Posted on 07/11/2008 9:07:57 AM PDT by mngran2
Outside her Bel-Air home, Nancy Reagan stood arm in arm with John McCain and offered a significant -- but less than exuberant -- endorsement.
"Ronnie and I always waited until everything was decided, and then we endorsed," the Republican matriarch said in March. "Well, obviously this is the nominee of the party." They were the only words she would speak during the five-minute photo op.
In a written statement, she described McCain as "a good friend for over 30 years." But that friendship was strained in the late 1970s by McCain's decision to divorce his first wife, Carol, who was particularly close to the Reagans, and within weeks marry Cindy Hensley, the young heiress to a lucrative Arizona beer distributorship.
McCain, who is about to become the GOP nominee, has made several statements about how he divorced Carol and married Hensley that conflict with the public record.
In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.
"I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."
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 five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
She endorsed McCain, didn’t she?
Right now, McCain needs to worry about the fracture between him and Phil Gramm and between him and the conservative wing of the party.
The LA Times prefers politicians who carry on serial affairs without divorcing their wives.
McCain thinks he can win without us.
Rather than weasel around with bogus dates, they should’ve just acknowledged “homewrecker” status and not tried to pretend otherwise. Everyone already knows, anyway.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
LA Times begins its character assassination. By the way, since when would a questionable timing on marriage be a problem for the left who doesn’t much stock in the sacrament anyway?
McCain’s first wife has a McCain bumper sticker on her car and that’s enough for me. To make assumptions as to what went on in a marriage is unacceptable to me, especially something that happened decades ago. It’s a straw dog and I can’t believe we’re playing into it.
Scary to think that is his senior economic advisor.
So are the dates and the questions about his divorce and re-marriage, valid?
Yes she did. See post 5 for the real story. The LA Times did not give the full quote (despite saying they did) and made it sound different than what Nancy said.
You really can't get around the "Newt Gingrich-ness" of all this.
Scarier to think McCain thinks he can continue to throw his people under the bus.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of stuff to be scared of in this election.
The reporter supplies documentation--like he would expect to be checked. I think it's probably accurate.
Men generally try to assert that they left the first before they romanced the second to put their new wives in a more respectable light. I respect his taking responsibility for his selfishness, but I kind of snicker when he waffles to try to keep Cindy from "homewrecker" status.
I did not suggest they weren't. Who knows though. Considering how they misrepresented Nancy's endorsement, I would not trust their dates.
Dirt on McCain from a long-time ago while ignoring conflicts in stories on Obama’s birth, education, history, etc. Typical LA Slimes.
This article was posted on FR a few minutes ago and was deleted by mods. I guess they don’t like it.
If he wasn't strong on the WOT, and we didn't have a open Communist running on the Gimmiecrap ticket, I would be staying home come Nov 7, for the first [only] time since 1964.
I personally wonder what the Gipper would say about our nominee after his trip to Leftsville the past decade or so....
Are you happy with McCain as the nominee?
espically at half his age. He in his 40s and she 20s.
>.....Wow, she’s not happy.<
Well, what conservative is?
We should all know that McCain is a cad and a hothead and will not hesitate to back-stab conservatives and embrace leftist media to be their darling. On the other hand, he also served his country in Vietnam and was a POW for several years. He doesn't have the worst character, but he is far from what we should hope for in a GOP candidate.
I rather resent the attitude that only the married party cheats—both parties cheat. The “other woman” may not have taken any vows, but she still broke up the marriage.
Rather than having a bone to grind about McCain, how about raising the question of where is Obama’s birth certificate? It is time that question be raised up a notch.
Exactly what was (quite) different between the two Nancy Reagan quotes in the two articles?
His first wife’s endorsement made a big difference to me, too.
FYI Rasmussen shows sharp closure of the Obama lead this week. McCain now within 1%. The 1% number doesn’t matter. The closure does. Rasmussen holds his methodology constant so measured changes in support are real.
Loyal is as loyal does. Did he really expect that after years of contempt toward conservatives, that we would rally to his defense? I doubt it. And I don't see him courting our support, despite the dozen envelopes a week in my mailbox asking for donations.
If he wants my money, he'd better be asking for it somewhere other than in in snailmail. That says to me that he's ashamed of conservatives but wants their money, anyway.
It is helpful for the wronged party to "draw the cloak of her spotless reputation" over the cheating parties. But that says more good about Carol than John/Cindy. And Cindy must realize that...
Keep in mind that Carol does have a daughter by John, and the truly good wronged wife thinks first of her children and their relationship with their father, coldblooded cad he might be.
The way the LA Times reported, the quote “”Well, obviously this is the nominee of the party”, makes it sound like the only reason Nancy gave to support McCain was that he was the party’s nominee. The LA Times did not give the context that was just a response to a question. It was a photo op for the endorsement and Nancy did not plan on saying anything, except she ending up chiming in on a statement. Reading the LA Times, you would think that was her endorsement statement, it was not. The statement Nancy put out earlier was the endorsement.
The shading given to the quote by leaving out the context, especially the preamble to the quote. Thus Fox:
But she chimed in at the end in response to a question on why she decided to give such an early endorsement.By leaving that bit out, the LAT makes the statement "obviously this is the nominee of the party” look like some sort of tight-lipped, grudging admission against interest.“But it wasn’t early on,” she said. “Let me inject in here.
Ronnie and I always waited until everything was decided and then we endorsed. Well, obviously this is the nominee of the party.”
This kind of thing is so pervasive and so natural to the MSM that they don't seem to notice that they're doing it anymore. It's as much in their nature as it is for a dog to chew up shoes.
It is a major difference. Completely different context. The LA Times doesn’t even give the full quote, despite saying ‘those were the only words she spoke’. If Nancy just went out and spoke the words of the LA Times story, it gives a very negative conatation to the endorsement. But in context, she was just defending why she issued the endorsement earlier than normal.
Thanks, I was beginning to think I was seeing things.
“McCain thinks he can win without us.”
Cool. Lets see if he’s correct.
It could be worse. You could be seeing pictures of Helen Thomas.
What goes around, comes around.
McCain’s first wife was married to someone else and had two children when she started screwing around with Juan McCain. She’s no innocent.
And you didn't even mention the headline. (Understandable, that may not have been written by the article author.)
It's the FR soaps hour, for the old bitties among us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.