Thursday, February 21, 2008

John McCain, SuperHoe.


You know, they say politricians are the biggest freaks. History has proven this to be true to some degree. Thomas Jefferson was bangin' Sally Hemmings. JFK and his brother both got down with Marilyn Monroe. We all know about Slick Willie and his penchant for chubby Jewish chicks. So, these allegations by the New York Times about a possible extramarital snafu by Republican Democratic candidate John McCain aren't outside the realm of believability.

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
[Editor's Note: I'm 100% sure that everything I say after this point is going to sound judgmental. Let me be clear, I could care less what this man does in his private life. He ain't my Daddy. This issue at hand is, exactly what does how he handles his private life say about the character he'll employ while making decisions that affect millions in his public life. Nothing more, nothing less.]

Let's be real here, where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Unless Jayson Blair's been quietly rehired, New York Times would be idiots to throw this sort of allegation out there without having some substance behind it. With circulation lagging, and their reputation still being repaired, they have little reason to fabricate a story. Many have suggested this is a smear campaign to stop McCain's momentum. I don't entirely buy that for a couple of reasons. Namely because the Times endorsed McCain just a few months ago, although many suspect this was largely out of spite towards Rudy Giuliani. Then there's the not-so-small matter of timing. If they wanted to deep-six McCain, wouldn't they have played this card a month or so ago when the race was still competitive, or worse, in October when he's in the midst of the general election?

There's also the small fact that McCain's done this before. It's a well known, but seldom discussed fact that McCain hooked up with this current wife, Cindy, while having an affair that resulted in the dissolution of his first marriage of 23 years. So, hearing him and his wife, who's stolen somebody else's man before, talk all this riggamorow about how he'd "never do anything to harm our family" rings a little bit hollow.

And since we're talking about Cindy McCain, who else thought her botoxed, Stepford Wives looking ass was way out of pocket going at Michelle Obama the other day?
Campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Monday, Michelle Obama said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

In a rare move, Cindy McCain, wife of the Arizona senator, took on Michelle Obama's comment Tuesday as she introduced her husband at a rally. "I'm proud of my country, I don't know if you heard those words earlier. I'm very proud of my country," she said.

The Arizona senator also made a subtle dig at Michelle Obama's comments during his victory speech Tuesday night.

"I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven't been proud of the privilege" of being an American, McCain said in Columbus, Ohio.
Hmmmm, let's see: McCain is the heiress of a beer distributor who's never had to work for an honest paycheck her entire adult life and single handedly financed her husband's first Congressional campaign. (Oh yeah, and she once stole drugs from her own foundation, setting off a federal investigation.) Michelle Obama is an Ivy-League educated, self-made corporate success who grew up on the South Side of Chicago, sharing a bedroom with her brother, and watching a multiple sclerosis hindered father drag himself to work every morning to make ends meet.

I think it's fair to say they might have different views on how "proud" they are of this country.

Note to Cindy McCain: Stay in your lane, homegirl. You don't want none.

Oh, and for before i forget: Bill O'Reilly, just go ahead and kill yourself for that dumb assed "I Don't Want To Go On A Lynching Party Against Michelle Obama Unless There's Evidence" comment. Your career's been dead since Andrea Mackris-gate anyway. Falafel anyone?

Still, what pisses me off most is that the affair was the least incendiary item in the Times article. In a society obsessed with who's sleeping with who, it's predictable that the media would run that aspect of the story, but what about all the other really questionable stuff dropped in there?
Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman’s client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)

Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office.

By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning soft money, the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws.

One of his efforts, though, seemed self-contradictory. In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of bad publicity after news reports of the arrangement.
Again, if you're concerned about character flaws, don't get tied up on the carnal stuff and miss the forest for the trees.

Question: Do you care about a politician's extramarital bidness or does it make no difference? Are you concerned about some of the other ethical issues raised about McCain in this article?

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk [NY Times]

McCain vs Obama...Cindy vs Michelle, That Is [ABCNews]

Bill O'Reilly: "I Don't Want To Go On A Lynching Party Against Michelle Obama Unless There's Evidence" [Huffington Post] (props to my girl C.T. for the link)

17 AverageComments™:

Anonymous said...

AverageBro, I love your blog.

Um, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that messed with Sally Hemmings? Just asking.

cinco said...

It's no surprise that these affairs happen. What's surprising to me is the amount of effort made to 'conceal' them. I don't think many people 'judge' another by this behavior...(except the extreme religious fanatics)...the rest of us would appreciate honesty and candid remarks...I do wonder if this is a part of Mrs. McCain's proud American dream...

Anonymous said...

Thomas Jefferson, not George Washington.

spool32 said...

As long as he doesn't lie about it to a grand jury, I'm not really stressed over it.

You're dead on with Mrs. McCain and the need to "stay in her lane". That shit made me lol. :)

I'm less happy with the dodgy campaign contribution BS... and McCain-Feingold is an assault on the 1st Amendment anyway. he shouldn't be proud of that. This is yet another reason, though, that Hillary could never beat him. If she's the nominee, just the word "Hsu" automatically silences any criticism from the left. Obama doesn't have that problem... but you can bet he's got some donation skeletons in his closet... I mean, come on. It's Chicago.

AverageBro said...

My bad y'all. Jefferson, not Washington. I fixed, cut me some slack.

You gotta admire that Photoshop job though, right? It took me any hour to crank that out!

CiCi said...

thanks for the props :)

Cindy don't want it from Michelle. Nope.

I tried to explain what Michelle said to others: if you are any minority (age/sex/sexual orientation/race), your perception of this country isn't going to be as peachy as Cindy's. People, like Pat Roberson, jumped on Mrs. Obama as if she's a disgrace. I bet if you ask 100 people whether they are proud of this country, majority would say no and part of the minority would be afraid to answer.

As for Bill ... no words

Daedalus said...

If McCain were a Democrat, it wouldnt be news.

Second, the margin for error is zero. Michelle Obama made a mistake and is taking heat for it. It happens all the time. Some or just more sensitive (to the heat she is taking) because she is black.

It is often a perception of the Social engineers and Socialists in this country (Democrats to some) that the United States is an evil bad place, filled with bad people. So, even though I take Michelle at her word as to what she meant, is what she said that far off from what other leftists say? Nope, not really.

hawa said...

When I first read the article in its entirety, I was also surprised to find that the alleged affair was just one of many skanky scandals.

I'm not surprised for one second that mainstream media focused on the affair, and not the questionable campaign contributions, etc.

I join you all in a fair and friendly warning to Cindy - Barbie be Barbie and just stand down... 'cause you don't want nunna dat.

ebw-educated black woman said...

AB, you are right about Cindy McCain not wanting none. Michelle would rip her a new one.
While we really shouldn't care about a candidate's infidelity, I do think it does say something about that person's character. I feel the same way about a candidate's alleged drug use. One thing that I admired early on about Obama, was that he was real with it. A million other Americans, me included, have done the same. He was man enough to admit his mistakes, and to look inside himself and take personal responsibility. (Instead of some ole "I didn't inhale" BS.) I think that kind of honesty resonates with people. I believe people are really tired of elected officials playing them like they are stupid.
McCain is shady--so shady that the Limbaughs of the world are even against him. I'm not buying that it's solely because he didn't or doesn't tow the party line as they see fit. I think there's more to it and the Times article is just the tip of the iceberg.
And wow, that guy really likes the plastic surgery enhanced botoxed blondes, doesn't he?

Anonymous said...

If news came out tomorrow about an Obama affair where both Obama and the woman flatly denied it, AND the article was so heavy on anonymous sources I doubt you'd buy into it so hard and so fast. In fact I'd bet you'd rip the paper, the talking heads to buying into it, and blame it all on some phony "NL" excuses. Could you at least TRY to look at it clearly?

You're not going to hurt Obamas chances at winning by not attacking every opponent at the drop of a hat and defending Obama against every attack.

I know you want Obama to win but there aren't many things more annoying than homers. They don't look at thing critically and have unreasonable knee jerk reactions.

ebonygentleman97 said...

Notice that the previous post was from an "Anonymous" source.

:)

AverageBro said...

@ (predictably) anonymous

where both Obama and the woman flatly denied it, AND the article was so heavy on anonymous sources I doubt you'd buy into it so hard and so fast. In fact I'd bet you'd rip the paper, the talking heads to buying into it, and blame it all on some phony "NL" excuses. Could you at least TRY to look at it clearly?

Clearly somebody didn't bother reading the HUGE DISCLAIMER before I started discussing the Times article. Please READ the entire post, don't just jump to conclusions.

@ eg

Notice that the previous post was from an "Anonymous" source.

PREACH, BLACK MAN! PREACH!!!

The Quip-ster said...

Oh belie'dat Obama's turn is coming. The Hulk is coming at you, brother! That is, the Republican's are scoping the kill shot for Obama. (Hopefully not literally.) The Clinton's could not touch this angle. I mean, think about it?! The Republican's however will drum up some predictable tactical: A sista/sister (black/white/whateva) with a few student loans to pay off, who will ultimately turn out to be a nobody Obama exchanged not more than a few sentences with back in the day.

Let's face it (at least her supports should) the Clinton-Machine proved a formidable match, yet is falling short and scrambling now. (i.e. attacking on alleged plagiarism...COME ON NOW! Oh and there's more.... quite a few moments of a sullen & pouty disposition in the last debate; that cocky smirk when the crowd or her internal barometer cheered on her quip [clap back] on their 'substantive' differences.)

But I can only hope that Obama's camp heeds my 'off-the-books (un-solicited) political advisement to go boot-camp hard in tightening up on military tacticals, protocols, and what nots. (LOL)

As for me, I am convinced that no bones will fly out and will have to go down with ship, should Obama's character be found out otherwise. Besides, there's a sharp contrast in Michelle Obama's authenticity and keepin it real about marriage that she got hit up for by the media early on in the campaign (Obama's socks on the floor, keeping her job, etc.) and Juanita Bynum's pseudo super deep spiritual portrayal of marriage.

AverageBro, let me know if you're going on Holiday anytime soon. I will take the helm while you are away. I'm a late blooming groupie (of the site, that is) so you will see I've commented on a few of your previous blog topics as well.

Chris N. said...

Good questions as usual, AB (Jay). Harry Truman once said something along the lines of he wouldn't trust a president who couldn't even be trusted by his own wife.

I agree with him to an extent. And while it's a significant factor in my leadership decisions, it's certainly not the only one.

I'm probably in the minority who thinks that Bill's Monica scandal was in fact a very big deal. It spoke to his truthfulness, his judgement and his self-control, three qualities I kind of like in my leadership.

But back to McCain. While I agree with AB that where there is smoke there is usually fire, there have been some major exceptions. And let's not forget that McCain himself was the victim of one of these the last he ran, involving the paternity of their adopted, non-white daughter. (Yes, race is relevant here because it was used to inflame the falsehood.)

So if the NYT story turns out to be true, would I automatically rule out McCain as a canadiate? Not necessarily. But would I be disappointed in him and take a big step back to ponder? That's putting it mildly.

Chris N. (Nicholson)

Anonymous said...

@ eg

Notice that the previous post was from an "Anonymous" source.

PREACH, BLACK MAN! PREACH!!!

Friday, February 22, 2008 9:58:00 AM


........I don't have a blog. My name is Josh. Sorry, didn't want to cause anybody to have to "preach".

Your disclaimer presupposed that what was said in the Times was true. My point was that if McCain were replaced with Obama in a story that seemed that flimsy you'd take a very different angle on the Times story...........homer.

And I like Obama, much more than Clinton, both of them. I also like McCain, much more than the total panderer Romney, and the Jesus freak Huckabee. As long as it comes down to the two of them I'll be just fine on election night.

My issue these days isn't with Rep. or Dem, Liberal or Conservative. It's with bias, phoniness, intellectual dishonesty. Not that I found you as any of those necessarily, but seeing how much of an unabashed Obama fan you are I thought you'd have a more critical eye towards the press.

Actually what I'm saying is that I think you absolutely will be MUCH more critical, when the press goes after Obama.

ebw-educated black woman said...

Anyone else find it interesting that this appeared approx. 24 hours after the Times article:

PHOENIX (AP) — Legal and political pressures on Rep. Rick Renzi are mounting amid federal criminal charges that set off calls for the Arizona Republican to leave Congress sooner rather than later.

Renzi was under a cloud for more than a year before a federal investigation culminated in a 26-page indictment against him and two other men.

Then, theres this:
Renzi, who is one of 24 co-chairmen for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in Arizona, has denied wrongdoing. His attorney, Kelly Kramer, issued a brief statement saying Renzi would "fight these charges until he is vindicated and his family's name is restored."

Of course, he will. Oh, and then theres this:

McCain In Oct. 2006: Renzi Has ' Tenacity, Honesty And Integrity Beyond Reproach'

And lastly, this:

Sen. John McCain told a blogger conference call Friday that indicted Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), who serves as one of his Arizona state co-chairs, will be resigning from his position in the coming days. Renzi was indicted on 35 criminal counts Friday including extortion, money laundering and wire fraud, related to an alleged illegal land deal and its cover-up.

In fact, Renzi’s name has already been deleted from a press release the campaign issued last month announcing the state leadership team. His name was previously listed between Gary Pierce and fmr. Rep. Matt Salmon on the original Jan. 26 press release, according to a cached version of the release from Feb. 14.
At a press conference in Indianapolis Friday morning, McCain called the indictment “very unfortunate.”

Verrry interesting, and "unfortunate", indeed.

Anonymous said...

Actually, there has been a couple of news outlets, Mainly European and Conservative,that's been reporting about Obama being involved in a homosexual affair with a man and using drugs with said person.
I could have posted the link to the story here, but its Sunday, so im being lazy.
McCain's story was widely reported because there is a history of his being closely involved with that woman. Those "sources" that newspapers use aren't fake, they know how to cover their arses if they ever need to back a story up.
Obama's story could have ruined him for good. Why isnt it the top story on CNN, Fox and MsNBC? Probably because its fruitless.
And perhaps also because the one making the claims doesnt have any concrete evidence to back up his stories?
I doubt that the news organizations would go to great lenghts to hide a juicy story about any candidate.
McCain knows he did wrong. His wife knows she needs to stay in her place, keep playing her role of the good ole plastic wife and leave it at that.
Michelle Obama is only the second political wife ive seen in a very long time, ok im only 27, that can and does speak for herself. With her own mind.
Tereas Heinz Kerry being the first.
Some people just aren't ready to see an articulate black woman. That DOES NOT simply cater to white folks.
I'm hinting at you Oprah.

All in all, no one paid too much close attention to Michelle's statements. Anyone with the slighest knowledge about black history knew where she was coming from.
And anyone that pays the slighest attention to politics now knows to not blink an eye when those men cheat.
I could care less.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

ݬ