TherealMccain.com

LoyaltyisaCurse · January 29th, 2007, 06:54 PM

wallyburger · January 30th, 2007, 04:44 AM

To go along with this gem;

Quote:

The myth of McCain

Once the presumptive next US president, the Republican frontrunner's popularity has nose dived

Sidney Blumenthal
Saturday January 27, 2007
The Guardian

When Senator John McCain appeared at the Conservative party conference in Bournemouth last October as the presumptive next president of the US, the stars seemed fixed in the firmament for him. The myth of McCain appeared as invincible as ever.

His war story - a bomber pilot shot down over North Vietnam in 1967, held prisoner for five years and tortured - is the basis of his legend as morally courageous, authentic, unwavering in his convictions, an independent reformer willing to take on the reactionaries of his own party, an "American maverick" as he calls himself in his campaign autobiography.

The titles of his books reflect the image: Character Is Destiny, Why Courage Matters, and Faith of My Fathers. Defeat at the hands of George Bush in the battle for the Republican nomination in 2000, in which he was subjected to dirty tricks, completed his canonisation. The press corps so venerated him that he called them "my base".

McCain's political colleagues, however, know another side of the action hero - a volatile man with a hair-trigger temper, who shouted at Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor to "shut up", and called fellow Republican senators "sh**head ... ****ing jerk ... a**hole". A few months ago, McCain suddenly rushed up to a friend of mine, a prominent Washington lawyer, at a social event, and threatened to beat him up because he represented a client McCain happened to dislike. Then, just as suddenly, profusely and tearfully, he apologised.

Many Republicans who have had dealings with McCain distrust him (not just conservatives but traditional Republican moderates too). While taking rightwing positions on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, his simmering resentment of Bush led him virtually to caucus with the Democrats in early 2001 (before September 11). Then, abruptly, he rushed to embrace Bush.

McCain's political advisers believe that he would easily be elected president in 2008, but fear that he might not capture the nomination. In 2000 he did not win a primary state where the voting was restricted to Republicans. So McCain decided to let the election take care of itself as he won over the party faithful. He campaigned enthusiastically for Bush in 2004. He sought to reconcile with the religious right, whose leaders he had called "agents of intolerance" in 2000.

McCain had belatedly taken the lead in opposing Bush's torture policy, an issue that could not be more personal for him. But after the supreme court last year declared Bush's secret tribunals for detainees and use of extreme interrogation techniques illegal, the president sought congressional approval of his version. At first, McCain fought Bush, but the right attacked him. McCain quickly capitulated, even agreeing to suspension of habeas corpus. Someone close to him explained to me that McCain calculated he could continue to play the issue when he became chairman of the Senate armed services committee in the next Congress. Asked about the chance that the Democrats might take control, McCain declared: "I think I'd just commit suicide."

As the neoconservatives abandoned Bush's sinking ship, McCain welcomed them aboard. "McCain began reading the Weekly Standard and conferring with its editors, particularly Bill Kristol," the New Republic magazine reported. And he hired a board member of the neocon Project for the New American Century, Randy Scheunemann, as his foreign-policy aide.

McCain positioned himself as consistently belligerent, even to Bush's right: in favour of bombing Iran and North Korea. He also proposed a "surge" of troops into Iraq, an idea gleaned from the neocons. If Bush had adopted the Iraq Study Group approach of diplomacy and redeployment, which McCain had assailed as "dispiriting", the right would have hailed McCain as a prophet with honour. However, importuned by the same neocons who had sold it to McCain, Bush seized upon the "surge".

McCain had trapped himself. He is now chained to Bush. As Bush's war has escalated, McCain's popularity has nose dived. Still the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, he might have made himself more acceptable to the base, but his political strategy has shattered his myth. Bearing the burden of Bush, he may have become unelectable.

· Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is the author of How Bush Rules

Divide Et Impera · January 30th, 2007, 04:52 AM

McCain must be the most politically stupid person in the world. He had the middle of all America wrapped around his finger, including me. He had respect, he had clout, he had credibility. Then he ties himself to the current administration like a calf suckling on his mom's teet and subsequently his popularity instantly ties in with the popularity of this war. With that said, if this war turns around in reality and popularity, then so will McCain's popularity....

Brian in Mesa · January 30th, 2007, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divide Et Impera

McCain... respect, clout, credibility.

General Chaos · January 30th, 2007, 06:23 AM

Wally you love quoting the most bizarre newspapers.

wallyburger · January 30th, 2007, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Chaos

Wally you love quoting the most bizarre newspapers.

Are you referring to " The Guardian " ? If so, what is bizarre about " The Guardian "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Quote:

History of the Guardian

The Manchester Guardian was founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821, and was first published on May 5 of that year. The paper's intention was the promotion of the liberal interest in the aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre and the growing campaign to repeal the Corn Laws that flourished in Manchester during this period. The Guardian was published weekly until 1836 when it was published on Wednesday and Saturday becoming a daily in 1855, when the abolition of Stamp Duty on newspapers permitted a subsequent reduction in cover price (to 2d) allowed the paper to be published daily.

Article continues
The Guardian achieved national and international recognition under the editorship of CP Scott, who held the post for 57 years from 1872. Scott bought the paper in 1907 following the death of Taylor's son, and pledged that the principles laid down in the founder's will would be upheld by retaining the independence of the newspaper. CP Scott outlined those principals in a much-quoted article written to celebrate the centenary of the paper: "Comment is free, but facts are sacred... The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard."

After retiring from an active role in managing and editing the paper, Scott passed control to his two sons, John Russell Scott as manager and Edward Taylor Scott as editor. Realising that the future independence of the paper would be jeopardised in the event of the death of one or the other, the two sons made an agreement that in the event of either's death, one would buy the other's share.

CP Scott died in 1932 and was followed only four months later by Edward, so sole ownership fell to JR Scott. Faced with the potential of crippling death duties and the predatory interest of competitors, Scott contemplated a radical move to ensure the future of both the Guardian and the highly profitable Manchester Evening News. He concluded that the only solution was to give away his inheritance, a far-reaching solution which provoked close advisor (and future Lord Chancellor) Gavin Simonds to conclude: "you are trying to do something which is very repugnant to the law of England. You are trying to divest yourself of a property right".

In June 1936, JR Scott formally passed ownership of the paper to the trustees of the Scott Trust. As well as pledging to ensure the radical editorial tradition of the paper (that the newspaper "shall be conducted in the future on the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore", in the words of the founder's legacy), the Scott Trust also has the duty to maintain a secure financial footing for the business: "...to devote the whole of the surplus profits of the Company which would otherwise have been available for dividends...towards building up the reserves of the Company and increasing the circulation of and expanding and improving the newspapers." These principles remain the only instructions given to an incoming editor of the Guardian, though the Scott family retained an interest in the running of the company until 1984, when, aged 70, Richard F Scott retired from the chairmanship of the Trust. For more information on the Scott Trust and to read a feature by the late Hugo Young, the former Chairman, click here.

As the influence of the Manchester Guardian grew beyond its Northern hinterland, a new challenge faced the paper under the editorship of AP Wadsworth, who took over the post in 1944. The limited number of pages in the paper, poor quality of the printing and sometimes peculiar news agenda were once perceived as part of the regional charm of the paper. In comparison to the other papers on Fleet Street, however, the Guardian's eccentric virtues often seemed to be outweighed by its peculiar idiosyncrasies: the absence of horse racing, high-handed moral posturing and woolly leaders.

Alongside the Daily Telegraph and the Times, the Guardian lacked resources (despite costing 1d more a day), and an approach to commercial activity that could be charitably described as naive did not help matters. On the first day of the Chatterley trial, the Guardian carried a front page advertisement for the Telegraph 'the paper you can trust', which 'provides all you can want in a newspaper' - and at a cheaper cover price too.

The editor of the paper moved to London in 1964, committing the Guardian to an uncertain future in the national market, and shortly afterwards financial problems came to a head. The paper relied heavily on the Manchester Evening News for financial support, and in the mid-60s the threat to the paper's future grew severe enough for the chairman of the Scott Trust, Laurance Scott, to approach the Times to discuss the possibility of a merger. The Times was in a similarly perilous financial situation, and many were of the opinion that there was only room for one competitor to the Telegraph. Eventually the talks came to nothing, but not before a serious examination of the logistics involved had been considered on both sides. Alastair Hetherington, the editor at this time, remained a staunch advocate of the Guardian's independence, and the modern paper owes much to his leadership and vision during this period.

Investment in printing and the completion of a move to improved offices in London in 1976 helped consolidate the Guardian's position, aided by an expansion programme that included the revamping of the Guardian Weekly to include content from both the Washington Post and Le Monde. In the increasingly polarised political climate of the late 70s and early 80s the Guardian's position as the voice of the left was unchallenged. The opinion pages were the birthplace of the SDP, and the letters page was where the battle for the future direction of the Labour Party was played out, while the coverage of industrial disputes including the 1984-1985 Miners' Strike defined the paper's position.

The status quo among the quality press was irrevocably altered by the launch of the Independent in 1986. Capturing the centre ground between the Guardian on the left and the Times and Telegraph on the right, the Independent attracted big name writers and readers with a modern design and distribution network that made the most of the post-union market. Within a few years the circulation of the Independent rose to within touching distance of both the Times and the Guardian, and the previously stagnant market was provoked into a frenzy of defensive activity to retain readers.

In 1988 the Guardian made a bold and innovative attempt to reassert its position on Fleet Street, with a major redesign that began the modern period of success in the history of the paper.

In 1993 the intensely competitive broadsheet market was again thrown into confusion by the reduction of the cover price of the Times, firstly from 45p to 30p, then again in June 1994 from 30p to 20p. As the Times attracted readers, first the Daily Telegraph and then the Independent followed suit, running at substantial losses as they battled to survive. Throughout this period the Guardian remained at full price, investing resources in journalism and distancing itself from the price war through distinctive and innovative marketing, product development and consistently breaking big stories.

During these years the paper has increased its circulation, remained commercially successful and achieved critical acclaim for both the quality of its journalism and the innovation, both consistently followed by its competitors.

The Guardian was at the forefront of the sleaze revelations that contributed to the downfall of the Conservative government in 1997, with a series of investigations into the affairs of Tory MPs, including Jonathan Aitken and Neil Hamilton.

This reputation was cemented by the collapse of the libel case brought against the paper by former Minister Jonathan Aitken. Aitken was convicted of perjury and jailed in June 1999, and the investigations won the Guardian critical acclaim from all sides - including the prestigious Newspaper of the Year Award in both 1997 and 1998.

In 1997 the Guardian became the first national newspaper to appoint a readers' editor, producer of the daily Corrections and Clarifications column.

The Guardian Unlimited network of websites was launched in January 1999. By March 2001 GU had over 2.4 million unique users, making it the most popular UK newspaper website.

On September 12 2005 the new Berliner Guardian launched, with a ground-breaking design in a mid-size format. The Guardian became the UK's first full-colour national newspaper, and the first UK national newspaper ever to adopt this size.

UncleChris · January 30th, 2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse

http://therealmccain.com/

Anyone who has been around McCain at all knows that this story is absolutely true... AND he is a "convenient maverick," i.e. he's a maverick when his one vote won't make a diffence in the outcome. BTW, if you invite him to your party and he brings Cindy, make sure you lock your medicine cabinet....

Poor Cindy McCain

40yearfan · January 30th, 2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

Anyone who has been around McCain at all knows that this story is absolutely true... AND he is a "convenient maverick," i.e. he's a maverick when his one vote won't make a diffence in the outcome. BTW, if you invite him to your party and he brings Cindy, make sure you lock your medicine cabinet....

http://Poor Cindy McCain

UC, I've met Cindy McCain twice and she is a very nice woman. She doesn't put on airs and is very down to earth. She's very easy to talk to and doesn't particularly care for the political scene.

UncleChris · January 30th, 2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

UC, I've met Cindy McCain twice and she is a very nice woman. She doesn't put on airs and is very down to earth. She's very easy to talk to and doesn't particularly care for the political scene.

All true... and she's also a recovering drug addict.... As the article said, there are people in jail right now who have done the same or less...

And it renders Johhny-boy's anti-drug ravings a bit hollow, don't ya think?

PortlandCardFan · January 30th, 2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

All true... and she's also a recovering drug addict.... As the article said, there are people in jail right now who have done the same or less...

And it renders Johhny-boy's anti-drug ravings a bit hollow, don't ya think?

Maybe his wifes problems are a reason for his anti-drug ravings.

UncleChris · January 30th, 2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PortlandCardFan

Maybe his wifes problems are a reason for his anti-drug ravings.

Maybe he just a political blowhard with a temper...

40yearfan · January 30th, 2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

All true... and she's also a recovering drug addict.... As the article said, there are people in jail right now who have done the same or less...

And it renders Johhny-boy's anti-drug ravings a bit hollow, don't ya think?

Hey the priveliged always get away with things others can't. Look at OJ, Sandy Berger, Ted Kennedy, etc.

wallyburger · January 31st, 2007, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

Hey the priveliged always get away with things others can't. Look at OJ, Sandy Berger, Ted Kennedy, etc.

Rush Limbaugh, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney ( face shooter ) , Betty Ford, Ollie North, et al.

Pariah · January 31st, 2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

And it renders Johhny-boy's anti-drug ravings a bit hollow, don't ya think?

If anything, it rings more true for me.

Speaking as someone with a close family member that has addiction problems, I abhor drug use even more because of my experiences with that person.

Linderbee · January 31st, 2007, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PortlandCardFan

Maybe his wifes problems are a reason for his anti-drug ravings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason

If anything, it rings more true for me.

Speaking as someone with a close family member that has addiction problems, I abhor drug use even more because of my experiences with that person.

I'm not particularly fond of McCain, but I will trust that his 'ravings' are sincere. Are my anti-alcohol ravings hollow because my husband is an alcoholic? Your argument doesn't make much sense to me.