Normally I don’t, but this one’s way beyond the pale in my view. Not that I was planing to vote for McCain anyway even were he to divorce her, but mark my words: The spotlight she’s about to come under will cast John in an unfavorable light himself.
She’ll have certain responsibilities in representing the US that if it’s her doing the representing, I’d feel queasy about. They’d have to lock up the silverware when she went anywhere on a state visit. It also could call into question McCain’s judgment. It may not be fair, and 99% of the time I would agree it’s not fair, but Cindy’s a bit over the top.
What does being poor, or not, have to do with personal responsibility?
From Charles Dickens, in Oliver Twist:
Mr. Brownlow: In the eyes of the law, you are the more guilty of the two, for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.
Mr. Bumble: If that’s what the law supposes, sir, then the law is a ass! If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.
Are you a robot?
To me, the only reason it’s an issue is that the GOP has targeted not only Michelle Obama in some very nasty ways, but virtually anyone Barack Obama has ever come in contact with. If they want to play the association game – especially with spouses – then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Senator Obama has said that he will not make Cindy McCain a campaign issue. McCain has refused to make a similar pledge about Michelle. Fine. Senator Obama is too much of a gentleman to mention that John McCain is married to a charity-robbing junkie, but I certainly am no such gentleman.
Personally, I think we could use more junkies in the White House, not that I’ll vote for McCain. I’m tired of the War on Drugs. I want it to be replaced with a War FOR Drugs.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t attack Cindy McCain because it’s mean, I’m saying we as voters shouldn’t care about either spouse because it’s irrelevant. Any voter who makes his/her decision about who should be the next President of the United States based on the First Lady is a retard.
No, a Dalek.
I heard she can make death rays come out of her eyes, and we don’t need that in the White House.
And as we all know, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw parties.
An organism that has an all-consuming hatred for all other lifeforms, which would be utterly helpless without its mechanical shell? Hokay.
Seek! Locate! Exterminate!
Unless they’re the kind of parties that have lots of hot naked chicks.
Look at the actual links and by-lines. The story was originally written when the events were barely four years old and McCain was making his first bid for the presidency. Snarling about Salon for doing an article at a time when it was pertinent seems pretty silly in that light.
That said: this story is now bogus. No one appears to have dug up anything more recent than her public confession and restitution; she continues to fund philanthropic ventures with a lot of her personal wealth; she is no more a legitimate target for such nonsense than is Ms. Obama.
Bogus means counterfeit or fake; not genuine. What is bogus about that story? Are you claiming that a story can be correct, but become bogus by the passage of time?
Is it just me, or does it seem like Cindy McCain was the Paris Hilton of her generation?
The claim that there is anything pertinent to the 2008 election in the private activities, fourteen years past, of a person who is not even a candidate is bogus, fake, and irredeemably stupid. The story could be 100% accurate, but pretending that it is a relevant story is just dumb.
If the crackhead was clean for 14 years and hadn’t stolen from anyone during that time I might be inclined to cut them a little slack as well.
Marc
I see you have switched what you said. Before it was the story that was bogus, now it is the claim in the story that is bogus.
The story might be stupid and it might be irrelevant, but that does not mean that it is fake or bogus.