All About McCain

[scaeagles]

Named sources always mean more to me than unnamed.

Regarding Edwards - the reason I mentioned the story was that they had a reporter at the hotel and had cornered him in a bathroom stall after he came out of her room. I don't believe - though I might have - that I went into anything about the time line. Only that he was caught.

And JW - how is it that Edwards was smeared? Was he not caught doing exactly what he was accused of? Are you suggesting that the Enquirer has a republican slant and try to smear dems?

There have been plenty of smears regarding Palin. I guess dems never let the truth get in the way of a good smear.

[3894]

Every time Palin says she’s a maverick/ McCain is a maverick/ she's a reformer or mentions the word or concept of reform/ she wags her finger, I donate $5 to Obama's campaign.

[flippyshark]

Hmm, yeah, I guess it isn't a smear seeing as Edwards was guilty as charged. So was McCain, so was Clinton, so was Newt Gingrich, so have been so many of our cherished leaders. If it ends up being the case with Palin, it won't have the slightest effect on my opinion of her qualifications as VP/ potential P. really, it won't even be that much fun to snicker about. People in power fvck around - that's not very surprising or interesting. Still, I will give her the benefit of the doubt for now, while I go make a BACON lettuce and tomato sandwich.

[scaeagles]

You are right, Flippy.

I do wonder, though, but haven't the time to look for a study.....do the wealthy and/or powerful typically have affairs more often than a middle calss working Joe? Probably. I'd be curious as to the percentages.

[flippyshark]

I've heard it said that power is an aphrodisiac, so I bet that people with power have far more opportunities (and invitations) to stray than us working class shmoes.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Finally remembered to respond to this.

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I've explained it several times. People like to have high ideals. They very much enjoy falling short of them. They like to elevate their failures to the level of sin, and they take refuge in the promise of salvation. It's why sinners and shortfallers like W, Clinton and Reagan do well, while fellows of comparative rectitude such as Gore, 41, Dukakis, etc. fail to sustain appeal.

My next question would be - what about the days when people were ostracized for such behavior? I know that tell-all rags have been around for as long as America has existed, and that tea-rooms have been filled with lewd gossip forever...but still, when these indiscretions were aired in the newspapers, it means certain career death for those involved.....didn't it?

[Betty]

According to Tom Leykis - that's what women are into. Power and money.

And I have to agree to some extent - a guy can get away with being less good looking if he's got money and power. Those can definately add a certain amount of sexiness that's lacking in overall looks. So can a slight edge of danger. Or maybe that's just me the whole bad boy thing.

[flippyshark]

Lessee, I got no power, no money, I'm average looking at best - Yeah, I've really got to shake this nice guy crap. (I could start acting more like Tom Leykis - he's a real jerk.)

[innerSpaceman]

So, with all the debate prep she's being subject to, how come the brilliant Ms. Palin can't seem to get the Ticket's Talking Points thru her pretty skull?

In response to a question asked by a civilian on Saturday, "Do you think we should cross the border into Pakistan to fight terrorists there," she said (and I heard this in her own voice), "Absolutely. If the terrorists are in Pakistan, we should absolutely go in there and get them."


Did she not bother to watch the debate on Friday where McCain exoriated Obama for saying he'd make cross-border raids into Pakistan? Forget for a moment that he misrepresented Obama's stance, he made a big deal about what a mistake it was to SAY that OUT LOUD. Then his running mate goes and says that out loud the very next day.



She didn't even qualify it, as Obama did, to say that "if Bin Ladan, if top lieutenants of al Queda or the Taliban are in our sights, and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act, then we should ..." No, Palin said unqualifyingly, "Absolutely, we should go in there and get them."




Go ahead, kool-aid drinkers, defend that. I dare you.

[JWBear]

Steve, you and I both know that they'll just dismiss it or explain it away with some lame excuse; or they'll try and smear the source. That's how Republicans work nowadays; never admit you are wrong, and the truth must bend to support the party's position.