Skip to comments.McCain’s Old Age Worse Than Rudy’s Divorces?
Posted on 02/17/2007 4:59:08 AM PST by areafiftyone
Could John McCain’s unprecedented old age (he would be 72 when elected) be more problematic for his presidential run than Rudy Giuliani’s rocky marital life (he has been married thrice) in 2008? The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll seems to suggest this might be the case.
The new survey asks voters what they think about certain presidential candidate quirks.
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-11, 2007. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates — their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [see below], would you vote for that person?” Trend includes slight variation in wording. Yes No Unsure % % % Catholic 2/9-11/07 95 4 1 5/30 - 6/1/03 93 5 2 2/19-21/99 94 4 2 2/3-8/37 60 30 10 Black 2/9-11/07 94 5 1 5/30 - 6/1/03 92 6 2 2/19-21/99 95 4 1 1/4 - 2/28/97 93 4 3 7/10-13/87 79 13 8 7/21-24/78 77 18 5 4/19-24/67 53 41 6 9/10-15/58 38 54 8 Jewish 2/9-11/07 92 7 2 5/30 - 6/1/03 89 8 3 2/19-21/99 92 6 2 9/10-15/58 63 29 8 2/10-15/37 46 47 8 A woman 2/9-11/07 88 11 1 5/30 - 6/1/03 87 12 1 2/19-21/99 92 7 1 7/10-13/87 82 12 6 7/21-24/78 76 19 5 4/19-24/67 57 39 4 9/10-15/58 54 41 5 1/27 - 2/1/37 33 64 3 Hispanic 2/9-11/07 87 12 1 Mormon 2/9-11/07 72 24 4 2/19-21/99 79 17 4 4/19-24/67 75 17 8 Married for the third time 2/9-11/07 67 30 3 Seventy-two years of age 2/9-11/07 57 42 1 A homosexual 2/9-11/07 55 43 2 2/19-21/99 59 37 4 4/29 - 5/2/83 29 64 7 7/21-24/78 26 66 8 Atheist 2/9-11/07 45 53 3 2/19-21/99 49 48 3 9/10-15/58 18 77 5 . Asked of those who answered “yes” to each appropriate item above:
“Would you be completely comfortable voting for a qualified presidential candidate who was [see below], or would you have some reservations?” Combined results, based on total sample.
Unsure % % % %
84 9 5 1 A woman
2/9-11/07 78 10 11 1
Mormon 2/9-11/07 58
14 24 4 Married for the third time
2/9-11/07 54 13 30 3
Seventy-two years of age 2/9-11/07 43
15 42 1
Voters are more comfortable with an anonymous thrice-married candidate than an anonymous seventy-two year old candidate? Most serious pundits (including yours truly) have long dismissed the notion that McCain’s old age would harm his presidential prospects. This doesn’t necessarily spell doom for the elderly McCain, and the results might be different if Rudy’s name went along with the thrice-married tag and McCain’s with the 72-year-old tag, but these results do pose some interesting questions about what qualities the American electorate requires from their Commander in Chief in this especially trying and weighty era of history.
There was no question about "Brainwashed by Russions while a POW"
It's not McCain's age, it's his "foot in both parties lack of conservatism" that bothers me. I'd vote for RUMSFELD in a heartbeat!
I couldn't care less about Rudy's divorces and I don't even know how old McCain is. I wouldn't vote for either one of them because they're both RINOs. End of story.
McCain's military service is the no no for me! I will not vote for him under any circumstances.
I am nor supporting any one at this point, just know who that I will NOT support.
Amen to that.
Why is anyone making a big deal about Rudy Giuliani being divorced? Reagan was divorced. Newt Gingrich was divorced. Being divorced by itself doesn't make a person evil!
So you'll be happy if we got President Hillary?
It is not McCain's age that worries me, it is his mental status.
His mental instability frightens me more than his age. As well as the times the 'maverick senator' has used the media to stick one in the party's back.
Don't you think it would be a bit of a stretch to make such an assumption? I wouldn't be happy with either of the three. I can't see that there is much difference, except that McCain probably looks better in a dress than Hillary.
Frankly, if we can't do better than these three, I won't waste my time voting.
For me Divorce means nothing. Sometimes it takes a few times to find the right person. We are all human..
I'm not a Romney fan (and I'm Catholic), but nevertheless I find it embarrassing that such a significant portion of those polled would not vote for a Mormon.
Yes. I believe he is too unstable for the presidency.
May 3, 1992
Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
From: John F. McCreary
Subject: Possible Violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, by the Select Committee and Possible Ethical Misconduct by Staff Attorneys.
1. Continuing analysis of relevant laws and further review of the events between 8 April and 16 April 1992 connected with the destruction of the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text strongly indicate that the order to destroy all copies of that briefing text on 9 April and the actual destruction of copies of the briefing texts plus the purging of computer files might constitute violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, which imposes criminal penalties for unlawful document destruction. Even absent a finding of criminal misconduct, statements, actions, and failures to act by the senior Staff attorneys following the 9 April briefing might constitute serious breaches of ethical standards of conduct for attorneys, in addition to violations of Senate and Select Committee rules. The potential consequences of these possible misdeeds are such that they should be brought to the attention of all members of the Select Committee, plus all Designees and Staff members who were present at the 9 April briefing.
2. The relevant section of Title 18, U.S.C., states in pertinent part: Section 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795)
3. The facts as the undersigned and others present at the briefing recall them are presented in the attached Memorandum for the Record. A summary of those facts - and others that have been established since that Memorandum was written - follows.
a. On 8 April 1992, the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text was presented to Senior Staff members and Designees for whom copies were available prior to beginning the briefing. Objections to the text by the Designees prompted the Staff Director to order all persons present to leave their copies of the briefing text in Room SRB078. Subsequent events indicated that two copies had been removed without authorization.
b. On 9 April 1992, at the beginning of the meeting of the Select Committee and prior to the scheduled investigators' briefing, Senator McCain produced a copy of the intelligence briefing text, with whose contents he strongly disagreed. He charged that the briefing text had already been leaked to a POW/MIA activist, but was reassured by the Chairman that such was not the case. He replied that he was certain it would be leaked. Whereupon, the Chairman assured Senator McCain that there would be no leaks because all copies would be gathered and destroyed, and he gave orders to that effect. No senior staff member or attorney present cautioned against a possible violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, or of Senate or Select Committee Rules.
c. Following the briefing on 9 April, the Staff Director, Ms. Frances Zwenig, restated to the intelligence investigators the order to destroy the intelligence briefing text and took measures to ensure execution of the destruction order. (See paragraph 3 of the attachment.) During one telephone conversation with the undersigned, she stated that she was "acting under orders."
d. The undersigned also was instructed to delete all computer files, which Mr. Barry Valentine witnessed on 9 April.
e. In a meeting on 15 April 1992, the Staff's Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha, was advised by intelligence investigators of their concerns about the possibility that they had committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing text. Mr. Codinha minimized the significance of the documents and of their destruction. He admonished the investigators for "making a mountain out of a molehill."
f. When investigators repeated their concern that the order to destroy the documents might lead to criminal charges, Mr. Codinha replied "Who's the injured party." He was told, "The 2,494 families of the unaccounted for US Servicemen, among others." Mr. Codinha then said, "Who's gonna tell them. It's classified." At that point the meeting erupted. The undersigned stated that the measure of merit was the law and what's right, not avoidance of getting caught. To which Mr. Codinha made no reply. At no time during the meeting did Mr. Codinha give any indication that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.
g. Investigators, thereupon, repeatedly requested actions by the Committee to clear them of any wrongdoing, such as provision of legal counsel. Mr. Codinha admitted that he was not familiar with the law and promised to look into it. He invited a memorandum from the investigators stating what they wanted. Given Mr. Codinha's statements and reactions to the possibility of criminal liability, the investigators concluded they must request appointment of an independent counsel. A memorandum making such a request and signed by all six intelligence investigators was delivered to Mr. Codinha on 16 April.
h. At 2130 on 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, convened a meeting with the intelligence investigators, who told him personally of their concern that they might have committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing texts at the order of the Staff Director. Senator Kerry stated that he gave the order to destroy the documents, not the Staff Director, and that none of the Senators present at the meeting had objected. He also stated that the issue of document destruction was "moot" because the original briefing text had been deposited with the Office of Senate Security "all along." Both the Staff Director and the Chief Counsel supported this assertion by the Chairman.
i. Senator Kerry's remarks prompted follow-up investigations (See paragraphs 4 through 9 of the attachment) and inquiries that established that a copy of the text was not deposited in the Office of Senate Security until the afternoon of 16 April. The Staff Director has admitted that on the afternoon of 16 April, after receiving a copy of a memorandum from Senator Bob Smith to Senator Kerry in which Senator Smith outlined his concerns about the destruction of documents, she obtained a copy of the intelligence briefing text from the office of Senator McCain and took it to the Office of Senate Security. Office of Senate Security personnel confirmed that the Staff Director gave them an envelope, marked "Eyes Only," to be placed in her personal file. The Staff Director has admitted that the envelope contained the copy of the intelligence briefing text that she obtained from the office of Senator McCain.
3. The facts of the destruction of the intelligence briefing text would seem to fall inside the prescriptions of the Statute, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, so as to justify their referral for investigation to a competent law enforcement authority. The applicability of that Statute was debated in United States v. Poindexter, D.D.C. 1989, 725 F. Supp. 13, in connection with the Iran Contra investigation. The District Court ruled, inter alia, that the National Security Council is a public office within the meaning of the Statute and, thus, that its records and documents fell within the protection of the Statute. In light of that ruling, the Statute would seem to apply to this Senate Select Committee and its Staff. The continued existence of a "bootleg" copy of the intelligence briefing text - i.e., a copy that is not one of those made by the investigators for the purpose of briefing the Select Committee - would seem to be irrelevant to the issues of intent to destroy and willfulness; as well as to the issue of responsibility for the order to destroy all copies of the briefing text, for the attempt to carry out that order, and for the destruction that actually was accomplished in execution of that order.
4. As for the issue of misconduct by Staff attorneys, all member of the Bar swear to uphold the law. That oath may be violated by acts of omission and commission. Even without a violation of the Federal criminal statute, the actions and failures to act by senior Staff attorneys in the sequence of events connected with the destruction of the briefing text might constitute violations
of ethical standards for members of the Bar and of both Senate and Select Committee rules. The statements, actions and failures to act during and after the meeting on 15 April, when the investigators gave notice of their concern about possible criminal liability for document destruction, would seem to reflect disregard for the law and for the rules of the United States Senate.
John F. McCreary
Has the Spamorama started yet?
I willingly confess that I cannot support Rudy in the Republican primary because he failed a test in his personal life that I have applied to candidates in primary elections ever since I began voting in 1972. Its not an issue of multiple marriages and divorces for me, but one of faithfulness in marriage.
All things being nearly equal, any candidate with an extramarital affair in their personal life does not have my support in the primary. For me, its an issue of trustworthiness and honor and the implications for other aspects of their public lives. It may be old fashioned in modern culture, but I take marriage vows extremely seriously.
My standard for faithfulness in marriage certainly served me well to steer me away from further consideration of Bill Clinton before the election in 1992 after he essentially admitted to extramarital affairs in a CBS 60 Minutes interview. We all know what an immoral reprobate and scoundrel Clinton turned out to be. This is not to say that Rudy is in the same category as Bill Clinton for his very public extramarital affair while married to his second wife; certainly not!. Clinton is in a class by himself (a very low class) and deserving of the title Caligula of the Ozarks.
In any election you can vote four ways.
I will vote against Hillary and yes, she would be 100 times worse than any RINO for this reason:
A President-elect brings with him/her a huge human caravan that will become the new administration, with all its regulatory and enforcement powers.
How could any (and I do mean any) Republican's caravan be just as far-out left-wing extremist whacko as Hillary's is guaranteed to be, and rabidly ready to change the entire culture and our way of life?
Please don't stay home on Election Day!
There, that is much more accurate.
I despise McCain to the point I won't care.
Just how much more can Hillary damage the country than McCain already has done though his legislation?
McCain - Feingold
Gang of 14
Just to name two
I don't think you get it. The Free Republic Code is: R equals good, D equals baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Please get with the program.
In contrast to y'all, my favored ticket right now is McCain/Giuliani.
Two strong candidates capable of taking votes from whomever the Dem candidate is. Both men remain heroes, in my opinion, and both will fight a strong war against the Islamists.
I know this is a minority opinion around here, but that's where I stand based on both principles and pragmatics.
Obama is a strong candidate capable of taking votes away from Democrats too. The problem is, he's one of them. The same can be said for McCain and Giuliani. I would rather vote for a Democrat that honest enough to admit to being a Democrat rather than one that lies and claims to be a Republican.
Electing a Democrat is bad for the country.
Electing a RINO is bad for the country and for the GOP.
There was a time, not too long ago, "R" meant CONSERVATIVE.
Today, I think it means gutless, feckless, sellout RINO
Well, my goodness, we really really disagree. The only Democrat I could vote for at this point would be Joe Lieberman, and then only if he ran on a Republican ticket.
Believe me, if Hillary or Obama get elected, and as you witness their total surrender in the war against Islamic totalitarianism, we'll all see the differences between Dems and people like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.
Is that you Sean Hannity? Glen Beck?
I would never vote for Lieberman, even if he had an R next to his name.
McCain and Giuliani are Democrats too, but you're willing to vote for them.
I found it interesting that it's not even mentioned in the article but IS included in the poll. On the other hand at 72% the Mormon beats out age and divorces......
LMAO, love it!
McInsane is NO friend of the Constitution of the United States, and his unconstitutional McPain/Foolsgold legislation proved it.
Those people who kept on sneering about Reagan slipping into Alzheimers in the latter part of his second term?
They ain't seen nothin' if President McCain is placed in charge of the strawberries in the White House Kitchen!
McCain and Giuliani are not Democrats. That's weak sophistry at best. Both men are good solid Republicans in my book with strong conservative credentials on the issues that matter to me most.
I'll vote for any good man or woman on the GOP ticket who believes that fighting the war against Islamicism is our nation's top priority.
Yes. The Giuliani groupies are in spam warp overdrive mode already.
I expect a thread anytime breathlessly informing us that a poll of Armenian podiatrists in Poughkeepsie shows that they favor Giuliani over all other candidates by a six to one margin.
I do understand that many here will disagree with me. But I do see McCain as a man of high principle. His principles may not always be the same as yours or mine, but he does stick to them. He says what he's going to do, and then he does it.
I fixed your post.
McCain of the two actually has a good record on voting conservative, except for those major RINO issues like McCain - Feingold and such other party destroying legislation
Don't do that to my words. I'm hitting abuse.
I do not undstand how you can say that after he put McCain Feingold on the record as law.
But to each his own.
Thanks for saying that! I wanted to say the same thing but I refuse to post to anything to that dishonest poster for reasons that I won't go into here. The spamming by the Rudybots and propaganda they've been spewing out daily is unbelievable. I'm surprised Jim has allowed his forum to be used by these propagandists trying to get conservatives here to vote for a liberal rEPUBLICAN, if you can call him that. Jim's a much better man that I am. Good post my FRiend!
A wh0re should be judged by the same criteria as other professionals offering services for pay,
such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc.
Is she professionally competent?
Does she give good measure?
Is she honest with her clients?
It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers.
And enormously higher than that of professors.
Go right ahead.
You must have some pretty thin skin
I disagree with John on that. His purpose was to fix a problem he saw regarding the way we run campaigns in this nation. He was following a different principle, and probably leaning more toward pragmatism. This is no sin to me. So far as I can see, we still have free and spirited political campaigns.
Ronald Reagan thought McCain was a pretty good guy. So do I.