Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Blast from the past

with 3 comments

Glenn Greenwald reminds us that the Right had much to say four years ago about men who married wealthy women and were in effect supported by them in a lifestyle that they would not otherwise enjoy. Much to say. In fact, he lists quite a few blasts of anger and outrage over the character of a man who would do that. The column is entertaining in that these strong voices of character condemnation have grown strangely silent.

His column begins:

What’s most notable about John McCain’s confusion over the number of homes he owns isn’t merely that it demonstrates that, after running his campaign based on depicting Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist and himself as the all-American Everyman, McCain lives a life that is about as far removed from the Average American as one can get, and has done so for decades. What’s notable is how McCain was able to live that way. McCain himself isn’t actually rich. He just lives off the inherited wealth of his much younger former mistress and now-second-wife — for whom he dumped his older and disfigured first wife — and who then used her family’s money to fund McCain’s political career and keep him living in extreme luxury (after insisting that he sign a prenuptial agreement, which would make McCain the first U.S. President to have one).

In 2004, numerous leading right-wing pundits had many things to say about men who do that:

What’s most notable about John McCain’s confusion over the number of homes he owns isn’t merely that it demonstrates that, after running his campaign based on depicting Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist and himself as the all-American Everyman, McCain lives a life that is about as far removed from the Average American as one can get, and has done so for decades. What’s notable is how McCain was able to live that way. McCain himself isn’t actually rich. He just lives off the inherited wealth of his much younger former mistress and now-second-wife — for whom he dumped his older and disfigured first wife — and who then used her family’s money to fund McCain’s political career and keep him living in extreme luxury (after insisting that he sign a prenuptial agreement, which would make McCain the first U.S. President to have one).

In 2004, numerous leading right-wing pundits had many things to say about men who do that: …

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

22 August 2008 at 1:51 pm

Posted in Daily life, Election, GOP

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’ll speak as an “everywoman” for conservatives since I’m certainly “not-rich” enough to qualify.

    First, if one looks around, one notes that most political candidates are doing quite well financially. Edwards was valued at about $600 million, remember him? Mr. “Two Americas”? Last I heard he had a genuine little problem with a mistress, and now Biden is the beneficiary. But I’m not sure why that fact in itself should be regarded as embarassing. Wasn’t it supposed to be a Dem virtue? Rich and “sexy.” Be still Dem hearts. Meanwhile, if marrying an heiress is disqualifying, then you can rejoice that Kerry lost in the last go-round. And he got his big pile of money by marrying the widow of a Republican politician! Shame on him!

    To characterize McCain’s divorce from his first wife as “dumping” her is petty. Hopefully you apply that same standard to divorces generally. Notably McCain’s first wife (the alleged dumpee) bears no grudge. McCain’s own account of the dissolution of his marriage is something he describes a little differently, but — hey — maybe your sources have better information than can be obtained from the two actual parties to the marriage.

    Now then, what has any of this got to do with the practical matter of electing a president? The Dems are the last folks to go talking about sexual embarrassments as disqualifiers for a candidate’s fitness. Hello?? Remember all those apologies for Bill Clinton — all the “what has it got to do with the presidency?” It’s just so “French,” etc. Did you forget?

    And, by the way, it had plenty to do with the presidency then — what with Clinton ordering missile attacks everytime Ms. Lewinski was due to take the stand in court.

    Issues? Pro-life. McCain can flip-flop like a frog, and he’ll still be a darn sight closer to pro-life ideals than Obama. Do the words “born alive legislation” mean anything?

    As to the life-style McCain now enjoys, please let’s not forget that his life-style was once rather more humble — back when he was living it up at the Hanoi Hilton. McCain has earned an American lifestyle — that’s more than most American’s can say or claim. He paid a real price for his freedom. He can have all the houses he wants as far as I’m concerned, and I don’t care who pays for them either.

    All this stuff is cheap shot. What did you name your cat, anyway, using that high fallutin method of yours? You can’t name a cat without a committee and yet you think you can criticize one half the American zeitgeist?

    That said, I like your blog. It’s a lot of fun.

    Like

    annsnewfriend

    23 August 2008 at 10:44 pm

  2. I think you missed the point of the post: in the last presidential election, the Right came together on the point that marrying a wealthy woman as a second wife (as Kerry did) was in itself despicable and a mark of lack of character. The situation with McCain replicates the pattern, with the added bit that McCain took up with his current wife while still married to the first. (Infidelity in addition to marrying a wealthy woman.) So one would think that the same arguments would hold against McCain. Right? They were not arguments made simply because Kerry was a Democrat, but rather arguments from principle.

    Does the Right has any sense of shame, having strongly condemned marrying for wealth previously? (Answer: no.)

    I have to admit that I don’t see that McCain having been a prisoner of war has anything to do with it, though that point is certainly raised a lot. It seems to have been his finest accomplishment.

    Speaking of cheap shots, your penultimate paragraph is a good example. I can certainly name a cat without a committee, but our goal was to find the name most appealing to the entire family and, since I had the program, that was an easy way to do it.

    Like

    LeisureGuy

    24 August 2008 at 8:04 am

  3. Regarding McCain’s version of how he dumped his first wife: yes, I think we have better sources than McCain. Check this out, for example.

    Like

    LeisureGuy

    24 August 2008 at 8:19 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: