Just when Shannon and I were starting to crack on our “I will not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” position, he gives me yet another reason to distrust him. I’m sure you’ve heard the buzz about his supposed inappropriate relationship with a certain female telecom lobbyist (see inset). Let me start off by saying that nothing has been proven, and all the sources have not been vetted, but it does look awfully salacious. Even if the allegations prove to be false, his responses in the Toledo press conference this morning were parsed and evasive. When asked specifically if there was an inappropriate relationship between 
he and Ms. Iseman, he said, “"At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor any one or any organization." Very Clintonian indeed. As he said repeatedly to Mitt Romney when prodding him about his supposed Iraq withdrawal timetables, McCain said of Romney, “The response should have been simple. No.”
His close ties to this lobbyist also speak to the heart of the leading problem in Washington- too many people with their hands in the cookie jar. McCain has run a campaign based upon cutting pork barrel spending and turning deaf ears toward lobbyists. More do as I say and not as I do politics. This will undoubtedly be cannon fodder for the Democrats in November.
What bothers me more about McCain is a different story that is getting only moderate airplay. It’s a little nerdy, and there’s no sex appeal to it, but I believe that it has far weightier implications. We all know that in the summer of 2007, McCain’s campaign was hemorrhaging badly. In order to keep the campaign afloat, he took out a loan against his list of contributors, and even backed it up with a life insurance policy. Here’s where it gets tricky- the FEC could view this as an illegal move since the contributor list is bound by privacy laws. What would’ve happened if the loan was actually called and his collateral- the list, was turned over? Nobody knows. There would have been a lengthy court battle over the use of the list, and McCain likely wouldn’t have cared since his failed Presidential candidacy would have been a doomsday scenario anyway. My point? It shows a flagrant disregard for law and the names of the people who support him.
I want so badly to be able to support this guy, but he’s making it very difficult.
he and Ms. Iseman, he said, “"At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor any one or any organization." Very Clintonian indeed. As he said repeatedly to Mitt Romney when prodding him about his supposed Iraq withdrawal timetables, McCain said of Romney, “The response should have been simple. No.”His close ties to this lobbyist also speak to the heart of the leading problem in Washington- too many people with their hands in the cookie jar. McCain has run a campaign based upon cutting pork barrel spending and turning deaf ears toward lobbyists. More do as I say and not as I do politics. This will undoubtedly be cannon fodder for the Democrats in November.
What bothers me more about McCain is a different story that is getting only moderate airplay. It’s a little nerdy, and there’s no sex appeal to it, but I believe that it has far weightier implications. We all know that in the summer of 2007, McCain’s campaign was hemorrhaging badly. In order to keep the campaign afloat, he took out a loan against his list of contributors, and even backed it up with a life insurance policy. Here’s where it gets tricky- the FEC could view this as an illegal move since the contributor list is bound by privacy laws. What would’ve happened if the loan was actually called and his collateral- the list, was turned over? Nobody knows. There would have been a lengthy court battle over the use of the list, and McCain likely wouldn’t have cared since his failed Presidential candidacy would have been a doomsday scenario anyway. My point? It shows a flagrant disregard for law and the names of the people who support him.
I want so badly to be able to support this guy, but he’s making it very difficult.
1 comment:
he's slimy. nothing new.
but what is new is that new caption under you pic of mitt. i like it!
Post a Comment