McCain: Does anything sound familiar?

[Lutherf]

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five | Phoenix New Times

This is a 1989 article in the local Phoenix area political rag. Does any of this sound familiar?

And, of course, that's the way it is with the Keating Five. You are all battling to save your own hides. So you, McCain, leak to reporters about who did Keating's bidding in pressuring federal regulators to change the rules for Lincoln Savings and Loan.

When the reporters fail to print your tips quickly enough--as in the case of your tip on Michigan Senator Donald Riegle--you call them back and remind them how important it is to get that information in the newspapers.

It worked for McCain then. It worked because he, like John Glenn, was a political icon and the ethics committee was loathe to tarnish the reputation of a member of the political class with a reputation like a Glenn or a McCain.

It was then, like it is today, a matter of smoke and mirrors. The difference today, however, is that the media is wholly in the pocket of the political class so the smoke is a bit thicker and the mirrors are angled away from the facts a bit better.

 

[Cardinal]

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five | Phoenix New Times

This is a 1989 article in the local Phoenix area political rag. Does any of this sound familiar?



It worked for McCain then. It worked because he, like John Glenn, was a political icon and the ethics committee was loathe to tarnish the reputation of a member of the political class with a reputation like a Glenn or a McCain.

It was then, like it is today, a matter of smoke and mirrors. The difference today, however, is that the media is wholly in the pocket of the political class so the smoke is a bit thicker and the mirrors are angled away from the facts a bit better.

Keep rewriting history for the sole purpose of defending Donald trump. At least Sarah Sanders is getting paid. Are you?

 

[Grokmaster]

Keep rewriting history for the sole purpose of defending Donald trump. At least Sarah Sanders is getting paid. Are you?

What history was "re-written"?

Revealing FACTS is hardly that.

 

[Mach]

Deplorable.

Why are you discussing McCain as though his reputation has anything to do with current national politics?

Trump tweeting like a buffoon is deplorable.
Trump personally attacking people via tweet is deplorable.
Trump routinely doing this, is deplorable.
Trump attacking McCain- as "not a hero" is deplorable.
Trump personally attacking a recently deceased Senator of his own party, who served in Vietnam and spent years in a POW camp, only to emerge and be a decent Republican Senator...is absurd.

You coming here to toe the line with the deplorable Trump, and hammer on McCain purely for political shenanigans is deplorable.

I wish the GOP would grow the **** up. Life is short. This bull**** is so depressingly stupid.

 

[roughdraft274]

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five | Phoenix New Times

This is a 1989 article in the local Phoenix area political rag. Does any of this sound familiar?



It worked for McCain then. It worked because he, like John Glenn, was a political icon and the ethics committee was loathe to tarnish the reputation of a member of the political class with a reputation like a Glenn or a McCain.

It was then, like it is today, a matter of smoke and mirrors. The difference today, however, is that the media is wholly in the pocket of the political class so the smoke is a bit thicker and the mirrors are angled away from the facts a bit better.

Is it your contention that decades old articles should be used to judge recent politicians behaviors even if it provides no proof of any wrong doing?

 

[PirateMk1]

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five | Phoenix New Times

This is a 1989 article in the local Phoenix area political rag. Does any of this sound familiar?



It worked for McCain then. It worked because he, like John Glenn, was a political icon and the ethics committee was loathe to tarnish the reputation of a member of the political class with a reputation like a Glenn or a McCain.

It was then, like it is today, a matter of smoke and mirrors. The difference today, however, is that the media is wholly in the pocket of the political class so the smoke is a bit thicker and the mirrors are angled away from the facts a bit better.

:agree John McCain had always been a douche bag when he was in the Senate.

 

[Mycroft]

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five | Phoenix New Times

This is a 1989 article in the local Phoenix area political rag. Does any of this sound familiar?



It worked for McCain then. It worked because he, like John Glenn, was a political icon and the ethics committee was loathe to tarnish the reputation of a member of the political class with a reputation like a Glenn or a McCain.

It was then, like it is today, a matter of smoke and mirrors. The difference today, however, is that the media is wholly in the pocket of the political class so the smoke is a bit thicker and the mirrors are angled away from the facts a bit better.

People are perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to the record of a man if it aids them in spreading lies about another man.

 

[Rexedgar]

When this is all over, whatever McCain’s sins were will pale in comparison!

 

[Lutherf]

Is it your contention that decades old articles should be used to judge recent politicians behaviors even if it provides no proof of any wrong doing?

The article speaks to the matter of McCain walking the dossier in to Comey. It speaks to the fact that the FBI already had the dossier but that Steele was pissed that it hadn't received the attention he thought it should. It speaks to the fact that the dossier was already being circulated in the press when McCain walked it in to Comey.

It speaks to a senator who, like in the Keating matter, used his "hero" status as cover to do something despicable.

It's fine that McCain didn't like Trump. It's fine that McCain talked trash about Trump. It's fine that McCain chose to side with Democrats to oppose Trump. That's politics and it's fine and dandy. Where he went off the rails, however, was to use his position and his status as the most recognizable Republican on the "resistance" side to force a campaign to gut the Trump presidency based on a dossier that was entirely unverified. That's no longer "politics". That's subversion.

 

[roughdraft274]

The article speaks to the matter of McCain walking the dossier in to Comey. It speaks to the fact that the FBI already had the dossier but that Steele was pissed that it hadn't received the attention he thought it should. It speaks to the fact that the dossier was already being circulated in the press when McCain walked it in to Comey.

It speaks to a senator who, like in the Keating matter, used his "hero" status as cover to do something despicable.

It's fine that McCain didn't like Trump. It's fine that McCain talked trash about Trump. It's fine that McCain chose to side with Democrats to oppose Trump. That's politics and it's fine and dandy. Where he went off the rails, however, was to use his position and his status as the most recognizable Republican on the "resistance" side to force a campaign to gut the Trump presidency based on a dossier that was entirely unverified. That's no longer "politics". That's subversion.

Well, that's a fine way to completely avoid the question.

Is it your contention that decades old articles should be used to judge recent politicians behaviors even if it provides no proof of any wrong doing? I could probably find old articles to explain many behaviors of other current politicians if you are suggesting that they are fair play.

But to counter your "argument", can you please provide proof that McCain didn't hand this dossier off to the FBI out of genuine concern for national security? Or should I just take your assertion that the quintessential american hero that is John McCain just felt like subverting american democracy?

 

[Lutherf]

Well, that's a fine way to completely avoid the question.

Is it your contention that decades old articles should be used to judge recent politicians behaviors even if it provides no proof of any wrong doing? I could probably find old articles to explain many behaviors of other current politicians if you are suggesting that they are fair play.

But to counter your "argument", can you please provide proof that McCain didn't hand this dossier off to the FBI out of genuine concern for national security? Or should I just take your assertion that the quintessential american hero that is John McCain just felt like subverting american democracy?

Try a 2 for 1. While I can't speak directly to McCain's state of mind in regard to the dossier I most definitely can show a continuum of the man using his position to promote an agenda for political gain. I can also show that Steele, chose to go through McCain as his political connection to the FBI rather than go through a Democrat. That fact speaks directly to the desire of the "resistance" to give the dossier credibility. Steele, going through Sir Andrew Wood to reach McCain and doing so intentionally is indicative of the political purpose rather than the national security purpose. Likewise, the prior dissemination of the dossier to various media sources who chose not to disseminate the information or call for a national security investigation, also speaks to the political nature of the project rather than the security hazard. One must also bear in mind that the dossier was created for the express purpose of coloring Trump as a security risk.

So, to answer your question in a more direct manner, yes, there is no doubt that, in some circumstances, a 30 year old article can speak volumes to the current (or recent) state of mind of a political figure or of anyone else.

 

[roughdraft274]

Try a 2 for 1. While I can't speak directly to McCain's state of mind in regard to the dossier I most definitely can show a continuum of the man using his position to promote an agenda for political gain. I can also show that Steele, chose to go through McCain as his political connection to the FBI rather than go through a Democrat. That fact speaks directly to the desire of the "resistance" to give the dossier credibility. Steele, going through Sir Andrew Wood to reach McCain and doing so intentionally is indicative of the political purpose rather than the national security purpose. Likewise, the prior dissemination of the dossier to various media sources who chose not to disseminate the information or call for a national security investigation, also speaks to the political nature of the project rather than the security hazard. One must also bear in mind that the dossier was created for the express purpose of coloring Trump as a security risk.

So, to answer your question in a more direct manner, yes, there is no doubt that, in some circumstances, a 30 year old article can speak volumes to the current (or recent) state of mind of a political figure or of anyone else.

You could have stopped at the bolded part. You are accusing an american hero of "subverting" the president with not even a hint of proof. And you'll use POS articles from 30 years ago if it helps your cause. I can't even give my full opinion of what your doing here without breaking the rules. So I'll leave it at that.

 

[Lutherf]

You could have stopped at the bolded part. You are accusing an american hero of "subverting" the president with not even a hint of proof. And you'll use POS articles from 30 years ago if it helps your cause. I can't even give my full opinion of what your doing here without breaking the rules. So I'll leave it at that.

Have you read the David Kramer testimony? Have you read the Steele testimony? I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air.

Look, some people are going to believe whatever they feel like believing and they're going to assume that everyone who believes differently is either lying or stupid. That's fine. That's how Trump got into the WH in the first place. However, one or two will actually take the time to track down sources of the information they read in opinion pieces and, maybe, that will cause them to rethink their opinion....maybe.

 

[Objective Voice]

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five | Phoenix New Times

This is a 1989 article in the local Phoenix area political rag. Does any of this sound familiar?



It worked for McCain then. It worked because he, like John Glenn, was a political icon and the ethics committee was loathe to tarnish the reputation of a member of the political class with a reputation like a Glenn or a McCain.

It was then, like it is today, a matter of smoke and mirrors. The difference today, however, is that the media is wholly in the pocket of the political class so the smoke is a bit thicker and the mirrors are angled away from the facts a bit better.

You'll have to clarify for the masses...how does the media defending former Sen. McCain's reputation from a sitting President work to shift the public's attention? Away from what? Whom?

Given that no one was talking about the late Senator until President Trump mentioned him by going waaaaaaay off topic while speaking about U.S. manufacturing jobs, the only one who could possibly be shifting the public's attention here is Pres. Trump himself. So, the question rightly becomes, "Why?

 

[Objective Voice]

People are perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to the record of a man if it aids them in spreading lies about another man.

So, again Pres. Trump is pissed at the late Sen. McCain because it was McCain who originally funded the Steele dossier.

 

[lwf]

With all of the negative publicity about John McCain lately, I'm starting to think that he probably shouldn't run for president in 2020.

 

[Mycroft]

it was McCain who originally funded the Steele dossier.

Huh???

 

[Rogue Valley]

Deplorable.

Why are you discussing McCain as though his reputation has anything to do with current national politics?

Like Donald Trump, he can't help it. Character assassination of a man that passed away almost 7 months ago.

No profile in courage here.

 

[Lutherf]

You'll have to clarify for the masses...how does the media defending former Sen. McCain's reputation from a sitting President work to shift the public's attention? Away from what? Whom?

Given that no one was talking about the late Senator until President Trump mentioned him by going waaaaaaay off topic while speaking about U.S. manufacturing jobs, the only one who could possibly be shifting the public's attention here is Pres. Trump himself. So, the question rightly becomes, "Why?

Are you completely unaware of the David Kramer testimony that was released? Are you completely unaware that the testimony discussed how McCain walked the Steele dossier in to Comey? I mean, that's current news and the release of that information is what prompted Trump's tweets. It's not like Trump just started coming out with this stuff for the hell of it.

 

[Objective Voice]

Are you completely unaware of the David Kramer testimony that was released? Are you completely unaware that the testimony discussed how McCain walked the Steele dossier in to Comey? I mean, that's current news and the release of that information is what prompted Trump's tweets. It's not like Trump just started coming out with this stuff for the hell of it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Pres. Trump going into an unsolicited rant about his disdain for Sen. McCain at a rally that was suppose to be about manufacturing jobs. But it does confirm why Pres. Trump dislikes him so much - the Steele dossier.