Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:40 am
Damn, that's good, best pro McCain/Palin ad so far.
I can only assume that the McCain campaign has so much confidence in their "relationship" with the major media to feel that trying this "pig/lipstick" play won't cause them to report on the "cunt" incident.Q: ... Is it true that you called your wife a (expletive)?
McCain: Now, now. You don't want to... Um, you know that's the great thing about town hall meetings, sir, but we really don't, there's people here who don't respect that kind of language. So I'll move on to the next questioner in the back.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2 ... 7828_x.htmI think there is a long, long list of earmarks which went to unnecessary and unwanted projects that I think should have gone to the bridge in Minnesota ... I don't know whether it would have gone or not, but if you're spending $223 million on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it ...
Remember how McCain is a "reformer" - that message is required by his own McCain–Feingold Act. Now he's saying those words approving disgusting, unambiguous lies.I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
So it is forbidden for a "maverick" to marry a rich person? This is really just some incredibly stupid gotcha stuff. McCain apparently had some difficulty with the question " How many homes do you and Mrs. McCain own?", because he doesn't actually own any homes, and couldn't accurately say how many houses (including condos) that Mrs. McCain owns, alone and or in partnership with her kids, and the trusts and companies she and her kids control. The gotcha number was seven. But at last count that number is now up to eight. Somehow I suspect that McCain very likely doesn't much know, or care, exactly how rich his wife is because they signed a pre-nuptial, and he doesn't have claim to her riches.Saxman wrote:Some maverick. At least he should have had the balls to tell how many houses he had instead of the lame "I'll have to have a staffer get back to you."