SwiftVets.com

[tony54]

I don't quite remember all the candidates in '92 and in '96, but i don't think GW ran in either primaries.
And four years later in 2000 he cleaned house.

I still think Jeb will be our candidate in '08 with Condi V.P.

[SBD]

When I saw McCain get involved in this baseball drama, my first reaction was to laugh. This guy is such a loser that he can't even admit that he's a Democrat. Everyone knows that whenever a Democrat points their finger at someone else's problems, it is usually to cover up their own. I wonder how Cindy McCain is doing these days.

Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2000, p. B5

McCain Has Two Standards on Drug Abuse
The GOP candidate is a hawk in the drug war, yet his wife got no penalty
Stanton Peele

Much has been made of allegations of possible youthful use of illegal drugs by Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush. Meanwhile, his chief GOP opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, has admitted that his wife not only illegally used drugs but walked away from criminal charges. The McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain's addiction into a political asset—despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity she directed and used them while mothering four young children.


John McCain

In 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted that she had solicited prescriptions for painkillers from physicians who worked for an international charity that she founded, the American Voluntary Medical Team. She then filled the prescriptions in the names of her staff.

There are two ways to react to this behavior. According to the Betty Ford model, people can sympathetically respond to the oppressed and ignored wife of a busy politician who has bravely come forward to admit her overpowering addiction. Mrs. McCain took this posture when she first tearfully confessed her addiction. She and her husband repeated this performance in October on the NBC program "Dateline."

The other possible public reaction is one of anger. Americans are prosecuted every day for such drug use. While most drug abusers purchase their drugs from street dealers, Mrs. McCain used her status as a charity director and senator's wife to cajole the drugs she wanted.

In fact, Mrs. McCain was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration after the agency was approached by a former staff member of her charity. The investigation resulted in no charges or prison time for her, and she entered a diversion program. While these records were not made public at the time, Mrs. McCain eventually confessed her drug use when she learned that a reporter was investigating the story.

Is Mrs. McCain to be judged as a pitiable victim or as a criminal felon? This debate is at the heart of the discussion of American drug policy. Should we deal with illicit drug users as victims or as criminals?

Let's examine Mrs. McCain's position in these terms. She was the privileged wife of a prominent family and spouse of an important politician, a person who had her own position of prestige and power. Should she not be held at least as accountable for her actions as an uneducated inner-city drug user? After all, she could enter drug treatment at any time she chose, unlike many drug users who find themselves in prison.

Moreover, Mrs. McCain was violating a position of trust by stealing from a charitable organization, using its money and medical expertise to fuel her drug use. Is this not morally more reprehensible than simply purchasing drugs illegally?

Finally, Mrs. McCain was the mother of four children at the time she admits to using drugs—between 1989 and 1992. Her children were born in 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1991. In other words, Cindy McCain was using drugs while raising small children, one of whom she adopted while she was an addict. In most states, family services will remove children from a woman who is known to be an active drug addict, and she would certainly not be allowed to adopt a child while addicted.

John McCain is a hawk in the drug war. He advocates stricter drug laws, penalties and enforcement against drug sellers. He has had nothing to say about redressing our punitive approach toward drug users. Of course, McCain also supports family values. Yet if John and Cindy McCain were not well-off and influential, they might not have a family at all. McCain's lack of concern for street drug users contrasts sharply with the support and understanding his wife received. It's the old American double standard. For "straight-shooter" McCain, charity begins at home—and ends there.



Stanton Peele, a New Jersey psychologist and attorney and author of Diseasing of America (Jossey-Bass, 1995), is a senior fellow of the Lindesmith Center, a drug policy think tank in New York and San Francisco.

SBD

FYI-I think Rudi Giuliani will run in 2008.

[GM Strong]

Some commentary


Remember the Keating Five? by MArk Levin in NRO
McCain’s own standards would have hung him.
Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
April 5, 2001 9:15 a.m.


For too long, McCain has been given a free pass by the media, which promotes campaign-finance reform to silence other voices, and by his Republican colleagues, who are concerned about alienating McCain given the GOP's tenuous majority in the Senate.
In John McCain's America, any politician who accepts a large contribution or gift from a donor, and then takes steps consistent with the donor's interests — even though there is no legal quid pro quo — is corrupt. Well, then, by his own standard, McCain is corrupt.
McCain was one of the so-called "Keating Five" senators. He was investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in 1991 regarding the acceptance of favors from Lincoln Savings & Loan Association (Lincoln) and its owner, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Simply put, the issue was whether McCain and the other senators used their official positions to attempt to pressure Federal Home Loan Bank Board officials to go easy on the troubled institution. Eventually Lincoln went bust, costing depositors and taxpayers millions.
In its final report (November 20, 1991), here is what the Senate Select Committee on Ethics concluded about McCain's conduct:
"Mr. Keating, his associates, and his friends contributed $56,000 for Senator McCain's two House races in 1982 and 1984, and $54,000 for his 1986 Senate race. Mr. Keating also provided his corporate plane and/or arranged for payment for the use of commercial or private aircraft on several occasions for travel by Senator McCain and his family, for which Senator McCain ultimately provided reimbursement when called upon to do so. Mr. Keating also allowed Senator McCain and his family to vacation with Mr. Keating and his family, at a home provided by Mr. Keating in the Bahamas, in each of the calendar years 1983 through 1986.
"…[F]rom 1984 to 1987, Senator McCain took actions on Mr. Keating's behalf or at his request. The Committee finds that Senator McCain had a basis for each of these actions independent of the contributions and benefits he received from Mr. Keating, his associates and friends.
"Based on the evidence available to it, the Committee has given consideration to Senator McCain's actions on behalf of Lincoln. The Committee concludes that, given the personal benefits and campaign contributions he had received from Mr. Keating, Senator McCain exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators without first inquiring as to the Bank Board's position in the case in a more routine manner. The Committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The Committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987 meeting when he learned of a criminal referral.
"The Committee reaffirms its prior decision that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues of disclosure or reimbursement pertaining to flights provided by American Continental Corporation while Senator McCain was a Member of the House of Representatives. The Committee did consider the effect of such on his state of mind and judgment in taking steps to assist Lincoln. "Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the Committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry."
McCain was the only Republican implicated in the Keating Five scandal, yet today he lectures his party and his president about "the corrupting influence" of money in politics. He rails against the so-called "wealthy special interests" and their ability to buy access to elected officials, yet this is precisely what the Keating Five scandal was all about. And, of course, under McCain's current standard, a politician who takes a principled position that may benefit a donor is corrupt, even if no law has been violated.
The John McCain of old should be thankful that his political fate wasn't determined by John McCain the reformer.





Who were the Keating Five?

In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association in California collapsed. It was estimated that a government bail-out of Lincoln would cost over two billion dollars. Charles Keating, the Chairman of Lincoln's parent company, was implicated by the press by Common Cause for being personally responsible for this, the nation's largest thrift failure.
When the House Banking Committee heard testimony on the Lincoln collapse, Keating suggested that the problem was the fault of the regulators whom he suggested had a vendetta against him and were out to sabotage his business. Edwin J. Gray, the former head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on the other hand, testified that his agency's auditing was anything but activist. Further, Gray said he had been approached by a number of influential senators to discontinue investigations of the Lincoln S&L. Later, it was revealed that these senators had received substantial campaign contributions--both directly and indirectly--from Keating, totaling over 1.3 million dollars.
A number of investigations began as to whether these senators had acted improperly and whether Keating had been able to buy influence through his campaign contributions. These included investigations by the State of California, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. While the California and the Justice Department investigations concentrated on Keating's action, the Senate Ethics Committee investigation concentrated on the actions of the five senators implicated: Alan Cranston (D, CA), Dennis DeConcini (D, AZ), John Glenn (D, OH), John McCain (R, AZ), and Donald Riegle (D, MI). These men were dubbed the Keating Five.
Although the special counsel to the Ethics Committee advised the Senate that Senators Glenn and McCain were not substantially involved, months of testimony revealed that all five senators had acted improperly in varying degrees. All of these senators, however, continued to proclaim that they were not involved in any wrongdoing, and were just following normal campaign funding practices.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69