McCain Sex Scandal?

Politics and World Issues
1

I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

2

One could also wonder why on earth the NYT would be breaking an eight-year-old story now?

At least CappedAndPlanet now knows they aren’t homophobic.

3

When was Viagra introduced?

NYT is a partisan rag. This is shameful.

4

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
When was Viagra introduced?[/quote]

You’re never too old to play receiver.

5

[quote]etaco wrote:
I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

[/quote]

Any laws broken?

If not, who gives a crap?

JeffR

6

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One could also wonder why on earth the NYT would be breaking an eight-year-old story now?

At least CappedAndPlanet now knows they aren’t homophobic.[/quote]

The Times isn’t restricted by McCain-Feingold. The Times earns a lot of money from Bank of America and Chase, which is essentially Rothschild money. The Rothschilds want Hillary.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/the-world-according-to/2007/10/05/An-interview-with-Lady-de-Rothschild#page5

"Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Oct 5 2007
The American entrepreneur�??and friend of the Clintons and the Blairs�??talks about India, telecom, Conrad Black, and her marriage to Sir Evelyn Rothschild.

L.R.: First of all, Hillary will be good for America. And so if we care about our country �??which all of my fellow capitalists do �??we’ll be very pleased that she’s president. And second of all, if we look at what is best for the economy, remember, she is a Clinton, and our economy under Clinton was strong, dynamic, productive, exciting. And the same kinds of people who advised Bill Clinton will be around Hillary Clinton. And she understands the importance of the business community, and it’s not going to be about raising taxes or doing any one specific thing. It’s going to be, What is in the best interest of all Americans? And I think if history is our guide, we’ve had stronger economies, more wealth creation, under Democratic presidents than we have under Republican presidents. So I don’t understand why all my capitalist friends aren’t Democrats."

7

The real backstory, which, amazingly, doesn’t involve global conspiracy theories:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24

8

Just another example of how “the Media” doesn’t try to influence who “they” want elected. Fair and balanced, n’est pas? I call it 21st century yellow journalism.

9

Hmm, weren’t Kennedy and Clinton famous for their sexual indiscretions, and everyone loved them. Yet McCain, not so much.

Is this the creeping hand of ageism? Or are darker forces at work? Have puritans taken over the media? Or are the newspapers trying to tell people who to vote for? Stay tuned…

10

Sweet justice! McCain initiated McCain-Feingold to throttle his competitors and give much more power to the media, in determining who the candidates will be. They then turn it on him! Sweet!!

McCain is a walking bag of two-faced shit, who would be laughed off of any serious rational lecturn. Too bad he got to design the lecturn, the rotten criminal…

11

[quote]JeffR wrote:
etaco wrote:
I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

Any laws broken?

If not, who gives a crap?

JeffR
[/quote]

The Moral Majority

12

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
JeffR wrote:
etaco wrote:
I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

Any laws broken?

If not, who gives a crap?

JeffR

The Moral Majority
[/quote]

I guess you’ll have to define the “Moral Majority” for me. If you get lazy and say “Republicans,” I’m going to be disappointed.

Thanks.

JeffR

13

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JeffR wrote:
etaco wrote:
I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

Any laws broken?

If not, who gives a crap?

JeffR

The Moral Majority

I guess you’ll have to define the “Moral Majority” for me. If you get lazy and say “Republicans,” I’m going to be disappointed.

Thanks.

JeffR
[/quote]

No I think the moral majority has hijacked the Republican party . The moral Majority are our ( meaning American )fundimentalist religous Zelots

14

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JeffR wrote:
etaco wrote:
I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

Any laws broken?

If not, who gives a crap?

JeffR

The Moral Majority

I guess you’ll have to define the “Moral Majority” for me. If you get lazy and say “Republicans,” I’m going to be disappointed.

Thanks.

JeffR

No I think the moral majority has hijacked the Republican party . The moral Majority are our ( meaning American )fundimentalist religous Zelots

[/quote]

pittbull,

You’ve inadvertently hit a sore spot with me. As everyone knows, I was and am a Rudy supporter. Everyone also knows that I have a have zero tolerance for what I perceive as religious fundamentalism.

For the first time in my adult life, my candidate was hurt by the so-called “values-voter” or the “Moral Majority.” Before, I was a supporter of the Republican nominee. That included Reagan, both Bushes, and Bob Dole. This is the first time that I’ve been on the other side of the Republican equation.

I can tell you, the view from here is eye opening. It’s also a little sickening. If you want to see some of this in action, watch and listen to huckabee. I think this guy is a religious zealot. Yet, the religious nutcases are flocking to this guy. He uses phrases that frighten me like “soldier for Christ.” I don’t have a problem with someone having a particular religious persuasion. I don’t even mind if they adopt and say they are influenced by the more benign aspects of their religion. However, the minute you are a “soldier for Christ,” I get very nervous.

I find myself sickened by this wing of the Republican Party. I actually think it narrows the appeal of the party. It might actually turn out to be a good thing to have McCain at the top of the ticket. It forces some re-shuffling of this troubling dynamic within the party.

JeffR

15

[quote]JeffR wrote:
…watch and listen to huckabee. I think this guy is a religious zealot. Yet, the religious nutcases are flocking to this guy. He uses phrases that frighten me like “soldier for Christ.” I don’t have a problem with someone having a particular religious persuasion. I don’t even mind if they adopt and say they are influenced by the more benign aspects of their religion. However, the minute you are a “soldier for Christ,” I get very nervous.[/quote]

Holy. Fucking. Shit. We agree on something.

Somewhere, Satan is probably wondering where all that snow came from.

16

Just like the hit pieces on Clinton and Obama, this one means nothing to me as I was never planning to vote for McCain anyway. And if I was planning to, I would expect them to come up with something a bit more substantial than 8-year-old allegations posed by “unnamed sources close to the candidate”. And even then, I would have to CARE whether or not McCain was running around on his wife, and I really don’t see the relevance, but I can see why the Times would think at least some Republican voters would be worried about it.

17

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
…watch and listen to huckabee. I think this guy is a religious zealot. Yet, the religious nutcases are flocking to this guy. He uses phrases that frighten me like “soldier for Christ.” I don’t have a problem with someone having a particular religious persuasion. I don’t even mind if they adopt and say they are influenced by the more benign aspects of their religion. However, the minute you are a “soldier for Christ,” I get very nervous.

Holy. Fucking. Shit. We agree on something.

Somewhere, Satan is probably wondering where all that snow came from.

[/quote]

pookie,

I have a feeling that, in person, we’d agree on more than meets the eye.

One of the drawbacks of a message board is that some of it gets lost in translation.

JeffR

18

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
JeffR wrote:
etaco wrote:
I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

Any laws broken?

If not, who gives a crap?

JeffR

The Moral Majority

I guess you’ll have to define the “Moral Majority” for me. If you get lazy and say “Republicans,” I’m going to be disappointed.

Thanks.

JeffR

No I think the moral majority has hijacked the Republican party . The moral Majority are our ( meaning American )fundimentalist religous Zelots

pittbull,

You’ve inadvertently hit a sore spot with me. As everyone knows, I was and am a Rudy supporter. Everyone also knows that I have a have zero tolerance for what I perceive as religious fundamentalism.

For the first time in my adult life, my candidate was hurt by the so-called “values-voter” or the “Moral Majority.” Before, I was a supporter of the Republican nominee. That included Reagan, both Bushes, and Bob Dole. This is the first time that I’ve been on the other side of the Republican equation.

I can tell you, the view from here is eye opening. It’s also a little sickening. If you want to see some of this in action, watch and listen to huckabee. I think this guy is a religious zealot. Yet, the religious nutcases are flocking to this guy. He uses phrases that frighten me like “soldier for Christ.” I don’t have a problem with someone having a particular religious persuasion. I don’t even mind if they adopt and say they are influenced by the more benign aspects of their religion. However, the minute you are a “soldier for Christ,” I get very nervous.

I find myself sickened by this wing of the Republican Party. I actually think it narrows the appeal of the party. It might actually turn out to be a good thing to have McCain at the top of the ticket. It forces some re-shuffling of this troubling dynamic within the party.

JeffR

[/quote]

I have many friends and relatives that consider themselves part of the Moral Majority. I find it ironic that when we speak of poor people or the homeless that they are adamant that those poor or homeless need to go out and get two jobs if necessary, rather than be their miserable selves. It is funny how they embrace only half of what Christ teaches.

I think that Christians trying to run the United States is just like the Catholic Church did in England.
Sorry about Rudy, I did not want him to win though. Peace.

19

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…
I have many friends and relatives that consider themselves part of the Moral Majority. I find it ironic that when we speak of poor people or the homeless that they are adamant that those poor or homeless need to go out and get two jobs if necessary, rather than be their miserable selves. It is funny how they embrace only half of what Christ teaches.
…
[/quote]

I think Jesus said “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

20

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…

I think that Christians trying to run the United States is just like the Catholic Church did in England…

[/quote]

Who’s the poor sap that has to be Becket? ( Thomas Becket - Wikipedia )