« Dobson & the Bible | merlot's Blog | McCain putting his country last »

Cindy McCain vs Michelle Obama


Cindy McCain was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. She has accomplished nothing in adulthood except being a prescription drug junky and the trophy wife of a 3rd rate US senator. She's never had to work to put food on the table or to pay the rent thanks to her rich Daddy. Michelle Obama was born on the southside of Chicago to lower middle class parents. By her own will and intelligence, she graduated from Princeton University and recieved her law degree from Harvard Univerity. She then became a successful lawyer and hospital administrator all the while having the pay the bills without a sugar daddy's help. Interestingly, McCain chose an inferior as a second wife after cheating on his first wife. Obama chose a true intellectual peer as a wife and has been faithful to her since before their marriage. Do we really want a philandering, pussy-whipped man like McCain in the White House who refuses to pay his taxes as do the rest of us?

21 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Can you say 'tactless'?

Maybe, but I can say "accurate"

Simple answer to your last line question?


NO.

Nicely put! Way to go, Merlot!

I think this is revolting.

None of us knows Cindy McCain personally and therefore have no business making stabs at demolishing her character.

What I know about her is that she rescued a dying Bangladeshi child from an orphanage and bought her home and adopted her - she also organised for the adoption of the other child she brought back with her.

I looked up her bio on Wikipaedia and have copied & pasted the entry of her other charitable work below. It's impressive and its real. I hope you'll read it.

Prescription drug junkie? To be in agony from spinal surgery and get addicted to painkillers and make a mistake during drug addiction is something I imagine most mere mortals can sympathise with and forgive - especially when the person involved clearly has done so much more actual good in her life working with Downs syndrome and other disabled children plus war-torn country victims than the rest of us pontificating on the net probably will ever do.

Assassinate John McCain's character with evidence and you can do so with impunity - he is the man standing for President. But to pile this sort of junk on his wife is horrible. She's clearly a lovely, humane woman.

`she published the work Movement Therapy: A Possible Approach in 1978.[14] Declining a role in the family business,[15] she then began a special education teaching career working with children with Down syndrome and other disabilities...Cindy McCain founded the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT).[1] It was a non-profit organization that organized trips for doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel to provide MASH-like emergency medical care to disaster-struck or war-torn third-world areas such as Micronesia, Vietnam (before relations were normalized between them and the U.S.[12]), Kuwait (arriving five days after the conclusion of the Gulf War[12]), Iraq, Nicaragua, India, Bangladesh and El Salvador.[7][27][28][29][30] She led 55 of these missions over the next seven years,[11] with each being of at least two weeks' duration.[30] AVMT also supplied treatment to poor sick children around the world.[31]'

Just passin' through, but you seem to have contradicted yourself.

First, there's this:

None of us knows Cindy McCain personally ...

Yet later you either indicate that personal knowledge is not necessary:

She's clearly a lovely, humane woman.

Cake and eatin' it and all that stuff.

I really should have included the entire sentence in the first quote, so here it is:

None of us knows Cindy McCain personally and therefore have no business making stabs at demolishing her character.

So, upon further reflection, it appears that your saying that it's not right to negatively judge her when we don't really know her, but it's all right to praise her, even though there's the same lack of knowledge.

Not that I've not made any judgment of Cindy McCain in either of these posts, but that's just equine fecal matter.

This is silly.

There isn't the same lack of knowledge. There's a body of work for many many years.

I can't for a moment wrap my mind around the idea that you would apply `faecal matter` to so much dedication to disabled children and victims of wars.

Each to his own I suppose.

You misunderstand.

I think it's horseshit that you start your argue how you, without personal knowledge, do, in fact, know that she's "lovely and humane."

I am not denying she's a wonderful person. It's a flawed argument because of your second sentence. Delete that sentence and it's far more compelling.

That's all I'm sayin'.

I don't agree with your form of logic.

Anyone who dedicates their career to helping disabled children and starts up charities internationally to help victims of war is a lovely and humane person. I don't need to know anything else about her to know that: and I don't claim to know anything else.

It's fine that you think that she's lovely and humane, but your set-up really does damage to your argument. Handled another way, you might find more inclined to agree.

user-pic

Sorry, but having worked as a special education teacher (I believe that is the "working with Downs Syndrome [sic] and other disabled children" that you are referring to) does not qualify anyone as either "lovely" or "humane." As an advocate for children with Down Syndrome and other disabilities, I can testify that special education teachers exhibit the whole range of human qualities. Some are wonderful people, others are nasty and abusive. It is a tremendous logical fallacy to assume that a person who has worked with "disadvantaged" individuals does so out of charitable motives and a high-minded desire to help others. That's the "pity fallacy," and it's nonsense. Since one does not need to be an intellectual giant to become a special education teacher (ask any university teacher who has had students in the special education teaching track in her classes), it's equally possible that Cindy McCain couldn't get another job.

Here's the Wikipedia entry about Cindy McCain's drug addiction, theft of drugs to support her addiction and her husband's retaliation against the guy who blew the whistle on her. Nice folks.

In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to opioid painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin,[32] which she initially took to alleviate pain following two spinal surgeries for ruptured discs[33][34] and to ease emotional stress during the Keating Five scandal.[32] There, her role as a bookkeeper who had difficulty finding receipts for trips on Charles Keating's jet[15] caused complications for her husband when he was already being examined for his role regarding oversight of Keating's bank.[8] The addiction progressed to where she was taking upwards of twenty pills a day[8] and she resorted to stealing drugs from her own AVMT.[33] During 1992, Tom Gosinski, the director of government and international affairs for AVMT, discovered her drug theft.[35] Subsequently in 1992, her parents staged an intervention to force her to get help;[15] she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treatment facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of active addiction.[32] A hysterectomy in 1993 resolved her back pain.[32][34]

In January 1993, McCain terminated Gosinski's employment on grounds of budgetary reasons.[35] In spring 1993, Gosinski tipped off the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate McCain's drug theft,[35] and a federal investigation ensued. McCain's defense team, led by Washington lawyer John Dowd,[35] secured an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that limited her punishment to financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program, [7][35] without any public disclosure.

Meanwhile, in early 1994 Gosinski filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against McCain, which he told her he would settle for $250,000.[35] In April 1994, Dowd requested that Maricopa County officials investigate Gosinski for extortion.[35] The Phoenix New Times was about to publish a negatively-cast article about the whole affair.[35][32] Cindy McCain pre-empted this[32] by publicly revealing her past addiction, stating she hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles: "Although my conduct did not result in compromising any missions of AVMT, my actions were wrong, and I regret them."[7] A flurry of press attention followed, including charges by Gosinski that she had asked him to lie concerning her drug use when the McCains were applying to adopt their baby from Bangladesh[32] and statements by past AVMT employees that Gosinski had once threatened to blackmail her. The Arizona Republic published an editorial cartoon ridiculing the motivations for her AVMT work[36] and an award dinner in her honor was canceled citing poor ticket sales.[7] In the end, both Gosinski's lawsuit and the extortion investigation against him were dropped.[32]

AVMT concluded its activities in 1995.[27] That year, McCain founded a new organization, the Hensley Family Foundation, which donates monies towards children's programs in Arizona and nationally,[7] and she was largely a stay-at-home mom during the balance of the 1990s.[15] She also held positions as vice president, director, and vice chair of Hensley & Co.[24][23


I don't see any point in comparing candidates' spouses. Are any of us voting for the candidate based on who his/her spouse is? If so, you really need to examine your priorities and motives.

Schmedly, I respectfully disagree. A person's spouse reflects, to a certain extent, who that person is. I'm not saying that people are identical to their spouses, or even that they tend to choose spouses that resemble them. My point is that both candidates have chosen their spouses, and this choice, like other past choices made by the candidates, is an acceptable criterion to consider in casting one's vote.

This is not to say that I agree with the original poster's statements about Cindy McCain. I merely argue that the personalities and accomplishments of the candidates' spouses should influence voters' decisions. To ignore Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain (or to blindly assert that they are "off limits" for moral reasons, as many have done) deprives voters of important and relevant information.

Oops, I meant "Schmedley" - sorry about that.

Not to worry -- it's a nickname, not a proper name.

It seems to me that there's an awful lot of presumption in what one takes away from an examination of a politician's spouse. The reasons why someone marries another are known only to that person -- and maybe not even then. I have a lot of friends who say, "I don't know exactly why I married him/her" (most of the time, they add, "but I'm glad I did!"). Can anyone say with any certainty that a politician marries for love, social gain, money, political ambition, and/or, unplanned pregancy?

I think that we're giving the benefit of the doubt when we say that some people choose to get married, particularly if one considers the current divorce rate. A lot of people fall into marriage without making a rational choice. Sometimes a marriage makes no sense at all to outside observers, yet the couple is by all measures happy with the union. Given these seeming anomalies, can you really draw any valid conclusions about a politician based on his/her spouse?

I think Laura Bush is a wonderful woman. There's no way I would ever vote for her husband based on his "decision" to marry her. Even a fool gets lucky.

I totally agree with you. In most cases, a candidate's spouse should not be a definitive, deciding factor in one's decision to vote for or against that candidate. However, like the rest of the facts we accumulate about the candidates in our minds over the primary season, information about spouses should be, and inevitably is, at least considered when we make our decision.

I am inclined to agree with you about Laura Bush. She is probably a lovely woman, and the fact that a lovely woman was willing to marry George W. Bush reflected positively on him, but not nearly enough to make me vote for the guy. However, I'm sure I subconsciously considered it in making my decisions, and that's a totally acceptable thing to do.

Plus, I'm not just talking about whether a spouse is "good" or "bad." Two highly oversimplified examples: if a candidate marries a very rich woman, it suggests (but does not prove) that he married for money. Similarly, if a candidate marries a woman who is his intellectual peer, it suggests (but again, does not prove) that the candidate views marriage as a union of equals. A voter who believes that it is immoral to marry for money or who thinks marriage should be a union of equals may very well take these circumstances into account.

You're right, we can never know why a candidate marries a particular person. However, we can make inferences about it, and these inferences of necessity inform our decision. After all, we can never really know why a candidate does anything - why should marriage be any different?

Another wonderful piece of non-creative nihilism from Merlot.

Thanks for raising the tone of political discourse, pal.

Well, Frog Leg, considering your TX image, I suspect you are a McCain troll. The choice of a spouse is the best indicator of one's integrity and intelligence. That you find McSame's unfaithfulness to his first wife acceptable (unfortunately for McSame, she was a superior), tells me your only focus, as a John McCain troll, is the promotion of John McShame. With Cindy, McCain married "down." Her so-called experience as a special education teacher is bullshit... she never stuck around long enough to earn tenure thanks to her daddy's money... she never depended upon her earnings to feed herself... but, back to John McSame. He was a nobody when he was first elected in AZ.... and he remains a nobody in 2008. Like GWB, he is ignorant. He was admited into the Naval Academy because he was his father's son... not, because he was qualified. There's nothing in John McSames' history which is heroic... that the Viet Cong allowed him to live demonstrates his cooperation with them. Let's get over this hero bullshit... McCain is no hero... he has not done an heroic thing in his life except cooperate with the Viet Cong. He is a traitor, plain and simple. So, Frog Leg... declare yourself the troll you are... thank you.

Palin paraded her 17 year old, pregnant, unmarried daughter, Bristol, and Bristol’s boyfriend around the stage at the RNC. In fact, Sarah Palin’s first child, Track, was born when she had been married about seven months. Her admitted marijuana smoking, the abuse of office accusations. All of the above happened while Sarah Palin professed to be a Christian.

John McCain, fifth from the bottom of his Naval Academy class of 899 members, and widely known as an adulterer, married Cindy one month after he divorced his first family. Cindy’s drug theft charge.

These two families in the White House would provide fodder for the tabloids for years to come.

Such a terrible example for our young people.

Leave a comment

merlot

user-pic

Following: 1
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address