How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction

[Paper Trail]

When an attempt to get tough with a whistleblower backfired in 1994, the McCain spin machine went into overdrive, and the candidate's wife confessed to problems the media was already poised to reveal.

By Amy Silverman (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/)
Oct. 18, 1999

PHOENIX -- GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.

It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.

It was also vintage McCain media manipulation.

I had déjà vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.

I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The local press cooed over her hard-luck story. One of the four journalists spoon-fed the story -- Doug McEachern, then a reporter for Tribune Newspapers, now a columnist with the Arizona Republic (and, it must be added, normally much more acerbic) -- wrote this rather typical lead:

"She was blonde and beautiful. A rich man's daughter who became a politically powerful man's wife. She had it all, including an insidious addiction to drugs that sapped the beauty from her life like a spider on a butterfly."

What McEachern and the others didn't know was that, far from being a simple, honest admission designed to clear her conscience and help other addicts, Cindy McCain's storytelling had been orchestrated by Jay Smith, then John McCain's Washington campaign media advisor. And it was intended to divert attention from a different story, a story that was getting quite messy.

I know, because I had been working on that story for months at Phoenix New Times. I had finally tracked down the public records that confirmed Cindy McCain's addiction and much more, and the McCains knew I was about to get them. Cindy's tale was released on the day the records were made public.

But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts. The irony is that Cindy's secret would have stayed secret if John McCain's heavy-hitting lawyer, John Dowd (of D.C.'s Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; his most recent claim to fame was serving as co-counsel for fellow partner Vernon Jordan during impeachment) hadn't heavy-handedly pulled out all the stops to protect the McCain family.

Dowd tried to get back at the man on Cindy McCain's staff, Tom Gosinski, who had blown the whistle on her drug pilfering to the DEA. But in the course of trying to get local law enforcement officials to investigate Gosinski -- Dowd and the McCains considered him an extortionist; others might call him a whistleblower -- Dowd set in motion a process that would eventually bring the whole sordid story to light. When that maneuver backfired, the McCain media machine went into overdrive to spin the story.

It's a story of unintended consequences. It's also a story of power politics and media manipulation that's very un-McCain-like -- if you believe his national media hagiography.

But both of Cindy McCain's staged, teary drug-addiction confessions have been vintage John McCain. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want.

McCain did it with the Keating Five, and with the story of the failure of his first marriage (Cindy is his second wife). So what you recall after the humble, honest interview, is not that McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, but instead what an upfront, righteous guy he is.

Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished. John McCain shoots from the hip -- but only after carefully rehearsing the battle plan, to be sure he won't get shot himself.

This is the story of a time that strategy backfired, and yet the McCain machine still managed to contain the damage.

In the early 1990s, Tom Gosinski was the director of government and international affairs for the American Voluntary Medical Team, which did relief and medical volunteer work in third world countries.

Hired by Cindy McCain in 1991, Gosinski enjoyed his job, but he began to notice McCain's erratic behavior in the summer of 1992. In his journal, he wrote that he and others suspected the boss was addicted to painkillers and might have been stealing them from the organization.

From Gosinski's journal, July 27, 1992:


I have always wondered why John McCain has done nothing to fix the problem. He must either not see that a problem exists or ... not choose to do anything about it. It would seem that it would be in everyone's best interest to come to terms with the situation. And do whatever is necessary to fix it. There is so much at risk: The welfare of the children; John's political career; the integrity of Hensley & Company [Cindy's parents' business]; the welfare of Jim and Smitty Hensley [Cindy's parents]; and the health and happiness of Cindy McCain.

The aforementioned matters are of great concern to those directly involved but my main concern is the ability of AVMT to survive a major shake-up. If the DEA were to ever conduct an audit of AVMT's inventory, I am afraid of what the results might be ... It is because of [Cindy McCain's] willingness to jeopardize the credibility of those who work for her that I truly worry.

During my short tenure at AVMT I have been surrounded by what on the surface appears to be the ultimate all-American family. In reality, I am working for a very sad, lonely woman whose marriage of convenience to a U.S. Senator has driven her to: distance herself from friends; cover feelings of despair with drugs; and replace lonely moments with self-indulgences.

In his journal-writing over the next few months, Gosinski would alternately complain about Cindy McCain and express concern for her well-being.

In January 1993, McCain fired Gosinski. She told him that AVMT was having financial problems and couldn't afford him.

Gosinski had already come to suspect that Cindy McCain had gotten volunteer doctors with AVMT to sign prescriptions for her, and had used employees' names to fill them. Worried his own name had been used (he would eventually learn that it had), Gosinski approached DEA agents in the spring of 1993 to report McCain's suspicious behavior. The DEA launched an investigation.

Almost a year later, with the statute of limitations about to run out, Gosinski hired a labor attorney and sued Cindy McCain for wrongful termination. He intended to claim that she fired him because she suspected he knew about her addiction, but the lawsuit never got that far. Instead, Gosinski's attorney wrote to the McCains, asking for a settlement of $250,000.

Rumors about the untold details of the lawsuit hit the cocktail-party circuit that spring, but the story was locked up tight. As a federal criminal investigation, the DEA probe was completely secret; none of it was public record.

[Paper Trail]

The entire story would likely have gone unreported if attorney John Dowd hadn't entered the picture. He wrote to Maricopa County attorney Richard Romley, a political ally of McCain, and asked him to investigate Gosinski for extortion.

"We believe that Mr. Gosinski is aware that in the past Cindy had an addiction to prescription painkillers ... Given Cindy's public position, exposure of this sensitive matter would harm her reputation, career, the operation of AVMT, and subject her to contempt and ridicule," Dowd wrote on April 28, 1994.

Thus began the inadvertent outing of Cindy McCain. Although the federal investigative materials were not public, the county investigative materials were. Romley launched an investigation, and one of the first things his people did, naturally, was ask the feds to turn over their investigative materials.

New Times finally got hold of the county investigative materials and we did our own story. So did the Arizona Republic, which was uncharacteristically aggressive, perhaps because the McCain machine had left the paper out of the loop on the story of Cindy's addiction.

Among the questions asked: Did Cindy McCain get preferential treatment by the feds? True, Cindy was a first-time offender, which partially explains the fact that she did no prison time; instead, she entered a diversion program. But at the time, defense lawyers told New Times that if Cindy McCain had been a poor minority and not married to a U.S. senator, she likely would have been locked up.

Did Gosinski intend to blackmail Cindy McCain? He told New Times he didn't. Other AVMT employees told county investigators that he did. But the time line makes extortion hard to believe, since Gosinski had already gone to the DEA before he brought his lawsuit against the McCains.

In any case, Tom Gosinski didn't out Cindy McCain. John Dowd did, and then Jay Smith was called in for the clean-up.

A few postscripts: Tom Gosinski left town shortly after Cindy McCain's story broke. By that time, his lawsuit had died, ignored. The county did not pursue the extortion investigation against him.

John Max Johnson, the doctor who had written the prescriptions for Cindy McCain, surrendered his medical license.

Cindy McCain still does relief work and raises the McCains' four children.

John McCain, of course, is running for president.

And only a handful of people remember the details of Cindy McCain's 1994 "outing" for drug addiction and drug pilfering, and the work of the McCain machine to protect her.

[Sultanosurf]

"Oct. 18, 1999" ?

[Zero]

I'd never seen or heard about this. And the guy's running for President in 2008. I think it's relevant.

[!]

Now, now, I am certain Paper Trail will explain to us how an article written eight years ago is relevant to us today.

[Zero]

If John McCain were not running for president, I guess there wouldn't be any sense in rehashing the past, but she is the wife of a current Presidential candidate who lied and stole drugs from a non-profit medical relief organization to feed her habit?

Doesn't it bear scrutiny?

I missed the story about her conviction and lengthy sentence as a reviled drug addict. Wonder why that was? She somehow never spent a day in jail, although she admitted to the crime of stealing prescription drugs from a charity to feed her habit. But let's not talk about it? Not quite cricket?

Let's not talk about how her lawyer brokered an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that limited her punishment to financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program, without anything being made public.

Let's see if the story is relevant when you use someone else's name... Let's see, Bill Clinton stole drugs from the FDA while he was in charge of overseeing it?

I've seen stories in the media about candidate Obama's drug usage from more than 20 years ago. I think it would be relevant if in taking those drugs, he had misused a position of great trust in order to lie and steal those drugs.

But hey, maybe that's just ol' nitpicky me.

[Sultanosurf]

And Cindy McCain is running for...

[Kace]

...First Lady. :)

[!]

If John McCain were not running for president, I guess there wouldn't be any sense in rehashing the past, but she is the wife of a current Presidential candidate who lied and stole drugs from a non-profit medical relief organization to feed her habit?
When Cindy McCain is running for President, I'll care about this.

I've seen stories in the media about candidate Obama's drug usage from more than 20 years ago. I think it would be relevant if in taking those drugs, he had misused a position of great trust in order to lie and steal those drugs.

But hey, maybe that's just ol' nitpicky me.

Not nitpicky enough, actually, because in order for this to be comparable, Michelle Obama would have had to be the one accused of stealing drugs years ago.

[Zero]

And her husband isn't compromised in the "war on drugs" when so many first time offenders go to prison if they happen to not be white women married to U.S. senators?

How is being a mother of young children while you are lieing and stealing from a charity in order to feed your addiction not cause for social services to take the children out of the home.

Guess what? Happens in cases where the mother is not a white woman married to a U.S. senator.

I'm just saying.

[Paper Trail]

Monday, November 19, 2007 7:59 AM

By: John LeBoutillier (http://www.newsmax.com/john_leboutillier/john_mccain/2007/11/19/50610.html)

The so-called mainstream media (MSM) has missed the boat on John McCain for 23 years.

While the Chris Mathews-Tim Russert-Imus crowd has slobbered all over McCain — mainly out of guilt over their own Vietnam War behavior — many others have known the real truth: the Arizona senator is a two-faced, sarcastic, mean-spirited, condescending hypocrite who has gotten away with numerous instances of terrible behavior because the MSM won’t take an objective look at him.

Now, however, the U.S. Veteran Dispatch, a highly respected and widely read veterans newspaper from Kinston, N.C., has published a riveting new article, "Betrayal, Deceit, Corruption, and John McCain," written by former U.S. Army Green Beret and two-tour Vietnam veteran Ted Sampley.

Among the revelations in this fascinating article: When McCain returned to the United States in 1973 after more than five years as a prisoner of war, he found his wife was a different person. Carol McCain, once a model, had been badly injured in a car wreck in 1969. The accident "left her 4 inches shorter and on crutches, and she gained a good deal of weight."

Despite her injures, she had refused to allow her POW husband to be notified about her condition, fearing that such news would not be good for him while he was being held prisoner.

But, just a couple years later, McCain, while pondering a future in politics, met Cindy Hensley, an attractive 25-year-old woman from a very wealthy politically-connected Arizona family. While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 just a month after dumping his crippled wife and securing a divorce.

McCain followed his young, millionairess wife back to Arizona.

Reports from a variety of U.S. publications exposed McCain's true scandalous character:

The Arizona Republic, Oct. 17, 1989, reported ". . . both in telephone conversations with reporters and on a live radio talk show, the Republican senator was far from calm. He was agitated. Angry. And the way he dealt with unpleasant questions was to bully the questioners . . . 'You're a liar,' McCain snapped Sept. 29 when an Arizona Republic reporter asked him about business ties between his wife, Cindy McCain, and Keating . . . 'That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot,' McCain sneered later in the same conversation. 'You do understand English, don't you?'

". . . Not content with just bullying reporters, McCain tried belittling them: 'It's up to you to find that out, kids.' . . . McCain wasn't talking to liars. He wasn't talking to juveniles. The senator was talking to two reporters.

"McCain, in a radio talk-show appearance last week condemned disclosures of his family's ties to Keating as 'irresponsible journalism.'"

In an article in the Phoenix Gazette, on Nov. 13, 1989, "Reporters also 'discovered' that the senator's wife and father-in-law invested $359,100.00 in one of Mr. Keating's projects in 1986 . . ."

In was reported in another article from the Arizona Republic, dated Aug. 24, 1994, that Cindy McCain escaped prosecution for stealing/using drugs. "Cindy McCain, the wife of U.S. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, admitted in a series of media interviews Monday that she became addicted to the painkillers Percocet and Vicodin.

"She said that she used the drugs from 1989 to 1992 and acknowledged that she had stolen some pills from the American Voluntary Medical Team, a charitable organization of which she is president . . . at one point, McCain, 40, was ingesting 15 to 20 pills a day . . . the normal dosage for seriously ill patients is 6 to 10 a day for a short period."

Another article by the same publication, dated Jan. 17, 1995, detailed greetings sent by John McCain to a noted crime family member: "About 300 guests turned out Saturday night to celebrate the 90th birthday of Joseph 'Joe Bananas' Bonanno, retired boss of New York's Bonanno crime family. He retired to Tucson in 1968 . . . John McCain, R-Ariz., and Gov. Fife Symington sent their regards by telegram."

All of the above is but the tip of the iceberg on the real John McCain.

While trailing badly now for the GOP presidential nomination, mainly because he has ticked off so many mainstream conservatives over the years, he is a viable vice presidential choice. Thus it is vital that the real John McCain be exposed —all GOP voters need to know the truth.

Vist the U.S. Veteran Dispatch Web site (http://www.usvetdsp.com/nov07/mccain_deceit.htm) and read Ted Sampley’s article. And then forward it to everyone you know.

John McCain must be stopped. And Ted Sampley’s well-researched article might just do it.


© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[Bureau Chief]

Well EVERY candidate has a past. EVERY SINGLE ONE. We have all said things, done things we later regret. I personally have never heard of the US Veterans Dispatch newspaper, and I'm a vet and I have a number of retired lifers in the family who have never heard of it either so I think "widely read" is a stretch. I also suspect that the article as posted has been edited. Notice the several references to Mr Keating...with no first name or context. Had he been mentioned earlier in the article and edited out by the poster or someone else? As for the divorce, I think if you look into it you will discover that the divorce rate among former POWs is something like 75 percent, at least that is what my local VFW chapter was told in a meeting last year. People change, and dealing with a now permanently crippled wife is tough. They frequently have emotional issues and for all we know, the relationship was on the rocks BEFORE he went to war. My point is that little of this is important today. We gave the Clintons a pass on the white water mess and draft dodging, we gave the Bushs a pass on the drinking, drugs and draft dodging, so why isnt McCain given the same? At least he stepped up to serve when asked. For that, he has my vote over the others. He will be our next President, Thompson will likely be his running mate and the rest will be history.

How many of YOU have stepped up and served your country? I believe that a previous thread found just 4 Vets here among Medialine regulars.

[Zero]

Well EVERY candidate has a past. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Well that justifies any behavior, does it?

I guess you're right. Every candidate has an ex-drug addict wife who while she was a mother raising young children got high. And how did she get high? Very clever. She uses her high profile position as the wife of a U.S. Sentor to set up a medical relief charity, then steals prescritption drugs from that charity in order to feed her addiction.

Who among us hasn't done that?

I'm a vet.

[Bureau Chief]

Who the hell is Duncan Hunter? That vets website is promoting Duncan Hunter for president so they are hardly unbiased reporters.

[Kace]

I think Hunter dropped out of the race.

[!]

Well that justifies any behavior, does it?

I guess you're right. Every candidate has an ex-drug addict wife who while she was a mother raising young children got high. And how did she get high? Very clever. She uses her high profile position as the wife of a U.S. Sentor to set up a medical relief charity, then steals prescritption drugs from that charity in order to feed her addiction.

Who among us hasn't done that?



But the candidate didn't do that.

[Bureau Chief]

Seems like this guy has an agenda. Papertrail you should investigate before blindly posting this wackos crap. SO I suppose you are voting for Paul??

http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm

He exploits the POW/MIA issue for his own gain. Read his "bio" on his site, at least he should use some of that money to hire a proof reader. If I had the time, I would run a check on him and pick his bio apart peice by peice but nothing good would come of it. We are ALL *****s for our own little piece of the action.

[Zero]

But the candidate didn't do that.

Which means, in your opinion, that a prior criminal record of a candidate's spouse, no matter how deceitful and despicable, should be ignored?

[!]

Which means, in your opinion, that a prior criminal record of a candidate's spouse, no matter how deceitful and despicable, should be ignored?

Not necessarily. I might find a problem with such a sitaution. just not in this case.

But the bottom line here is, you really don't want a Republican to win the presidency and you'll do whatever it takes to further that cause.

Of course, one of the leading Democratic candidates has a spouse who lied and such, too. Should we hold that against her?

[Zero]

I think it's relevant and worthy of discussion to ask why McCain gets a free pass from the national media on this story.

His wife set up a medical charity and stole drugs to feed her adiction while she was raising the senator's children. Then when it came time to pay the price, she was allowed to pay restitution and go to treatment.

And it's considered impolite to ask?

Then ask yourself this question: Would the Republicans be so gracious as to overlook this past behavior in any Democratic candidate's past?

[!]

You still haven't answered this one:

Should Bill Clinton's problems be held against Hillary in her campaign?

Based on your posts here, I don't see how you can answer other than in the affirmative, unless you enjoy hypocracy.

[Zero]

What problems? That he lied about having an extramarital affair during a politicaly motivated lawsuit/fishing trip which was thrown out of court for lack of merit?

I'm okay with that.

[Bureau Chief]

We arent electing the spouse.
Take your pick of any of these sites. They are exposing Sampley for what he is. Just a businessman trying to make a fast buck. I find it interesting that virtually every single PRO Sampley website uses EXACTLY the same language to discribe him. Indicating that they were all actually written by him. Sampley, a legend in his own warped mind.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ted_Sampley

http://bluenc.com/tags/ted-sampley

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=02-17-04&storyID=18291

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/19/countdown%E2%80%99s-worst-persons-ted-swift-boat-sampley-lou-dobbs-and-bill-oreilly/

[!]

What problems? That he lied about having an extramarital affair during a politicaly motivated lawsuit/fishing trip which was thrown out of court for lack of merit?

I'm okay with that.
So it's a matter of degree, then?

[Zero]

It's a matter of hiding an uncomfortable story.

And the ethics of doing so.

I'm quite sure you didn't know anything about McCain's wife drug addiction and charity theft. Why shouldn't voters? Why hide it? Let them decide if it's relevant to the campaign.

[Kace]

Should Bill Clinton's problems be held against Hillary in her campaign?

...I think he was acquitted.

[ewink]

I personally think its irrelevant what Cindy McCain did, what Michelle Obama did, or what enyone else's wife/husband did.

And quite frankly, with as much **** that is going on in this country right now, if this is what you are so concerned with that it will sway your vote, well, you're doing it wrong.

If I read that story correctly, Ms. McCain was convicted and sentenced for her crime, yes? Was it a cake sentence? Sure. Did the fact that she was rich have something to do with that? Of course. Welcome to reality. Personally, I don't feel non-violent offenses should carry jail time anyway (with a few exceptions), but that's just me.

[!]

It's a matter of hiding an uncomfortable story.

And the ethics of doing so.
Ethics?

The ethics of a candidate's spouse matter to you?

Okay, fine.

"I did not have sex with that woman."

Guess that wraps it up for Hillary, huh?

[Zero]

Not really. Telling a lie about a legal sexual encounter, which is nobody's business, is quite different, I would say vastly different, than commiting a crime by stealing drugs from a charity you're overseeing in order to feed an illegal narcotics habit.

See the difference?

And if there's nothing wrong with the behavior, or so you say, then why does it make anyone uncomfortable to discuss it?

It's a little known fact outside of Arizona. Let's bat it around a little bit and see how many people knew John McCain's wife stole drugs from a charity she founded so she could get high, all while raising small children.

I think this thread should be called family values.

[!]

Not really. Telling a lie about a legal sexual encounter, which is nobody's business, is quite different, I would say vastly different, than commiting a crime by stealing drugs from a charity you're overseeing in order to feed an illegal narcotics habit.

See the difference?
.

But it wasn't what you said. You said:

It's a matter of hiding an uncomfortable story. And the ethics of doing so.

And breaching ethics and hiding an uncomfortable story are exactly what Bill Clinton did.

You want to have it both ways.

And if there's nothing wrong with the behavior, or so you say,

I didn't say that. Someone else may have.

[Zero]

I was referring to the media hiding an uncomfortable story. Which it is. I admit that I wasn't aware of this story until I saw it posted here. Why keep it zipped up and out of sight?

Her husband is running for president.

I kind of think if it were Teresa Heinz-Kerry, you'd see more than a headline or two. Or maybe even someone who spends a lot of time in front of a talk show microphone the mentioning fact over and over again at some point.

Don't you agree?

[Paper Trail]

TALLAHASSEE (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=72234) — Cindy McCain, the wife of GOP presidential hopeful John McCain, stumps for her husband today at a local restaurant in downtown Tallahassee.

The McCain campaign has scheduled a press conference for 3 p.m. at Urbane Restaurant, 115 E. Park Ave.

Cindy Hensley McCain, a philanthropist and former special education teacher, is the chairwoman of Hensley & Co., an Arizona beer distributor founded by her late father that posted $187 million in revenues last year. She traveled the world with the American Voluntary Medical Team, a medical charity that she founded in the 1980s that brought treatment to war and disaster torn nations.

Like her famous husband, Cindy McCain is no stranger to politics. After campaigning vigorously for him in his unsuccessful presidential bid in 2000, she headed the Arizona delegation to the Republican National Convention.

[Pro]

Which means, in your opinion, that a prior criminal record of a candidate's spouse, no matter how deceitful and despicable, should be ignored?

It has no relevence. Although if said candidate gets elected, the White House Chief Usher might want to keep a close eye on the cutlery. :shifty:

[Paper Trail]

By PAUL F. CAMPOS
Scripps Howard News Service

One of the curiosities of American politics is the media's ongoing infatuation with John McCain. A bit of this is based on things such as McCain's opposition to torture (unfortunately, we can no longer treat opposing torture like opposing child molestation, i.e., something one assumes is standard equipment in a presidential candidate rather than a luxury upgrade). Yet most of the journalistic love affair with the Republican senator from Arizona is based on other factors.

Consider this typical endorsement from the Orlando Sentinel: While McCain "has stuck to his principles at the risk of sinking his campaign," Mitt Romney "has abandoned positions that would have alienated his party's conservative base." (Indeed, I checked a computer database and discovered that, in the national media, Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain.)

This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth. The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues. Here's just a small sample of Sen. Straight Talk's recent series of remarkable conversions to politically convenient stances:

-- On abortion rights, McCain has done a 180-degree turn, from favoring only the most minor restrictions and opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to supporting an almost total ban, while advocating that the Supreme Court reverse Roe immediately.

-- McCain has transformed himself from a deficit hawk who mocked supply-side economics into someone who sounds like he's drunk deeply from the wackiest vats of supply-side Kool-Aid, to the point where he now claims raising taxes decreases revenues (a claim so wildly in conflict with the facts -- for example, federal tax revenues almost doubled in real terms after the Clinton tax increases -- that it's either a shameless lie or a product of astounding ignorance).

-- In regard to ethanol subsidies, McCain has gone from treating them as the worst sort of pork to becoming a strong supporter of a program despised by economists, but beloved of Iowa farmers and the good people at Archer Daniels Midland.

-- Six years ago, McCain sternly condemned Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance." Eighteen months ago, he gave the commencement address at Falwell's university, while openly embracing one of the most noxious figures of the religious right.

These are just a few examples from a far longer list. On topics ranging from immigration, to campaign finance reform, to gay marriage, to accepting support from various sleazy characters he previously shunned, McCain has either completely reversed his views or seriously equivocated regarding what they are this week.

Yet the media continue to lavish him with worshipful paeans to his supposedly uncompromising commitment to principled leadership no matter what the political cost etc., etc.

Part of this is accounted for by lazy autopilot journalism, which stops people from bothering to check whether the story line they've repeated for years still has any relationship to reality.

But part of it is something worse. When it comes to McCain, many of the sophisticates at the top of the media pyramid are like a masochistic spouse who treats open infidelity as a twisted sort of faithfulness. They love McCain because when he lies to their face he doesn't even pretend to be doing otherwise. According to the pretzel logic of a certain kind of journalism, that counts as candor.

All this would be merely amusing if McCain were not a genuinely tragic figure. The young man who showed such exemplary courage in the face of his North Vietnamese tormenters has become an old man whose courage abandoned him when subjected to the more subtle tortures of worldly ambition.

"Count no man happy," noted the Athenian statesman, "until he is dead."




(Paul F. Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado and can be reached at Paul.Campos(at)Colorado.edu.)

[Paper Trail]

Who the hell is Duncan Hunter? That vets website is promoting Duncan Hunter for president so they are hardly unbiased reporters.

by Serafin Gomez (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/23/former-rival-hunter-endorses-huckabee/)
Fort Lauderdale, FL-

Mike Huckabee got a welcomed endorsement today from one of his former rivals for the GOP nod to the White House. Rep.Duncan Hunter (R-CA) endorsed Huckabee, citing his”outstanding character and integrity.”

” I got to know Governor Hukcabee well on the campaign trail, “said Hunter in a press statement.” Of the remaining candidates I feel that he is strongly committed to strengthening national defense, constructing the border fence and meeting the challenge of China’s emergence as a military superpower.”

Hunter said one other quality compelled him to endorse the Iowa caucus winner.

“Mike Huckabee is a man of outstanding character and integrity. I saw that character over the last year of campaigning and was greatly impressed, ” Hunter continues.” The other Republican candidates have many strengths and I wish them all well. My personal choice is Mike Huckabee.”

Huckabee in a statement provided by the campaign said that he was “honored” to have Hunter’s support.

“Over the past year, I have come to admire him on a personal and professional level,” Huckabee said.” We share many of the same positions on the military and immigration.I look forward to having his support as our campaign continues to surge ahead to Super Tuesday and beyond.”


Statement from Huckabee Campaign on Hunter Endorsement
“ Former Arkansas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee accepted the endorsement of Congressman Duncan Hunter, the former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who withdrew from the Presidential race earlier this week.

Huckabee stated, “I’m honored to have Duncan Hunter’s support. Over the past year, I have come to admire him on a personal and professional level. We share many of the same positions on the military and immigration. I look forward to having his support as our campaign continues to surge ahead to Super Tuesday and beyond.”

“I got to know Governor Huckabee well on the campaign trail. Of the remaining candidates, I feel that he is strongly committed to strengthening national defense, constructing the border fence and meeting the challenge of China’s emergence as a military superpower that is taking large portions of America’s industrial base,” said Congressman Hunter. Hunter continued, “Mike Huckabee is a man of outstanding character and integrity. I saw that character over the last year of campaigning and was greatly impressed. The other Republican candidates have many strengths and I wish them all well. My personal choice is Mike Huckabee.”

Huckabee called on Hunter’s supporters as well as those of former Senator Fred Thompson who also withdrew from the race, to join his campaign.

“As a true authentic conservative, I have a vision to bring hope, opportunity and prosperity to all Americans, and I welcome their support,”Huckabee said.

[CKMD]

A few things here.

Those of us from Arizona with direct dealings with McCain knew about all this.
I beleive it is appropriate to know about what happened with his wife and immediate family.
I don't hink it has ANYTHING to do with how he can run the country.

As for a media love affair with McCain, I have to laugh at that crap. He's gotten the **** kicked out of him by his local press in Arizona, he's gotten tons of bad press from around the country. He's been stabbed in the back by his own party.

As for these "vets" who are rallying against him like they did John Kerry, it only makes me like him more.

Will I vote for him? It depends...I haven't decided. But...if he is the Republican nominee, he will get a long hard look by this normally left slanted person. Why? Integrity and ability....and I almost killed him outside his home when I was 16 because of poor driving skills and feel bad about it.

[Sultanosurf]

Well, if there was universal health care, mebbe Cindy coulda got what she needed cheaper and legally...

[Kace]

"Bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb Iran..." :rockon:

[Zero]

Well, if there was universal health care, mebbe Cindy coulda got what she needed cheaper and legally...

It's not possible to get it cheaper than stealing.

[!]

A few things here.

Those of us from Arizona with direct dealings with McCain knew about all this.
True.

Although this Cindy McCain stuff sounds like breathless breaking news, it's been all but forgotten in Arizona.

And, having worked in Phoenix news, I agree that he's gotten anything BUT a free pass from TV, radio and print reporters.

[CKMD]

True.

Although this Cindy McCain stuff sounds like breathless breaking news, it's been all but forgotten in Arizona.

And, having worked in Phoenix news, I agree that he's gotten anything BUT a free pass from TV, radio and print reporters.

I remember sitting in a certain newsroom in Phoenix and hearing a reporter tell another reporter how sick he was of the Keating 5 and having to go after McCain for being stupid in the whole deal...not to mention how Keatings family got roped into it as well...though that didn't harm grandkid Gary Hall Jr. from an Olympic medal...and lots of pot smoking.

But, when you run for President, EVERYTHING about you and your past should certainy be brought up. The question is have those events hindered the way you can run the country? For McCain, I think they won't...in fact, I think it makes him better.

[Zero]

Well, if there was universal health care, mebbe Cindy coulda got what she needed cheaper and legally...

If Cindy McCain actually needed the pills, a doctor would have prescribed them. She wasn't hurting for cash.

She was an addict. She wanted drugs but didn't have a medical need so no doctor would prescribe them for her. So she stole them from a charity by overordering the pills and then keeping a stash for herself which she used to get high.

[CKMD]

If Cindy McCain actually needed the pills, a doctor would have prescribed them. She wasn't hurting for cash.

She was an addict. She wanted drugs but didn't have a medical need so no doctor would prescribe them for her. So she stole them from a charity by overordering the pills and then keeping a stash for herself which she used to get high.

"WAS" being the most important word there.
Just like GW WAS a drunk and WAS a coke head.

[Zero]

"WAS" being the most important word there.
Just like GW WAS a drunk and WAS a coke head.

An addict is an addict for life. She continues to be a recovering addict. Was was the wrong word to use.

But GW's past WAS reported by the national media as he campaigned for his party's nomination.

I"m just pointing out that while Cindy McCain's dastardly theft and addiction may be common knowledge to most people in Arizona, it's not necessarily so in South Carolina. When she stumps for her husband as a man of great integrity her criminal record might be of interest.

It deserves to be discussed. I think we both agree on this.

[CKMD]

We do agree...just not on why it matters when her husband might run the country.

[Kace]

Think of all the drugs she can steal when First Lady. ;)

[Sultanosurf]

If Cindy McCain actually needed the pills, a doctor would have prescribed them. She wasn't hurting for cash.

She was an addict. She wanted drugs but didn't have a medical need so no doctor would prescribe them for her. So she stole them from a charity by overordering the pills and then keeping a stash for herself which she used to get high.

Guess my sarcasm font wasn't enabled...

[Zero]

Yeah, it was. I just wanted to say that.

[Lazlo Toth]

And Hillary says Obama used drugs when he was five years old.

Who cares.

[Another side]

It's not possible to get it cheaper than stealing.

... might want to disagree with that about now.

[McCovey Cove Returns]

Yawn.

[Mohammed414]

Cindy McCain was a good guy actually that was a kind of misunderstanding between the media. media people do not think all what they want is a fake news to be published in front of the people. the Drug addiction is widely considered a pathological state. The disorder of addiction involves the progression of acute drug use to the development of drug-seeking behavior, the vulnerability to relapse, and the decreased, slowed ability to respond to naturally rewarding stimuli. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition has categorized three stages of addiction.
---------------------
Mohammed

(http://www.minnfish.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62775#62775) (http://www.drugaddiction.net/missouri)Missouri Drug Addiction (http://www.drugaddiction.net/missouri)

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Yeah, thanks for that reset, Newbie.
For a first post that is a pretty weak effort

[Clever Login Name]

Mohammed's nonsense aside, it's interesting re-reading these old threads knowing what we do now ... that Paper Trail and Zero are the same person.

[Diplomat]

Mohammed's nonsense aside, it's interesting re-reading these old threads knowing what we do now ... that Paper Trail and Zero are the same person.

It certainly explains a lot and PT's defenders haven't been able to spin now that the truth is out.

[oldandintheway]

It was common knowledge that Cindy was a pill popper in the Phoenix media back in the late 80's and early 90's. I'm sure a lot of this is going to get rehashed as the campaign marches on... especially the Keating Scandal. I'll give McCain credit for one thing, he faced it head on unlike the other four Senators who ran for cover.

[NewsguyMark]

Republicans hate drug addicts...

Unless it's their candidate...

Both Bush & Cheney are DUI convicts.

Cindy McCain was an addict AND a thief. But the elephants will find a way to spin this... COUNT ON IT!

[Sultanosurf]

Actually, it was two DUIs, five deferments, and that shooting thing for Cheney. A DUI, coke use, and that TANG deal for W. But let's not forget Chappaquiddick and that pantsless night on Palm Beach for Teddy, or a laundry list of other deals for numerous pols through the years. Gary Hart was my favorite, he defied the media to follow him. Of course, Edwards probably now takes the sleaze crown.

Just like the rest of us, they make mistakes.

[Clever Login Name]

Actually, it was two DUIs, five deferments, and that shooting thing for Cheney. A DUI, coke use, and that TANG deal for W. But let's not forget Chappaquiddick and that pantsless night on Palm Beach for Teddy, or a laundry list of other deals for numerous pols through the years. Gary Hart was my favorite, he defied the media to follow him. Of course, Edwards probably now takes the sleaze crown.

Just like the rest of us, they make mistakes.

What office has Cindy McCain run for?

[Zero]

let's not forget Chappaquiddick .
Nobody's ever forgotten. Kept him from being elected President.

Kind of the point of the thread, not that you noticed.

I guess someone's gotta hit you over the head with a hammer.

Consider yourself struck.

[Zero]

What office has Cindy McCain run for?

She hasn't run for anything, what a stupid question. On the other hand, John McCain is running for president. And it's very relevant that he covered up for his theiving lying drug addicted millionaire wife who stole medicine from impoverished sick people.

[Dap]

She hasn't run for anything, what a stupid question. On the other hand, John McCain is running for president. And it's very relevant that he covered up for his theiving lying drug addicted millionaire wife who stole medicine from impoverished sick people.

Precisely! Any other person would be in prison for doing the same.

[Another side]

Precisely! Any other person would be in prison for doing the same.

Now, let's not get carried away. First-time, non-violent offense. She'd get, rightfully so, the same tratment as Rush -- "diversion," not prison.

[Pro]

Now, let's not get carried away. First-time, non-violent offense. She'd get, rightfully so, the same tratment as Rush -- "diversion," not prison.

I think she was referring to the actions her husband took in covering it up.

[From the Right]

I think she was referring to the actions her husband took in covering it up.

Since nobody went to prison it's all ok and off limits....right Pro?

[Another side]

I think she was referring to the actions her husband took in covering it up.

OK. He wouldn't have gone to prison, either.

[Mr. Pratfall]

It certainly explains a lot and PT's defenders haven't been able to spin now that the truth is out.

Frankly, I don't care who Paper Trail is (although it's obvious you did). I just didn't get the assumption that he or she had to post articles from both sides. That has never been adequately explained.

Was it because of the name "Paper Trail?"

[buckpasser]

Frankly, I don't care who Paper Trail is (although it's obvious you did). I just didn't get the assumption that he or she had to post articles from both sides. That has never been adequately explained."

Allow me to explain.


Individuals like Clever Login Name and Diplomat have a long history on Medialine of attacking those who criticize, "their side".

When Paper Trail puts up articles Diplomat and Clever define as, "anti-Republican", they roll out the, "counter-attack" defense.

We've seen this through the Bush administration. An inability to defend Bush, but a willingness to counter-attack individuals who question/expose Republicans.


If Paper Trail expressed an opinion, Dip and Clever would simply shout Paper Trail down as a person.

Because Paper Trail uses "sources" in his threads, Dip and Clever can't chop down the thread. They can't refute the facts in the article.

Instead, they are left with an attack on Paper Trail that attacks his/her "bias". Because Paper Trail posts MORE about Republicans (according to them), than Democrat, we should not pay attention at all. No need to talk about Republicans, because Paper Trail is bad.


When you can't refute facts, refute the person. Dip and Clever are desperate to launch any sort of defense that doesn't involve explaining Republicans.

[Clever Login Name]

Quoth the boy with thousands of posts attacking Republicans. Give it up, buckster ...

[Tripe Face]

Who the hell is Duncan Hunter? That vets website is promoting Duncan Hunter for president so they are hardly unbiased reporters.

Hunter was the very powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and one of the main reasons the House supported the War in Iraq when it first started.

He dropped out of the race for the White House VERY early on.

[Tripe Face]

But let's not forget Chappaquiddick and that pantsless night on Palm Beach for Teddy,

What pantsless night on Palm Beach???

[Clever Login Name]

What pantsless night on Palm Beach???

I think you meant to say "which" pantsless night ...

[Kace]

Because of Ted going pantsless in Palm Beach...we should vote for McCain! :rockon:

[FD2BLK]

Because of Ted going pantsless in Palm Beach...we should vote for McCain! :rockon:

I'm just glad no one posted a picture of said pantsless events.

[Diplomat]

Frankly, I don't care who Paper Trail is (although it's obvious you did). I just didn't get the assumption that he or she had to post articles from both sides. That has never been adequately explained.

Was it because of the name "Paper Trail?"

No, it was because of people on this board who occasionally claimed he was just posting "articles." Many of them were editorials, opinion pieces, etc. and were never labeled as such.

Zero obviously hates this country and most of the people in it. He is also a lot like Bucky. I put them both on ignore because they both spew filthy bigotry and lies.

If it had been a conservative poster doing the PT/Zero bit, would you have had a problem? Or is it different because PT/Zero "cares?"

[Kace]

If it had been a conservative poster doing the PT/Zero bit, would you have had a problem?

To be fair, would you? ;)

[Mr. Pratfall]

No, it was because of people on this board who occasionally claimed he was just posting "articles." Many of them were editorials, opinion pieces, etc. and were never labeled as such.

That still does not explain the assumption that he or she had to post from both sides. Not to mention the "Why isn't Paper Trail posting THIS???" kind of retorts. Also, I'd say "article" is vague enough to include editorials.

If it had been a conservative poster doing the PT/Zero bit, would you have had a problem? Or is it different because PT/Zero "cares?"

Well, I've never made the claim that a poster was obligated to post anything, so I'd have to say no. I've also never justified a posters' actions by saying he or she "cared." You must be thinking of someone else.

[Pro]

Since nobody went to prison it's all ok and off limits....right Pro?

If it involved how McCain may have used his public office for personal gain, then it does become an issue. If it doesn't concern his public office, then I don't care.

[buckpasser]

That still does not explain the assumption that he or she had to post from both sides. Not to mention the "Why isn't Paper Trail posting THIS???" kind of retorts. Also, I'd say "article" is vague enough to include editorials.



Well, I've never made the claim that a poster was obligated to post anything, so I'd have to say no. I've also never justified a posters' actions by saying he or she "cared." You must be thinking of someone else.


I never understood what Diplomat and Clever were talking about either until I realized their argument against Paper Trail is actually a defense of Cindy McCain.

They've acted the same way about Bush, Cheney, et al. If someone criticizes a Republican, they don't defend the Republican. They declare the poster disqualified on the basis of being a "hypocrite".

-You can't criticize the Republican, because you sat by and said nothing when _______ did ________.

-You can't criticize the Republican because you are bad. For whatever reason. Diplomat's favorite.

-You can't criticize the Republican because you don't criticize Democrats "equally". Equality to be determined by Clever and Diplomat.


In Paper Trail's case, Diplomat and Clever have decided to ignore Cindy McCain as the subject, and launch a defense of Cindy McCain by attacking the person who posted the article.


You might defend Cindy McCain by talking about Cindy McCain. That's you. Dip and Clever are different.

[buckpasser]

Here's a pretty good example still fresh. It reinforces my previous post about Clever skipping over the entire thread subject, and molding an entirely separate argument where he declares his superiority by reacting to, then defining down another poster.

In this case, Pro. A recent heavy favorite of Clever. He's been "taking on" Pro, out of the blue, a lot recently. I think Pro is willing to put his own opinion out there, and Clever is more than willing to tell Pro what he thinks. And it turns out Pro is bad.


On the "Which Candidate Has the Most Integrity" thread, Clever posted the follow series. Notice the three steps he takes to conclude he wins, and Pro loses.


First, he tells Pro what he thinks.


So THAT'S why you don't support McCain. He spent five years in a (Vietnamese) prison.

Step Two: The rhetorical question demanding that poster defend themselves.

Why do you care about his personal relationships? Geez, at least bucky is brazenly hypocritical ... you keep trying to pretend these things don't matter to you but you keep bringing them up.

Step Three: Clever mines a fake quote, declares Pro the bad person, all before raising his own hand in victory:



"You people are forcing me to be a hypocrite!"

Gotcha.


It's a weird way to mold an identity, but they try.

[Pro]

Kinda like that Pro?

Yeah, kinda like that. It didn't involve his public office, so what do I care?

[Clever Login Name]

Here's a pretty good example still fresh. It reinforces my previous post about Clever skipping over the entire thread subject, and molding an entirely separate argument where he declares his superiority by reacting to, then defining down another poster.

In this case, Pro. A recent heavy favorite of Clever. He's been "taking on" Pro, out of the blue, a lot recently. I think Pro is willing to put his own opinion out there, and Clever is more than willing to tell Pro what he thinks. And it turns out Pro is bad.


On the "Which Candidate Has the Most Integrity" thread, Clever posted the follow series. Notice the three steps he takes to conclude he wins, and Pro loses.


First, he tells Pro what he thinks.




Step Two: The rhetorical question demanding that poster defend themselves.



Step Three: Clever mines a fake quote, declares Pro the bad person, all before raising his own hand in victory:






It's a weird way to mold an identity, but they try.

Bucky, the humorless, logic-challenged troll whose obsession with me and what I say is only rivalled by his raging hypocrisy. Your carpet-bombing of all threads political tells me you aren't happy with how things are going with your candidate ... and desperation is sinking in. It's going to be fun to watch for the next couple of months ...

[Pro]

It's all about the game, isn't it Clever? It's just a game.....:rolleyes:

[ShakAttack]

Bucky, the humorless, logic-challenged troll whose obsession with me and what I say is only rivalled by his raging hypocrisy. ...

Wow ... the rage! It seems like Buckpasser is really crawling under CLN's skin!

:whistle:

[Another side]

Kind of like when Teddy Kennedy took Mary Jo for a swim
and she died
and he left her in the river
and the next day after he sobered up he went to police
and his daddy paid off the cops and the family?

Kinda like that Pro?


Originally Posted by Ralphie the buffalo http://openline.medialine.com/images/kirsch/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?p=436897#post436897)
Kinda like that Pro?

Yeah, kinda like that. It didn't involve his public office, so what do I care?
I can't remember the last time I was left speechless by a response on Medialine. This might be the first.

[Kace]

And because Ted Kennedy got away with killing someone...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*pause*

A Hilrod/Condi ticket...wow, just think of the femslash fanfiction...

*unpause*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...Ew...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...Vote McCain. :rockon:

[Another side]

You drive me nuts, Kace ... absolutely bonkers.

[Kace]

Bonkers?

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0810/3.jpg

[sonorandesert]

When an attempt to get tough with a whistleblower backfired in 1994, the McCain spin machine went into overdrive, and the candidate's wife confessed to problems the media was already poised to reveal.


What was the story that BACKFIRED in 1994?

Just wondering.

[Tripe Face]

What pantsless night on Palm Beach???

I think you meant to say "which" pantsless night ...

I note NO ONE has answered my question. To what are you referring when you mention Teddy Kennedy's pantsless night in Palm Beach?

[Clever Login Name]

I note NO ONE has answered my question. To what are you referring when you mention Teddy Kennedy's pantsless night in Palm Beach?

For goodness sake, I was joking ... but now that I think of it, wasn't there something about TK roaming around in his underpants the night his nephew allegedly sexually assaulted the girl with the blurry blue dot face? I honestly don't recall .. except that I think it happened at the Kennedy's Palm Beach property ... maybe I'll Google.

[Tripe Face]

For goodness sake, I was joking ... but now that I think of it, wasn't there something about TK roaming around in his underpants the night his nephew allegedly sexually assaulted the girl with the blurry blue dot face? I honestly don't recall .. except that I think it happened at the Kennedy's Palm Beach property ... maybe I'll Google.

Don't bother... I thought you were confusing Teddy's misbehavior and his nephew's ALLEGED activities in Palm Beach. You may be right that he was seen that night...

[Pro]

Excuse me?
Is that the best you can do?
Can't you spin it better than that, Pro?
.

I have made it a firm rule not to pass judgement on any court proceeding, unless I'm on a jury.

I judge Kennedy on his Senate record and his policy positions. Just like I'd judge any public official.

[Clever Login Name]

To be fair, that's about the only tack a liberal can take, since if they apply morals and personal values to their decision, it eliminates most Democratic candidates.

[FD2BLK]

To be fair, that's about the only tack a liberal can take, since if they apply morals and personal values to their decision, it eliminates most Democratic candidates.

As it does with most Republican candidates as well. Neither party is any more or less moral than the other. It all depends how bothered you are by candidate A or candidate B's shortcomings.

[Pro]

And Pro, I expect that a person like you who is truly interested in the truth about all things will read these documents and give them due consideration.

Why? Does it concern his Senate voting record? Legislation he's sponsored? Policy positions he's taken?