John McCain has always been a phony & a scumbag; want proof?

McCain Iraq Comments: Bringing Troops Home From Iraq "Not Too Important" (VIDEO)

Sen. John McCain appeared on the Today Show this morning and continued to promote his idea of a long occupation in Iraq. But whatever merits there may be for his message, his delivery is once again promising to get him into trouble.

When asked if he knew when American troops could start to return home, McCain responded:

"No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq."
[WATCH]
link

McCain Acknowledges He May Lose Arizona
McCain Acknowledges He May Lose Arizona
by Dawn Teo
June 10, 2008

The McCain campaign's election strategy PowerPoint, published on his website this morning, reveals that the campaign has accepted a remarkable fact: McCain and his advisers have lumped Arizona, the Republican Party presumptive nominee's home state, among what it is considering swing states. In other words, McCain feels he could lose Arizona to Obama, an admission that squares with recent surprising polling data.

In Arizona, and particularly among his home district residents, Sen. John McCain's popularity compared to Sen. Barack Obama's is declining fairly rapidly, according to the most recent poll.

Democratic Congressional candidate Bob Lord, running to represent Arizona's 3rd District, commissioned the poll, which was published last week and reports McCain drawing 48 percent and Obama 43 percent support among residents in the district that the McCain family calls home. Statewide, McCain only leads Obama by an 11-point margin. The surprising poll results add to the growing feeling among analysts that McCain can take nothing for granted against Obama, particularly it seems in McCain's western region of the country.

Indeed, one of the unexpected reasons McCain's home district may be turning on him is that it is also home to more than 56,000 veterans. Veterans in Arizona have been outraged that McCain refused to sign on to the recent GI Bill written to increase educational benefits to soldiers serving in the post 9/11 U.S. military. That McCain is losing ground among veterans and Arizona residents must come as dire news to his supporters and members of his campaign.

By way of comparison, the opposite -- McCain gaining ground in Obama's home state and district -- is unimaginable. A poll of Illinois voters published in March showed Obama's popularity continuing to rise in relation to McCain's, up 60 percent to 31 percent. And the idea that McCain could draw close in Obama's home district -- the 1st District -- centered around Hyde Park, the Obama family's urban south-side neighborhood and home to the University of Chicago, is laughable. Indeed, the district's longtime representative is Bobby Rush, the former Black Panther who authoritatively defended his seat against Obama eight years ago, schooling the now-presumptive Democratic Party nominee in grassroots politics.

One explanation for McCain's dropping lead in Arizona suggested by the poll is the impact of the corruption scandal presently plaguing Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg, who is accused of skirting election finance laws.

Shadegg enjoys 75 percent name recognition, but only 31 percent of respondents said they will vote for Shadegg in the upcoming election. This is a drop of eight points from a poll conducted earlier in the year when 39 percent of respondents said they would "definitely" or "probably" vote to re-elect him.

While the McCain lead shrinks in Arizona, Obama is gaining in popularity throughout the West, leading analysts to suggest Democrats, riding Obama's coattails in the fall, will do very well there in state and congressional races.

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too
McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too
Tuesday 03 June 2008
by: Ryan Singel, Wired

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.

McCain's new tack towards the Bush administration's theory of executive power comes some 10 days after a McCain surrogate stated, incorrectly it seems, that the senator wanted hearings into telecom companies' cooperation with President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, before he'd support giving those companies retroactive legal immunity.

As first reported by Threat Level, Chuck Fish, a full-time lawyer for the McCain campaign, also said McCain wanted stricter rules on how the nation's telecoms work with U.S. spy agencies, and expected those companies to apologize for any lawbreaking before winning amnesty.

But Monday, McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, speaking for the campaign, disavowed those statements, and for the first time cast McCain's views on warrantless wiretapping as identical to Bush's.

[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. [...]

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

The Article II citation is key, since it refers to President Bush's longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war. The administration's analysis went so far as to say the Fourth Amendment did not apply inside the United States in the fight against terrorism, in one legal opinion from 2001.

McCain's new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007, interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush's five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is," McCain said.

The Globe's Charlie Savage pushed further, asking , "So is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?" To which McCain answered, "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."

McCain's embrace of extrajudicial domestic wiretapping is effectively a bounce-back from Fish's comments, made at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Connecticut last month. When liberal blogs picked up the story that McCain had moved to the left on wiretapping, the McCain campaign issued a letter insisting that he still supported unconditional immunity, as well as new rules that would expand the nation's spy powers.

The campaign's response was consistent with McCain's past positions and votes. But it riled Andrew McCarthy at the conservative National Review Online, who read the campaign's position as a disavowal of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, and a wimpy surrender of executive power to Congress.

"What does it mean when he says Sen. McCain does not want the telecoms put into this position again?" McCarthy asked. "Is he saying that in a time of national crisis, the president should not be permitted to ask the telecoms for assistance that is arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute?"

That's when the campaign issued the letter explaining McCain's new views of executive power, and revealing that McCain would, in certain future circumstances, rely on the same theory of executive power in wartime.

A spokesperson for McCain's camp did not respond to a request Monday for an explanation of the difference between the new policy and the December interview.

Poor BBB. She doesn't have an idea of her own - just fixed, close-minded opinions about which she has not really thought in years. Instead she just cuts and pastes her slanders.

I guess some just can't stand to see criticism of their sainted heroes.

I wonder if you even realize how much your responses resemble those who prefer Obama, and see him attacked...

Cycloptichorn

But she does have her copy and paste down. You've gotta give her that.

Hardly, Thomas. I don't believe the lady ever looked up "Wired" magazine online [viz. above, "McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too", Tuesday 03 June 2008, by: Ryan Singel, Wired"] because anyone with enough interest in that publication necessarily knows enough to post links to his cut-and-pastes.

All that despicable calumny collection therefore originates somewhere other than through original research by BBB. I'm better off if I don't know where.

Perhaps you didn't notice that I haven't argued at all about the substance of the material she posted. No Obamainiac-like hysteria about the supposed criticism at all: none, zero, zip.

Instead, I have (1) pointed out the hypocrisy of Democrats who whine incessantly about "Republican" "Swift Boating" and "unwarranted" atttacks on the "personal life" of their former hero, Bill Clinton; (2) noted that BBB is, in addition, merely a cut & paste artist; and (3) offered a skeptical comment about the ability of some of the indignant saps here to endure (or merely to understand) one tenth of the challenges John McCain has overcome in his life.

In this case my contempt is for the ctitics, not the criticsm.

The problem is, that you and other McCain defenders are more then happy to attack various areas of Obama's personal life, and pretend that his choices and associations provide evidence that there is reason to question his judgment and his word.

But when presented with evidence that McCain has not acted with honor - in a variety of situations - you lash out angrily at those who question him, using his time of incarceration in Vietnam as a shield for ALL his actions after that.

I do not consider his time in the POW camp to be an excuse for infidelity and oath-breaking. I don't consider it an excuse for the Keating 5 scandal, in which he was barely slapped on the wrist for his corruption. You and others seek to defend him on the basis of his past experience, and that's wrong.

I'd like to get your opinion on whether or not infidelity on the part of a candidate is reason to believe that they may not be trustworthy. I'd also like to know why or why not you come to the conclusion that you do. For to me, it is a serious problem, and I do not feel that it is valid to point to one's past trials and tribulations and use them as an excuse for present behavior. Not one bit.

Cycloptichorn

And, just to add on to the last post:

Yes, I will never understand the torture he went through. I am grateful that I will never understand this. But why is it always held up as a good thing, a character-builder, a sign of his toughness?

It is likely that his time as a prisoner had both positive and negative effects upon him. When we look at the situation in question - his infidelity and eventual divorce of his disabled wife - it isn't sufficient to say 'he was tortured, you wouldn't understand'; yet attempt to hold up his experiences there as a consistently good thing.

Is it fair to ask: do we want a president who underwent psychological and physical torture? What happened to his mind during that time? Is it a factor that helped lead to his famous temper?

The McCain camp has previously said that they would not bring up his imprisonment during the campaign, but they have done so several times lately; and always in the same fashion as you, in order to imply that due to his service and imprisonment, his bona fides and morals are unquestionable. They just had Joe Lieberman bring it up today in McCain's defense. I believe that this is an intellectually sloppy and downright dishonest tactic, linking criticism of his ACTIONS after incarceration to criticism of his patriotism or somehow the fact that he did sacrifice a lot for our country.

Nobody is above criticism, and McCain gets no pass with me for anything, based upon what happened to him during imprisonment. If in fact the things he went through were severe enough to give him a pass for later actions, then he probably is not fit to be president of the country; lasting psychological damage caused by torture is not a quality that one looks for in a leader. He cannot claim to have no lasting problems from his experiences in Vietnam, but at the same time use those experiences to excuse his actions.

Cycloptichorn

I'll pipe in and say that I while I won't be voting for McCain, that has to do with my present understanding of his choices in matters of state, and admittedly that to some extent a president comes with the company he keeps, in this case, Republican, and I couldn't "go there" now. (There may come a day when I will vote for a strong independent-of-party nominee, but not this year.)

I wouldn't call womanizing a desirable trait in a mate, but I won't base my vote on that. I have empathy for McCain's first wife, but I won't base my vote on that either.

As to BBB as a cut and paster, yes, she does that a lot, and much of the time I sail by them, not always with a scroll, but not digesting the mass of information. On the other hand, many times she has posted information I hadn't seen and am interested enough in to at least register, and occasionally read the whole thing - and I thank her for her efforts.

Not all of us at a2k revel in debate and clearly thought out back ups for our every opinion, including nuances of changing opinions, and well thought out critique of the next person's take. I much admire those who are great at it on a2k, from whichever points of views they argue.

I'll repeat what I said earlier - I think McCain deserves to and will lose based upon his merits at this point, and not based upon the personal matters of his past.

But I am really dumbfounded, that one could think that Obama's personal relations and decisions are fair game - yet McCain's are not. The whole point of this discussion is to show that it's not as fun when it is the other side going after your guy for irrational reasons, is it?

Cycloptichorn

So you've set about attempting to prove that two wrongs make a right. Brilliant!

I meant to edit to say I don't know that McCain is a womanizer - meant 'if'.
I don't see it as my business - and similar could be said about "dirt" on any number of people in office or running for office.

No, I think that either both are wrong, or neither.

My guess is that those who are going to attack Obama using Wright will be unwilling to either agree with me or give up their line of attack. Just pointing out the hypocrisy...

Cycloptichorn

He's only been happily married now for 28 years. I guess it's too early to tell for some people...

I'm curious Bill, are you happily married and if so, if what happened to the first Mrs. McCain happened to your wife. Would you dump her for a rich centerfold piece that is 18 years youngerl like the present Mrs. McCain? Who knows maybe he has cheated on Cindy too. I'm sure it will come out if he has.

"What price monogamy?"

I'm not married and the best I can offer is to tell you I certainly hope I wouldn't... but how in the hell could I know what I'd do after 5.5 years as a POW, away from a wife I'd only been married to for two years, and came home to a woman that I barely recognized. How could you or anyone know? Maybe they'd have been divorced sooner if not for her accident. Again, how can you presume to know what goes on in someone else's marriage? Of course I empathize with Carol... but that's no excuse to slander John... or Cindy for that matter. Cindy married the man she loved as a very young woman and has stood by him ever since. Why does she have to be slandered too?

Who knows, maybe he has sold crack to kindergardeners too. Why wait for it to come out before slandering him for that too?

"What price common sense?"

Questioning someone's credibility is slander?

Are you presuming you have all the answers when you don't have all the facts?

No. Slander is slander.

Quite the opposite: I am claiming to not have the answers and holding folks in disdain for slandering a patriot based on things they couldn't possibly know.