A True Maverick: No Prenuptial

I knew that McCain dumped his disfigured first wife for a much younger wealthy one, who would then go on to finance and promote his campaigns; and I knew that she is reportedly worth $100 million (Not that they're elitist: they both are excellent bowlers and despise arugula); I also knew that when he had to declare assets, hers were not included. What didn't dawn on me is why: They have a prenuptial. McCain would be the first president to ever have one. Hooray!!!!!

There's good and bad to this for him politically. For instance, from CBS News:

As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career - even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm's-length distance between McCain and his wife's assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.

It was loans from Cindy McCain bank accounts that helped him survive a 1982 House race, his first election. Anheuser-Busch also helped in the process:

Anheuser-Busch's political action committee was among McCain's earliest donors. Cindy McCain's father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. McCain's campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign's bills.

We don't know what he gets from his wife financially because she is not on the return, but by not having joint accounts, we do know that McCain can't spend her money on the campaign trail. Just think: If they didn't have a prenup, he could spend up to half of their assets!

Anyways, what a Maverick by having a prenup! And please remember, he did, after all, get his act together after a tough stint in Vietnam, picking himself up by his own bootstraps to dump his first wife, and then proceeding to marry his well-connected, immeasurably (Really, They won't let us see how much she's worth) wealthy mistress! This guy is a true Maverick.

McDocumentary Part Deux

And here we have the second installment of the partisan award-winning documentary, Presidential Character and Conduct '08 (By the way, McCain was a soldier).

Update: For some reason the video isn't available for embed anymore. Go here:
http://www.236.com/video/2008/fox_news_mccain_documentary_in_1_8402.php

The Bush Administration Doesn't Believe McCain Was Tortured?

Many of the "enhanced interrogation" methods used on McCain in Vietnam---sleep deprivation, stress positions, standing for long periods, beating, and the witholding of medical treatment---apparently don't fit the Cheney/Bush/Addington/Woo legal definition of torture.

Conservative columnist, Andrew Sullivan, points out, here, the irony (hypocrisy?) that when McCain supported the Military Commisions Act, the "tortured" senator became an "enabler."

In spite of the media narrative of the anti-torture McCain, how might his recent acquiescence alter the story of a courageous war hero?

Tortured Logic: Thoughts on How McCain Could Admit to Being Tortured

If The McCain of Today (who's honest and running for President), as opposed to The McCain of the Past (who was tough but not running for President), wouldn't today---in a strict legal sense----define what he underwent back then in Vietnam as torture, then why do some---including the so-called liberal press ---even tacitly accept, and at times willingly propagate the notion that McCain is soooo "reluctant" to talk about his time as a P.O.W? As if physically, it was some kind of painful experience he couldn't possibly relish sharing?

However, we now know that isn't true because we know now it wasn't torture because now it isn't defined as such. [sigh...] Are these media biased or something? What good does it do Senator McCain for them to present him as some kind of snivelling weakling whose threshold for pain is below what is now legally recognized as torture. In some cases, media are even going further than blatant insinuation, reporting on how McCain loses his bearings at the merest mention of his mortal inadequacy. Take the following example ABC News' David Wright reported a couple months ago:

McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

Soon after, McCain "collected himself" and apologized for losing his cool.

"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences," adding, "I am always reluctant to talk about these things."

In the same article, McCain, betraying a textbook case of integrity-explosive emotional incontinence, advised Obama on how he should punish the egregiously inconsiderate Gen. Wesley Clark for refusing to believe that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is qualification enough to be president-----"cut him loose." He underwent a lot of pain as a result of being shot down, albeit not of the torturous kind, and some people have the audacity to assume that that might not have primed him perfectly for the presidency?

Or was McCain "visibly angry" and "reluctant" simply because this memory was much too torturous despite its lacking a legally-certified classification of torture? Or, did he magnanimously not want to portray himself as exploiting his participation in The Domino Theory War for political advantage? Either way (all plausible explanations being true of course) would exemplify a mighty-fine, attractive, All-American candidate, and a very competent Leaderofthefreeworld (who, unlike most arugula-eating-geography-snob elitists, knows that Iraq borders Pakistan).

And yet, couldn't McCain very easily redeem his newly self-inflicted, fractured sense of honor? If only he could just re-flip-flop by immanently disregarding the veto support he gave The President to thwart Congress' latest attempt to bring the CIA in line with the Army Field Manual ("A rule book that prescribes mostly psychological methods of interrogation, and clearly prohibits the use of forced nudity, waterboarding, hooding and the use of military dogs")! The senator could then boldly reassert---- to himself----something he had already declared before nullifying it by later backing The Decider-In-Chief:

I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about.

Subtly, if not silently, reaffirming this statement could provide himself the retroactively moral honor of again being able to mention all the torture he suffered through in Vietnam, not "reluctantly," but loudly and proudly.

Still, if that didn't work he could also---somewhere in his soul---renounce his "nay" vote against the Intelligence Authorization Bill, which had it passed, would have outlawed waterboarding and "harsh interrogation tactics." Then McCain---in principle----wouldn't be unwittingly implying in deeds that he wasn't technically tortured, and thus could officially get down to the business of overtly reminding everyone that he was----in fact---barbarically tortured...

And alas, he already has, as his campaign shifts into high-integrity gear (see last 1/4 of the ad to see McCain after not being tortured by the Vietcong)!

McDocumentary

Starting off the afternoon lightly...

If you didn't catch Fox News' "documentary" series on the candidates that kicked off with Obama, don't worry: It's broken down for us here in a brilliant one minute video edition. Can't wait for their McCain encore salute.