Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Holier than thou!

By winston  Posted by winston (about the submitter)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

You can't run for the presidency, banking on red state right-wing Christian extremists, if you have skeletons in the closet.  Karl Rove invented lies back in 2000 to run McCain out. He didn't have to. Instead of saying he's "holier than thou," McCain should say he's more of a "hypocrite than thou"!

Herr Karl is a vicious "Political brain" who never exhibited any moral compunctions regarding lying about opponents.

The article, "McCain and Rove form a tentative alliance," at
click here states "McCain's relationship with the Bush camp has been fraught since the 2000 primaries in South Carolina, when McCain was falsely accused of leaving POWs behind in Vietnam and of 'siring' an illegitimate black child -- actually his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, Bridget -- and his wife, Cindy, was accused of having a drug problem."

McCain has jumped in bed with these vile thugs. All you can say is good luck!  Rush Limbaugh exhorted McCain to beg the rabid right-wing to allow him into their midst, because Limbaugh said the "liberals are snakes"! That is "expletive deleted."  McCain is not even breaking a sweat over Democrats whose attacks are always measured and honorable -- certainly nothing in comparison to what McCain endured in 2000!

He is in deep trouble with his playing footsies with Vicki Iseman and her contentions that she had him wrapped around her little finger. John Weaver was one of McCain top aides.  Other people's stories support Weaver's version of this, not McCain's. The rabid right-wing is going to abandon McCain if this story has traction -- and why wouldn't it!? 

Remember when the right-wing fanatics dumped Newt and the first pick of the GOP for his successor, Bob Livingston, for just the same kind of activity? Livingston's resignation occurred as a result of a rumor started by an entity less reliable than the New York Times. Larry Flynt, an adult entertainment entrepreneur, claimed to have received evidence that Livingston had indulged in extramarital affairs. Ironically, Livingston was succeeded by David Vitter, and we know how that has worked out. Why was Vitter given a pass and Larry Craig wasn't -- or was he?



Let's get some perspective. The New York Times claims that during the 2000 presidential race, several of McCain's advisers became so concerned that his relationship with a younger lobbyist "had become romantic" that they warned him it could destroy his career. The initial story tried to blend the "Straight Talk Express" current mess with a look back at the Keating Five scandal and other instances where McCain stepped away from his persona as a lawmaker who fights against special interests.

Who cares if he had a fling with Vicki Iseman? Did he give the people she was lobbying for a special relationship? In his press conference, McCain was asked, "And do you regret flying on the -- she was -- Iseman was working for this man Paxson. Do you regret flying on his plane or writing those letters to the FCC that is part of this?"

The "straight talker" said, "Well, first of all, on riding on the airplane, that was an accepted practice. I have ridden on many airplanes. And since then the rules have been changed. It was something I supported. On the quote, 'letters to the FCC,' interestingly, this was brought up in the year 2000 by The New York Times. I wrote a letter because the FCC, which usually makes a decision within 400 days, had gone almost 800 days. In the letter, I said I am not telling you how to make a decision, I'm just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. And I believe that was appropriate. The former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission at the time in 2000 said that was more than an appropriate role for me to play as chairman of the Oversight Committee. So my answer to you is no."

Well, he's lying. He had met with Paxson because of Iseman. This is the steady drip, drip, drip that kills politicians.

The article "McCain Disputed On 1999 Meeting" at click here states "Broadcaster Lowell 'Bud' Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson's behalf. Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters in 1999 to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson's quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.  Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, likely attended the meeting in McCain's office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting."

"Was Vicki there? Probably," Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post.  "The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings."

The recollection of the now-retired Paxson conflicted with the account provided by the McCain campaign about the two letters at the center of a controversy about the senator's ties to Iseman, a partner at the lobbying firm of Alcalde & Fay.  The McCain campaign said Thursday that the senator had not met with Paxson or Iseman on the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding," the campaign said in a statement."

McCain's involvement in this matter wasn't appropriate as "The two letters he wrote to the FCC in 1999 while he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee produced a rash of criticism and a written rebuke from the then-FCC chairman, who called McCain's intervention "highly unusual."

The long and short of it is that McCain wrote that he expected the commissioners "to advise me in writing no later than close of business Tuesday, December 14, 1999."  On Dec. 14, FCC Chairman William E. Kennard wrote back, warning McCain that he had breached FCC policy.
"Your letter," Kennard wrote, "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process as the individual commissioners finalize their views and their votes on this matter. I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending."
 
That's not the whole story either! McCain was against big bro 43's first tax cut but not his second. He was against torturing terrorists before he was for it. Is that the same formulation as Kerry's being against funds for the Iraq war before he was for them?  In short, the "Straight Talker" is a flip-flopper and a hypocrite, as well as being a womanizer.

The article, "Senate Passes Ban On Waterboarding, Other Techniques," at click here describes that "In a 51-45 vote, the Senate approved an intelligence bill that limits the CIA to using 19 less-aggressive interrogation tactics outlined in a U.S. Army Field Manual. The measure would effectively ban the use of simulated drowning, temperature extremes and other harsh tactics that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.  President Bush has vowed to veto the legislation, which the House approved in December, and Congress does not appear to have enough votes to override a veto."

McCain, the maverick who was a victim of torture and originally against it is flip-flopping about it as "Congress banned any military use of
waterboarding and other harsh tactics through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2006, which was co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), now the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.  But McCain sided with the Bush administration yesterday on the waterboarding ban passed by the Senate, saying in a statement that the measure goes too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Bush planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Why did we all hate Palin?

Why is Obama protecting 43?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

What happens to US credibility if Spain finds them guilty and we don't?

Bush, with criminal intent, planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2014, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum