|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 22, 2008 14:06:24 GMT -5
I don't want to beat a dead horse and I pretty much agree with you. The ads were certainly at least in part politically moticated. My only point was that the motivation for the ads was there beforehand, rightly or wrongly, whereas the momentum for this story is pretty much entirely coming from a manufactured smear, motivated exclusively to tarnish McCain. I don't think you could say that about the Swift Boat ads entirely, although it was certainly one prominent factor. Haha alright we're saying close enough to the same thing... I'll drop it. |
|
HS86
Member
Posts: 38 
|
Post by HS86 on Feb 26, 2008 15:47:04 GMT -5
Y'all are missing the point about the McCain article. It wasn't about whether he was having an affair or even the appearance of it--it was about how he was using his influence as a Senator to pressure the FCC on behalf of a lobbyist/client. For someone who claims he isn't in the lobbyists pockets, he has shown time and again that he is.
Y'all were just hung up on the sex angle.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 26, 2008 16:06:11 GMT -5
Y'all are missing the point about the McCain article. It wasn't about whether he was having an affair or even the appearance of it--it was about how he was using his influence as a Senator to pressure the FCC on behalf of a lobbyist/client. For someone who claims he isn't in the lobbyists pockets, he has shown time and again that he is. Y'all were just hung up on the sex angle. If the main point was the lobbying angle, why did they insinuate the sex angle? They knew what they were doing and they knew the sex angle would sell papers and notoriety. Question: what is a lobbyist except a representative of a group of Americans desiring to be heard. A lobbyist only gains access to be heard. The McCain response to the Times before they published the story had a long listing of things this particular lobbyist was in favor of that McCain was opposed to as shown by his votes. Why did the Times ignore McCain's responses? |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Feb 26, 2008 16:10:30 GMT -5
Someone on the panel on ABC's This Week Sunday (maybe George Will?) made the point that the best thing that could have happened to McCain was that the lobbyist was a woman and sexual innuendo was attached, because he was able to treat that as the "story" and quickly snuff it out, when in fact it his coziness with corporations that flies in the face of the image he cultivated, at least prior to 2000. Although it would appear he is no longer interested in that image anyway- he sure seems comfortable now with coporate tax cuts that previously offended his conscience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 27, 2008 15:10:33 GMT -5
The #1 reason that Kerry was nominated in 04 was that he was a "distinguished and decorated war hero" ... making his service in Vietnam perfectly acceptable grounds for discussion. If there's an analogy to be drawn to the present controversy, it's that McCain's post-Keating5 obsession with the intersection of money and politics is undermined by his continued history of cozy financial and personal relationships with companies and interests that have business before his committees. This is a "controversy" that wouldn't hold any water if the Republican at the center of it were Romney or Huckabee. When you make a single facet of your life the centerpiece of your bid for the presidency, you should expect that facet to be scrutinized and held to a higher standard. Well put. |
|
