When will John McCain finally reject and denounce domestic terrorists?

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

It seems that the media is having a lot of fun these days digging up old acquaintances of presidential candidates, finding an objectionable comment, and then badgering the candidates into denouncing those folks.

It doesn't seem to matter how tenuous the "relationship", how long ago it was, or anything.

So, courtesy of Jeff Mapes (who has an excellent post about John McCain's temper), here's a little snippet from a long-ago Oregonian article.

It seems that in 1993, John McCain was the keynote speaker at a fundraising banquet for the Oregon Citizens Alliance, the notorious anti-gay organization that was causing all sorts of trouble in Oregon in the 1990s.

McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord ``for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.''

Let's check that again. Marilyn Shannon praises a terrorist who shot a doctor while introducing John McCain, and not only does he stay, he stands up and gives a fundraising address for these terrorist-lovers?

Outrageous. Will John McCain do what he should have done 15 years ago - and denounce the domestic terrorists who shoot doctors who provide legal medical services?

America is waiting.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "America is waiting"

    Not me, I'm waiting for John Hagee, the right-wing Pastor whose endorsement John McCain sought and accepted in person, to finally breed the perfect red hoeffer (on the ranch he bought for that specific purpose) which singals the end of times via war with Iran and a U.N. takeover by the anti-Christ.

    That should really shake things up.

  • (Show?)

    And this is the guy Gordon Smith supports for president?

  • (Show?)

    The sad thing is you don't even need to use associative politics. The major media hopefully, one day during this general election campaign, will get around to discussing the joke McCain told within earshot of several reporters (at a minimum) back in the 90s. I am NOT making this up:

    Q: Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? A: Her dad is Janet Reno.

    You really have to have a wide-open tolerance for jokes to enjoy that one...and keep in mind Chelsea was a young girl at the time, not a member of the campaign team. I can't wait for the spin job from McCain central on that one...

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    McCain may well deserve the demonizing, but let's not allow the truth to be swallowed down the memory hole. Obama is now waxing poetic on the Bush I presidency, claiming that he wants to use the devil's dad as his advisor on foreign policy. This should sound familiar, like four years ago:

    Please Mr. McCain

    The Perfect Running Mate

    Every four years some new Republican Lite candidate makes overtures to the real right, and they are always rebuffed. When will the overtures be to the progressive center?

  • James N. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There is so much more about McCain than just this, but good post still the same Mr. Chisholm.

    McCain received more than $112,000 in campaign contributions from one Charles Keating (including $54,000 for his Senate campaign). Between 1984 and 1986 McCain and family had vacationed at Keating's home in the Bahamas. (Keating was a corrupt owner of a savings-and-loan empire that ended up costing taxpayers $3 billion.) For these contributions Keating hoped (expected) McCain and four other senators - John Glenn, Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, Donald Riegle, would protect him from federal banking regulators. After a 14 month investigation by the Ethics Committee all McCain received was a slap on the wrist for using "poor judgment"!

    Alot of Veterans, including my very Republican Grandfather, who fought in WWII, can't stand McCain over many things. This one in particular, which they believe is a true act of a traitor. While testifying before the Senate Select Committee, the very man McCain claims was responsible for his own torture, his interrogator, "The Bug" was appearing. When the moment of confrontation came, McCain rose from his seat, walked from the podium to the floor and stood face to face with the man who was responsible for torturing him and countless other Prisoners of War...McCain then grabbed the man and embraced him!

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As much as we can, we have to hold the media's feet to the fire on this blatant double standard. As one smart blogger on another site wrote, "It's called, IOIARDI, it's ok if a republican does it." We'll it's not.

    Letters, letters, letters, phone-calls, phone-calls, phone-calls, pressure, pressure, pressure.

  • (Show?)

    Harry,

    I would be surprised if you could get more than a couple dozen Oregonians to agree on exactly what constitutes "progressive center" in the first place.

    Personally, I believe it's an oxymoron because the "center" is a constantly moving target. But then again, I don't see much agreement on what constitutes "progressive" either.

    Say what you want about Papa Bush - I'll agree with most of it since he was the straw which broke my inner-conservative's back in my youth. But the reality is that Obama could do a lot worse than speak well of Bush 41's foreign policy beliefs. Unlike his son, Papa Bush respected the United Nations. In today's climate that is nearly textbook progressivism.

  • (Show?)

    There is so much more about McCain than just this, but good post still the same Mr. Chisholm.

    Well, of course there is. The goal isn't to write a single blog post that can serve as the definitive guide to John McCain for all time.

    We're just getting warmed up....

  • gl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    um that joke is very funny.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kevin said: "I would be surprised if you could get more than a couple dozen Oregonians to agree on exactly what constitutes "progressive center" in the first place."

    We probably couldn't get much agreement on what constitutes "conservative" or "liberal" or "democratic" either. Here are some issues that I would label "progressive center":

    (1.) Impeach Cheney and Bush.

    (2.) Begin to bring all U.S. personnel home from Iraq NOW and finish the withdrawal within one year.

    (3.) Adopt single payer national health insurance.

    (4.) Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget and invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy.

    (5.) No to nuclear power, solar energy first.

    (6.) Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.

    (7.) Withdraw from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA.

    The point is that "moderate" Democrats fail to represent the majority, who want these things.

    Bush I, like his son, is a war criminal who committed crimes against humanity in Iraq and Panama during his presidency (Bush Crimes). That Obama would praise him should be disturbing to anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman.

  • (Show?)

    Pat, it's "heifer" -- mockable mockery absorbs 47 times its weight in excess effectiveness.

    Kevin, GHW Bush did not respect the U.N., he manipulated it. In the autumn of 1990, a large majority of the U.S. public opposed going to war with Iraq over its aggression & conquest of Kuwait, and with that backing, the Democratic controlled Congress was opposing it too. No one knew the extent to which a month or six weeks of astonishing bombardment prior to the actual ground attack on the Iraqi forces would break the morale of the Iraqi troops, and even on the day the ground attack started heavy U.S./allied casualties were expected.

    In the face of lack of domestic support, Bush went to the UN and pressured the Security Council into authorize military action under Article 7 of the U.N. Charter to reverse the aggression. After getting his way there, Bush then used the U.N. vote to twist the arms of Congress, arguing that it would cause the U.S. to lose international credibility if Congress did not give him war powers.

    This sequence was more or less the inverse of how GW Bush went about things.

    Also, the U.S. government under GHW Bush regularly refused to pay its UN dues and continued a number of other policies undermining the UN that began when Reagan was president.

    GHW Bush was up to his eyeballs in the illegal "off-the shelf" executive branch violations of the constitution whose public face was the "Iran-Contra" scandal -- he had no more respect for the rule of law or the constitution than does his son, as one might expect from a former CIA director under Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

    With this sort of rhetoric, I'm afraid Barack Obama is signalling us that U.S. troops will still be in Iraq in large numbers when he runs for re-election, if he is elected this year. Not that it would be different under Clinton, whose husband pursued Bush's murderously failed sanctions policy against Iraq with seamless ease, and who makes a point of parading her own bellicosity.

  • pat malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Pat, it's "heifer" -- mockable mockery absorbs 47 times its weight in excess effectiveness."

    I'm crushed.

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon