Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) claims Sen. John McCain has failed to report gambling winnings. Their complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee is hardly surprising: they're a very partisan organization.Still it's hard to argue with executive director Melanie Sloan's point: "Given Sen. McCain’s long history of gambling, the fact that he never included gambling income on his financial disclosure forms suggests he is either the unluckiest gambler ever or, more likely, he failed to report the income."
I read the New York Times article they mention, but checking on income didn't occur to me. (That may partly be due to my philosophical objection to taxing winnings when you can't write off losses.)
More of the background noise you hear from any campaign, I assumed, and probably more disturbing to his evangelical base than anyone else. Besides, the story's not likely to get much traction in Rupert Murdoch's media empire. No big deal, it will get sorted out.
Crap shoot
Losing it at the craps table is a different matter and has nothing to do with gambling. Gosh darn it, that just isn't Presidential.
I'd have to agree with Jeff Dearth, the guy who was allegedly there: "I’d happily gamble with Senator McCain again, but I definitely wouldn’t gamble on him."
That got me worried and, like McCain I guess, I hate to leave the table when I'm on a roll. I wasn't disappointed.
On the Cover of the Rolling Stone
My next stop was Make-Believe Maverick a Rolling Stone article that left me appalled and agape. It's a must-read for anyone interested in the campaign, in my opinion.
I've read bits and pieces of what the article discusses, but it paints a picture of McCain that is downright scary. I'm allowing for the writer's evident dislike of the Senator.
McCain supporters need to get their talking points lined up. Everyone else? Well, read it for yourself. I don't expect it to have much impact on the campaign in any case because of the source. Rolling Stone readers are hardly McCain's base.
Posts
7 comments:
Ouch. That was a brutal article. The comments from Dramesi, chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Commander of a wing of SAC, obviously a serious man, are the harshest part.. because they come from a seemingly credible source.
As I said, a lot of that isn't new to me-- except using daddy's pull. It's just that he lines up the dots pretty convincingly. It also explains a lot about the casino tantrum.
Still, the article's a hit job and pretty personal for my taste. I'm wondering whether McCain's handlers will blow it off or respond.
The "daddy's pull" has popped up a few times during the campaign.
The article was very personal.. I purposely put on my "skepticism goggles" after a few paragraphs. It turned out that as rough as it was.. alot of it has been out there already, just not in such detail.
I don't doubt that the story is pretty accurate, but even if it was only 50% accurate.. it's incredibly damning.
I wouldn't respond to it if I were the McCain camp. That would only draw more attention to it. I'd leave it alone. As you stated.. the readers of Rolling Stone aren't likely his demographic anyway.
p.s. - I posted a link to the story on my blog. I feel a little dirty about steeling it from you.. but it's just too good.
"stealing" that is
It's not my story.
Sounds like good fun. You have some fans who should hyperventilate IN CAPS
:}haha
Post a Comment