Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Will the media ever talk about McCain's past affairs?
Or are we back to the 1950s when this sort of thing was covered up by compliant reporters?
It's great to see McCain get all this lovely dovey coverage in contrast to the shrill attacks aimed at any Democrat.
It's also a nice preface to the upcoming fluff we will soon all here about "honor" and "character". This is a guy who cheated on his severely injured longsuffering and faithful wife, and then left her for a rich trophy wife (who he apparently later cheated on as well -- say what island did Vicky Iseman disappear to?).
According to Wikipedia (since scrubbed):
McCain
has acknowledged engaging in extramarital affairs upon returning from
Vietnam. While he was in Vietnam, his wife Carol had been severely
injured in a car accident. Due to the accident, she had become 4 inches
shorter, gained weight, and had to use crutches to walk. Soon after his
return in 1973, McCain began engaging in extramarital affairs. In 1979,
he met and began an affair with 25-year-old Cindy Hensley. A year
later, McCain sought a divorce from Carol and a month after that, he
married Hensley.
Comments (9)
Unless your point is that this demonstrates media bias, I fail to see how it's relevant.
March 24, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple points:
1. The "honor" and "character" of this really good guy who the press loves. We will soon hear a lot about what a great guy McCain is. His campaign rests on her personal ethics. Betraying the people closest to you several times seems to speak of a less trustworthy and less honorable man.
2. Everything about Hillary and Obama has been poured over, scrutinized under a microscope, and dredge up to great effect. If the MSM is going to play "gotcha" with every skeleton in the Democrat's closet, it's only fair that McCain be "vetted" likewise.
March 24, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly think it's smarter to go head to head with McCain on the issues. The Democrats are on the better half of the debate with virtually every issue, including troop withdrawal, repealing tax cuts for the wealthy, universal health care, alternative energy.
If you want to question his ethics, focus on how many issues he's gone back and forth on.
Let the Republicans play the personal attack route alone. It defines them as smaller and less relevant to changing our every day lives.
I know, personal attacks win elections. But I'd be willing to bet that in the final analysis, it won't decide this one.
If you don't buy that, consider this:
Attacking the personal life of an American war hero is likely to
backfire.
March 25, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, his personal ethics.
March 24, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Attacking the personal life of an American war hero is likely to
backfire."
VEry good point.
But I'm not talking about Obama's campaign, which has the high road approach.
I'm questioning the propriety of the media deliberately covering up McCain's dirty laundry for him, while showing no such favor for any Democrat.
What's shameful is that every sort of trivia item regardign the Democrats is scrutinized, while these major transgressions by McCain are hushed up.
If the press is going to have newscycles revolving around "the blue dress", and "plagiarism", and who someone's former neighbor was, why isn't it fair game to question McCain's ethics -- the core of his message, which seems undermined by his personal dishonesty.
March 25, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with you.
Its unfair that the media doesn't cover everyone's personal indiscretions with equal time.
But I'd rather the media just cover events that are now imploding around Republicans and McCain every day.
March 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Swiftboating 101:
"Using opponent's strength to detroy opponent":
If McCain was tortured in Hanoi and yet supports torture by our government, it's because he knows it works. He knows it works because it worked on him. Which means he gave up valuable info to the enemy. And therefore he should not be president.
-OR-
McCain was tortured in Hanoi and knows it doesn't work, because it didn't break him, and what he told them under duress was crap. In which case he's supporting American torture even though he knows the information it develops is worthless. And therefore he should not be president.
Let me repeat that: therefore he should not be president.
March 25, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media have been enamored since the oxymoronic "Straight Talk Express." He has made so many gaffes, said so much pure bullshit and they still give him an 'ole! Nothing about Cindy's old man propping him up in politics. An example; The minister at the church Obama attends(Christian Church. Although they still manage to throw in that he has been called a muslim) when in Chicago makes statements disavowed by Obama and he has to defend HIMSELF because of something someone else has said for weeks. McCain called Fallwell and Robertson agents of intolerance himself and when he embraces them it is koombaya.It has been at least 9-10 years since the Clinton transgression and there was an article about the anniversary of the 'blue dress.' A question was even brought up to Chelsea Clinton at a political gathering for her mother WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MONICA OR THE FUCKING BLUE DRESS!!. Could anything have been more crude? She was a kid when this happened. It looks like she got over it why can't the MEDIA? Nary a peep about The 'straight shooter'. Nothing about his hottie lobbyist for the telecoms who had legislation passed. Hell, Edwards was my candidate and now it doesn't matter which Democrat runs against McCain. I will vote Democratic. I just wish the Democrat could run on a level playing field. The career of journalism is sinking around siding salesmen and cold call brokers.
March 26, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. As I hit 'send' Mathewes came on and mentioned the straight talk express then and now. The BS will be interesting.
March 26, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment