "

Cindy McCain also said that the only way to get around in Arizona is by small private plane.



[This message has been edited by Mike Slippkauskas (edited August 20, 2008).]

Jeez, Mike, I hadn't read that one!!

I've been trumped. LOL

Am I soon to learn that she also lied about sleeping with Jack Kennedy?

Shameless

A woman who grew up as the only child in her household refers to herself as an only child. This is lying? To argue that she's not really an only child because of a half-sibling raised in another home is semantic quibbling. How ought she refer to herself, and where's the intent to deceive?

The Daily Kos link states that Cindy McCain was "caught lying about meeting Mother Theresa (sic)". But it isn't clear from either the Daily Kos link or the Christian Science Monitor link from which it quotes whether Cindy McCain made any such claim. According to the Christian Science (!) Monitor, the campaign website erroneously stated that Cindy McCain adopted a child at Mother Teresa's behest, and this story was repeated by journalists. When the error was pointed out, the website was corrected. If Cindy McCain wrote that section of the website herself, she embellished; if it was written by a staff member, it was merely a minor error, later corrected. In the absence of any quotations of what Cindy herself said or wrote, the accusations of lying are spurious.

Originally posted by Brian Watson:

In the absence of any quotations of what Cindy herself said or wrote, the accusations of lying are spurious.

I agree, and I feel that both John and Cindy McCain are dedicated to telling the truth; however, it could derail their ambition to live in The White House.

Given their dedication, I'm disturbed that John McCain approved his ad indicating that Barack Obama is responsible for the high price of gasoline. The ad hasn't a vapor of truth in it, so I hope that John will soon withdraw his approval of such a lie.

Bob



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited August 22, 2008).]

Nevermind! Why do we let this stuff draw us in? What is the use? No one is fit to rule the world until death is not in the mix.

[This message has been edited by Anne Bryant-Hamon (edited August 21, 2008).]

There are some remarkably kind people here. The "embellish[ment]" or "minor error" (whatever its origin) was allowed to stand on an official campaign web-site and only removed (and immediately) upon receiving questions from that loony leftist rag (!) The Christian Science Monitor. We can all differ on the story's relative importance but these facts remain. To completely absolve the principles leaves one with the near equally unattractive alternative: they are unintelligent and lack control over their message.

I do think both redoubtable and intelligent women vying for First Lady are "fair game" (ugly term). They are enthusiastic campaigners and surrogates.



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

What facts are you referring to?

What the campaign website read prior to being corrected can be readily retreived from a cache. And anything Cindy has said in public is a matter of public record. Yet the blog writers have not supplied any evidence that either Cindy or the campaign site made the claims of which she is accused.

The only factual information contained in the linked blogs is that Cindy McCain adopted a child from one of Mother Teresa's orphanages.

Probably like my kids do and say, "I grew up with two brothers but I have 2 half brothers and a half sister that we didn't see very often."

They don't say things like, "I grew up with my dad. I'm an only child. My father was a cowboy, and he really loved me very much, but I think he wanted a son occasionally." - Which is exactly what Cindy recently said on CNN.

Even if you don't grow up with half-siblings you are aware of them - and generally, even if you don't share your common parent's money with them - you do, at least, acknowledge them.

Truthful people bend over backwards to tell the truth. Non- truthful people who think they may get caught bend over backwards to stick to telling lies that they can't get caught telling. Pathological liars think no one will ever catch them and say whatever the hell they want.

Brian,

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

Best,
Slipp

Perhaps she should have said, "I grew up with my dad. I'm <u>his</u> only child. ..."

Like others before her, it's possible Mrs. McCain sorta "mis-spoke" and, therefore, can be forgiven for not using a Teleprompter?

"What is the use?" Hm-m.

If nothing else, Anne, time spent googling and, then, speculating about all the Cindy McCain gossip <u>does</u> help distract one's attention from . . . oh, let's say: the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? [**nudge, nudge**]

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

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