Is McCain a liar, or too old to know what he's doing? Either way, he's not fit to be president.
I am surprised how Florida's Republican primary has developed.
I'm NOT surprised that Mitt Romney will win it. After all, (1) Florida's is a Republicans-only primary, (2) the economy is troubled and center-stage, (3) Mitt is the most qualified and acceptable of the viable Republican candidates, (4) Mitt is vigorously competing in Florida after winning in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada and coming in second in Iowa and New Hampshire, (5) only Mitt has been running a nationwide campaign, (6) Mitt has the most delegates and (6) Mitt has raised the most money (NOT including his own).
What surprised me are that Rudy Giuliani is losing with grace and John McCain became a disgrace.
McCain once prided himself on appearing to be an officer and a gentleman who talked straight.
Fighting desperately, the septuagenarian Senator who is running again despite his age and the obvious rigors of serving as President of the United States took to lying.
It was bad enough that McCain had brought his 95-year old mother on MSNBC's "Hardball" and she had proceeded to fulminate against Mormons and Mormon Mitt. At least McCain immediately had said that he did not agree with his mom.
Was Mom McCain a very old lady not responsible for her remarks, or her son's willing instrument in implementing a dirty campaign tactic?
Now there's ample reason to wonder about that.
After a slim victory in New Hampshire (thanks to Democrats and Independents who voted in the Republican primary), McCain was a pessimist, but not a liar, when he said in Michigan that there were lost jobs that would not be coming back.
McCain had won Michigan's Republican primary in 2000, but lost by a wide margin to Romney (and by a wider still margin among Michigan Republicans) as the economy became the focus of the campaign.
Seeing defeat again looming, the aged, ambitious McCain recently denied that he had said he was not as familiar with economics as he should be and pretended otherwise during Florida's Republican debate.
A falsehood, but not as bad as being false witness against another.
Then McCain sunk lower, bearing false witness against his leading rival, by claiming that Mitt had said he was with the liberal Democrats on setting timetables for withdrawing from Iraq.
That lie was utterly shameless.
Watch the whole interview of Mitt or read the whole transcript and decide for yourself.
Mitt Supporter Jeff Fuller, in "'I’M MAD AS HELL . . . AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!': How McCain Lost His Integrity in Dishonest Political Trick Against Romney":
"Much has been said on Romney blogs and elsewhere expressing outrage at McCain’s desperate tactic to dishonestly smear Gov. Romney’s stance on 'timetables' and the Iraq war. It’s blatantly apparent that McCain only did this to bring the issue of 'Iraq”'back into the race. McCain knows (and has repeatedly admitted) that 'the Economy' is not his strong point, and that he’ll lose to Romney in a head to head fight when that is the #1 issue. So, McCain’s solution is to invent a controversial position for his main rival that plays to his own strength. Pitiful politics at its worst.
"I’ve heard this false
'timetables' accusation once before (good old Huck), so I was initially willing to believe that McCain was maybe just going off of bad information–that he would correct the situation once he realized the context. But when Romney’s recommendation for a McCain apology was met with a 'Romney should apologize to the troops for being willing to abandon them' (paraphrased) rebuttal I started getting downright angry.
"When I realized that yesterday McCain said 'My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal' my anger turned to OUTRAGE!
"Then on Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert went softball on McCain on this issue with no follow-up, allowing McCain to repeat his position unchallenged with the follow-up of 'please read on Senator' when Romney says that he would, like President Bush, veto any legislation setting timetables for Iraq. That’s either biased or shoddy journalism folks.
"McCain is LYING! He’s inventing this pseudo-smear to bring back his preferred issue into the limelight . . . Iraq. Then I find out that, last year, McCain recommended a similar strategy (and his would have been PUBLIC . . . in contrast to Romney’s) of benchmarks that, if not met by a certain date, would lead to pulling out of Iraq before success was achieved!! This took my OUTRAGE to the next level . . . the “''M MAD AS HELL! AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!' level."
"Beyond Romney’s supporters 'McCain Disdain' should be felt by every conservative and pro-Military American, who should view him with much less respect for dragging the American soldiers into this contrived controversy. Utterly shameless Senator McCain.
"I know a lot of conservatives with influence see how dishonest McCain is being. But even the liberal MSM is calling this 'scuffle' for Romney. This isn’t just a nuanced misunderstanding, this is dirty politics full of tricks and lies, and it’s pretty easy to see where the facts stand."
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin: " Speaking of straight talk, no American politician has gotten more adoring press coverage than John McCain. But let’s be clear about what John McCain is doing about Mitt Romney. He’s lying. He’s lying about Mitt Romney’s position, no question about it. And you know I think that — this idea that Mitt Romney supports timetables, in fact most Americans support timetables to get out of Iraq, Mitt Romney doesn’t happen to be one of them. That’s really outrageous what McCain is doing bringing up this ancient interview and distorting it at the last minute so he doesn’t have to talk about the economy."
Is McCain a liar, or too old to know what he's doing?
Either way, he's not fit to be president.
Michael J. Gaynor
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.