McCain Group Got Big Cable Donation

AP on Yahoo ^ | 3/7/05 | Sharon Theimer - AP

[pawdoggie]

Could you two possibly be missing the point of the article? I think you're all missing the point of the article which is found in the "AP" byline. McCain's real or imagined "hypocisy" notwithstanding; the virtues and vices of "a la carte" cable notwithstanding; the real import of this article is that a reliably Leftie Democrat news organization has turned on straight-talking "Honest John". Et pourquoi? Perhaps because McCain is the current default leader in the GOP 2008 presidential nominee sweepstakes? Perhaps because a certain she-b*tch from hell who happens to be the nominal Democrat 2008 front-runner is currently speaking about how women in politics are inherently less corrupt than the male of the species, and needs a good illustration in point? You people need to get a clue, instead of letting the MSM lead you around by the nose. In a McCain-Hillary slug fest, I for one am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

[ClintonBeGone]

In a McCain-Hillary slug fest, I for one am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

So you're voting for Hillary/

[ClintonBeGone]

In a McCain-Hillary slug fest, I for one am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

So you're voting for Hillary?

[pawdoggie]

In a McCain-Hillary slug fest, I for one am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. So you're voting for Hillary?

No, but there are obviously some people in this forum who would, or more likely, would stay at home and sit on their hands rather than vote for the "treacherous" McCain. In my view anyone who would willfully aid and abet a Hillary Clinton presidency, even if that met sitting the election out because they were angry with the GOP nominee, is a treasonous dog.

[pawdoggie]

...even if that met... Sorry, should read "meant". I haven't had my third cup of coffee yet.

[ClintonBeGone]

In my view anyone who would willfully aid and abet a Hillary Clinton presidency, even if that met sitting the election out because they were angry with the GOP nominee, is a treasonous dog.

To vote for McCain would be to simply allow yourself to be lead by the MSM. I refuse to go that route. Would I vote for Hillary? Never. Would I skip the top of the ticket? Perhaps. Regardless, I doubt we're going to see McCain win the nomination, so we'll never have that dilemma.

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks.

Good stuff.

[pawdoggie]

To vote for McCain would be to simply allow yourself to be lead by the MSM. I refuse to go that route. Would I vote for Hillary? Never. Would I skip the top of the ticket? Perhaps. As I said in my first reply, it appears that the MSM is forsaking its marriage of convenience with Senator McCain, now that it has set its sights on a Hillary presidency. Therefore the idea of being "led" to vote for McCain by the MSM (which they would never have done in any event) is no longer operative. Moreover, and even assuming you're right about Senator McCain not getting the Republican nomination, this is just the first of many "disinformation" pieces we will see on leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates by Hillary's surrogates in the MSM. If our (i.e. Republican, conservative) reaction to these articles is to start "eating our young", particularly in a public way that will become the grist for the inevitable "GOP faithful not united behind candidate X" headlines, then the MSM will have accomplished its purpose.

[ClintonBeGone]

If our (i.e. Republican, conservative) reaction to these articles is to start "eating our young", particularly in a public way that will become the grist for the inevitable "GOP faithful not united behind candidate X" headlines, then the MSM will have accomplished its purpose.

True, but McCain is not one of our young, one of our old, or one of ours period. He's a traitor and no conservative wants any part of him. His ascendancy to the office of President of the United States would do at least, if not more damage to our country and our conservative ideas than anything Hillary would or could do.

[pawdoggie]

True, but McCain is not one of our young, one of our old, or one of ours period. He's a traitor and no conservative wants any part of him. His ascendancy to the office of President of the United States would do at least, if not more damage to our country and our conservative ideas than anything Hillary would or could do.

Your comments are interesting. "Eating our young" is, of course, a figure of speech. McCain is a traitor? He wasn't a traitor in '68, when he could have purchased his freedom from a North Vietnamese hell-hole by accepting a parole that would have left his cell-mates in the lurch.

Perhaps you're referring to McCain-Feingold, with its First Amendment-defying provisions. I don't think that CFR is Constitutional either, but so far the USSC doesn't agree with us, and a lot of other Republican "traitors", including a guy who will remain nameless but for his initials "GWB" went along with it (as did a majority of our fellow Americans, if the opinion polls are to be believed). I suspect that McCain embraced CFR precisely because of his experiences in the "Keating Five" scandal. Like a lot of people who do something wrong (in this case something unethical, but not per se illegal) and get caught with a hand in the proverbial cookie jar, Senator McCain did a very human thing: he rationalized that it was the "influence of money in politics" that "caused" him to suffer a temporary moral lapse. Like a reformed smoker who becomes an anti-smoking Nazi, McCain allowed his better judgment (as it relates to the Constitution) to be overruled by his desire to end an "evil" that (in his reformist zeal) he subsequently regarded as a threat to the very Republic. Now, ironically, he finds himself accused by a MSM former ally of violating the spirit of his own CFR Act, and his defense (equally ironically) sounds like a perfectly valid point Mitch McConnell might have made during the debates over McCain-Feingold: that it's not a "conflict of interest" to receive legally permissible support from an interest group because they favor a principled opinion you held prior to the offer of such support.

[ClintonBeGone]

So now you show your hand: you're really a McCain supporter/apoligist rather than an objective conservative who has his party's best interest in mind. And when you consider whether he's a traitor, consider this his antics during the POW/MIA debates. During his tenure in Washington, McCain has caustically denounced those who have called for more aggressive investigations of Vietnam-era MIA sightings and POW controversies.

Cooperating with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, he has used his clout to legislate into secrecy literally thousands of POW/MIA documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago.

McCain's actions in this regard appear to be starkly at odds with the image of openness and candor he projected in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and the hero status he's attained among those naive enough to believe his press clippings.

[pawdoggie]

So now you show your hand: you're really a McCain supporter/apoligist rather than an objective conservative who has his party's best interest in mind. Actually, I showed no hand whatsoever. I'm not bucking for a "McCain in '08" chapter chairmanship, my preferred candidate would be Bill Bennett, but he's too ethical and ideologically pure (like you, perhaps) to run for public office. I really don't care who the Republicans nominate, if that person is running against Hillary. I would make an exception for Satan himself, but he's already been sidelined by a heart condition, and barred by the 22nd Amendment from running again.

I was simply trying to find out what your agenda was insofar as John McCain was concerned, and now I know. I don't know the "true story" of why the Senator McCain wanted to "close the books" on the POW/MIA issue, and neither do you. I certainly know that he had more and better reason than either you (assuming you're not a former Vietnam POW) or I (an unimprisoned Vietnam veteran) to hate the North Vietnamese. He may have been operating out of a (misguided) spirit of Christian forgiveness, or he may have recognized that the "true story" could not be divulged without revealing sensitive intelligence techniques and sources (something I, as a former Military Intelligence type can certainly appreciate). Of course, he might also have believed that any of his comrades still alive in captivity would find their lives more threatened by releasing all available information (to include the usual collection of rumor and speculation), or he might have had some "statesmanlike" concern that releasing some of the more "inflammatory" information might have "tainted" US relations with Russia, China or (North) Vietnam. I do not, however, assume that the same John McCain who behaved as a hero during his captivity in North Vietnam contrived to hide information on POW/MIA because he had been offered a bribe or blackmailed or had been "brainwashed" to Communism or anything of the other classic motivations that one ascribes to a "traitor". "Treason" should be made of "sterner stuff", and unlike you I do not see anything in McCain that is any worse than the average "inside the Beltway" politician.

[ClintonBeGone]

I'm not bucking for a "McCain in '08" chapter chairmanship

. . . . then you continued on and provided all sorts of excuses for his behavior during the MIA/POW debate when he teamed up with John Kerry to slap the families of these missing soliders right in the face. What you say, and what you do, are apparently two different things.

[pawdoggie]

then you continued on and provided all sorts of excuses for his behavior during the MIA/POW debate when he teamed up with John Kerry to slap the families of these missing soliders right in the face. I didn't "provide excuses" for Senator McCain's behavior, I simply offered possible explanations for some actions about which you had formed hard and fast opinions on little or no information. As to "splapping families of missing soldiers right in the face...", I am aware that during the MIA/POW hearings there were some families (and other "interested parties" who wrapped themselves in the POW/MIA flag for reasons which neither you nor I can know) who were either not satisfied with the explanations they had been given, or were concerned that the POW/MIA issue would disappear from the public consciousness if a report emerged from the hearings that did not hold out hope that there were US POWs still living in captivity in Vietnam. I also know that Senator McCain, being somewhat of a hot-head (one of his less desirable traits) had grown tired with the accusations of "cover-up", and with the confrontational tactics of some of the self-appointed POW/MIA advocates. Both McCain and (predictably) Kerry, lashed back at their attackers in an immature way that did them little credit. How that in any way constitutes "treason", however, is something I won't hold my breath waiting for you to explain. All I would say to you is that there were other former POWs in Hanoi with John McCain who later went on to become public figures (and even members of Congress) in their own right. To my knowledge (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), none (as in not one) of these former POWs feels the way you do about John McCain. What does that tell you, that they're all "traitors"?

We all understand that families who have relatives who are MIA would be very passionate about learning what happened to their loved ones, passionate even to the point of irrationality. We had a recent graphic illustration of that with the "Jersey Girl" widows of 9/11 victims, who chose to blame President Bush, rather than Osama Bin Laden, for deaths of their husbands. It is up to all of us to understand their pain and their loss, without necessarily agreeing with every complaint and accusation made by these benighted individuals.

[ClintonBeGone]

We had a recent graphic illustration of that with the "Jersey Girl" widows of 9/11 victims, who chose to blame President Bush, rather than Osama Bin Laden, for deaths of their husbands.

Nice bait and switch, but 9/11 and the POW/MIA families are completely different. The POW/MIA families have ever right to take out their anger on the McCain/Kerry/Pawdoggie coverup. They're not seeing to blame someone for the death of their loved ones (like the Jersey Girls) rather, they simply seek to keep the information on their service from being covered up.

[pawdoggie]

The POW/MIA families have ever(sic) right to take out their anger on the McCain/Kerry/Pawdoggie cover up.Nice personal insult. I don't remember ever covering up any POW/MIA information. If you have any intelligence to the contrary, why don't you put up or shut up. As I said, I served in Vietnam, and I strongly suspect that you did not (and you don't know much about what you say). The POW/MIA families (and those who have chosen to over-identify themselves with the families) have a Constitutional and G_d-given right to express their opinions. If I didn't say that, I certainly implied that. What the POW/MIAs families (and their nominal supporters) do not have "ever"(y) right to as a right to is the "right" to force their way onto the public stage to make whatever wild accusations of "cover-ups" and "treason" against anyone who disagrees with the idea of handing them the keys to the National Archives and Fort Knox until they are satisfied that they know beyond any doubt what happened to their loved ones. And yes, CBG, that is very much like what the "Jersey Girls" asked the Congress and the American people to do.

[calcowgirl]

People have such short memories.

[NormsRevenge]

They sure do..

That’s what the enemy within relies on.. They know it’s just a matter of time.

[TigersEye]

BTTT