So What ... McCain Family Owns 8 Properties

I'd wondered when Wright would pop up again. Obama denied his spiritual mentor three times.

The Ayers connections are weak at best. And Obama has already been cleared of any wrongdoing, regarding the Rezko thing.

McCain is the one who is a supersized McBush with cheesy ads, sprinkled with stolen pills, just for the trust fund baby boomer, Cindy. Spare me.

Lame, really lame. Gossipy, actually.

And, no, Obama will not get away with befriending a terrorist. As for Rezko, Obama demonstrated boneheaded bad judgment. I think you know he knew he was playing with a dirty guy.

This is where Obama disciples insist on discussing the issues.

Lame, really lame. Gossipy, actually.

Gossip?

McCain's Vietnam

McCain Critisized for Slur

He also used the term extensively in a letter he wrote shortly after Vietnam. I can forgive him for that, THEN, but not when he uses it while running for President in 2000.

This is where Obama disciples insist on discussing the issues.

Please, discuss the issues. I'm waiting. Don't whine when people play the same games you do.

Hijack? Hey, you guys opened up the can of worms by bringing up Ayers, Wright, etc. What exactly do they have to do with McCain's properties, or the housing issue? Sorry, but you sound like a huge hypocrite right now. I'll leave you be in your "fair and balanced" seed.

OK, fine ... we'll leave Wright and Ayers out of it. Rezko stays in the conversation, though. Happy?

Fine with me. Had it not been for all the bashing and talking points, I would have not had such a problem with this seed.

OK, fine ... we'll leave Wright and Ayers out of it. Rezko stays in the conversation, though. Happy?

Sure. Ever heard of the Keating 5? Rezko is small potatoes, relatively speaking.

Tom

Since you bring up Rezko and Ayers, etc, why not google McCain-Hensley-Marley-Lansky-Brofman-Rothschild in any order you wish. Interesting stuff on how McCain got his start and where the money for some of those houses Cindy owns may have come from.

A lot of the information came from AZ press but has been overlooked by the MSM.

McCain could have squelched this whole thing if he had said he didn't own any houses, his wife does.

"He doesn't own any houses" is a nice legal fiction, but to use your phrase, it doesn't pass the smell test. Only the most idiotic of people would accept at face value McCain's attempt to paint himself as "one of the people" and Obama as "an elitist."

My wife owns lots of stuff, and we both consider the things we own "separately" as jointly owned. Most Americans approach their relationships the same way. Only in the rarefied air of the super-rich do you find people such as McCain playing games with trusts, tax shelters and careful parsing of who owns what.

Despite McCain's dissembling (and yours, as well), it's clear that McCain doesn't have a clue about what most people in America experience.

The St Petersburg Times does a pretty good job of fact checking. Their assessment of the candidates? McCain is mostly a liar. Obama mostly tells the truth.

should we assume that the St. Petersburg Times mostly tells the truth? Do you have any evidence that they don't? They certainly provide the candidates' own words to judge by. Far more honest than some, around here. They've won 6 Pulitzers, and are owned by a parent company which also publishes a number of award winning magazines covering Congress and Washington. They sell very well in red-state Florida, for what you seem to be implying is "liberal bias."

Their "findings" should come as a shock to no one. I agree, although I would leave off the scare quotes.

Feel free to refute their findings with fact, though.

I'd love to hear Obama's "truth" with regard to Tony Rezko, the Born Alive infant protection act that he opposed, his relationship with William Ayers, his foreknowledge of Rev. Wright's radical viewpoints, and too many others to mention here. I think you've been hearing it for quite some time, and it makes no difference to you. You seem particularly bent on painting the worst possible portrait of Obama, without regard to fact, in the hopes of convincing people to vote against Obama, rather than for McCain. But that strategy is crippled by the fact that John McCain is a caricature of a human being who will say anything in order to get elected. And his own dozens of policy reversals and self-contradictions stand as ample proof of that fact.

The McCains, like most politicians (including the Obamas), are wealthy. Well, I would say that the McCains approach being obscenely wealthy, and that Obama is not the one tried to paint McCain as the elitist to his "just folksiness." When McCain talks about Obama being out of touch, and claims that he himself is the candidate who understands the economic pain being felt by the average American, he's simply lying-- a perennial past-time for him, apparently.

Despite your efforts to distance McCain from his own wealth, the Republicans decided that wives are fair game, and have tried on numerous occasions to tar their opponents with the words and works of others, so it's a bit late to be trying to claim that suddenly we should separate the man from those he surrounds himself with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it's titanically obtuse of you to try to pretend that McCain is not rich by virtue of the fact that "the wealth is his wife's."

Is their marriage one of convenience, only? Is it a sham? If the answer to either question is "no," then you and your compatriots have a herculean task in front of you to counteract the fact that John McCain is far wealthier than his opponent, and far more removed from the economic impacts of the government's bad decision-making.

Let the name of Tony Rezko come up a thousand times between now and November, there's no substance to that smoke-and-mirrors game, but the subsequent comparison to McCain's corruption can only do good for Obama.

By any standard, the comparison of Obama's past with Rezko and McCain's past with Keating will come out in favor of Obama. All it takes to deny that is a large pair of political blinders and a bloated sense of partisanship.

You seem to think Obama is running a campaign as odiously low and ethically challenged as McCain's Rove-tutored, swift-boating smear-machine. It doesn't take much objectivity to see that lie for what it is. The desperate sophistry of someone disinterested in reality. No matter what you say, however, your candidate is still the proverbial pig-in-a-dress.

Yes, the much touted "liberal media" meme. Sadly, there's no evidence to suggest the media is anything other than moderate. Each "Study" that finds it is liberal is countered by a study which finds it to be conservative. In the end, the media is probably largely centrist.

What strikes me is that even in an age where daily newspapers regularly float belly up, the St Petersburg Times, operating in a state which is strongly conservative, keeps growing.

It sort of calls into question your implication that they are somehow biased in favor of the liberal candidate.

Being to the left of you does not comprise being "tilted to the Left" any more than being to the right of me means that they are tilted to the Right. Many of the papers and television stations you mention, I would consider conservative by comparison to myself.

Reporters skew liberal, editors are generally centrist or right-centrist, owners and advertisers are primarily conservative. We can play word games all day long about the ultimate impact of their contributions on the political leanings of the products they produce, but for each factoid presented as evidence for one side of the debate, there very likely is a corresponding factoid refuting it.

CNN allowed a CIA disinfo desk into their operations. Fox blatantly demands its "journalists" fit the news to their ideological agenda, The Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal, among numerous other papers, are avowedly conservative.

I think the difference between us is that I realize there is no such thing as journalistic objectivity. It's up to the reader to dig for the facts that reveal the truth, even as we're being informed (or propagandized) by the sources in which we look for those facts. I don't mind that Fox News is biased. I mind that people pretend it isn't. I don't mind that the Los Angeles Times is biased. I mind that people pretend it isn't. Stories arrive from a variety of sources.

It's up to us to judge their veracity.

Please prove where he stated this.

Is Obama ... "in touch" with the middle class?

This statement is patently absurd. Obama is recently wealthy. McCain has been provided for his entire life. Trying to say that McCain is in any way more in touch with the middle class than someone who was BELOW the middle class, AND worked organizing the poor and disenfranchised, is absolutely ridiculous.

You were doing so well for a few days.

Is Obama, making millions off of books and audio CDs, and living in a $1.6 million mansion, partially financed by a sleazy slumlord to whom he is politically beholden, "in touch" with the middle class? He's way more in touch with the middle class than John McCain. You keep bringing up Rezko as though this somehow indicts Obama, but conveniently evade the fact that those "ties" have already been investigated, and fall far short of what you imply. On the other hand, McCain's participation in the Keating scandal, and his clear acceptance of money and favors, unremarked by you, certainly brings to light your partisanship in the pursuit of political "honesty." How many trips has Obama taken on Rezko's personal jet, to vacation in the Caribbean on property owned by Rezko? None. How many such similar trips did McCain take while friends with Keating? Three. Did Obama invest nearly $400k in a land deal with Rezko? No. Did McCain make such an investment with Keating? Yes. Did Obama involve himself in a federal investigation against Rezko, seeking to draw off government pressure against his "friend"? No. Did McCain act in that fashion in defense of his friend, Keating? Yes.

John McCain: Net Worth: From $18,931,130 to $33,683,004 -- Ranks 14th among all members of the Senate
Barack Obama: Net Worth: From $456,012 to $1,142,000 -- Ranks 67th among all members of the Senate

Go on, Tom, keep telling us all about how corrupt and "elite" Obama is, in comparison to your candidate-- the ethically challenged John "Kickback" McCain.

Perhaps Obama, not being as rich as some of his Senate colleagues, felt compelled to accept "aid" from Rezko in order to "keep up with the Joneses." Of course, Rezko was handsomely rewarded later with lucrative political favors from Obama, wasn't he? Typical bull@!$%#. Don't dance around the facts, Tom. If you're going to make an accusation, make it. Let me show you how-- John McCain accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of travel perks from Charles Keating, taking his family on numerous vacations in the Caribbean on property owned by Keating, and getting there by flying on Keating's private jet. Later, when Keating was in trouble, McCain met with investigators to try to take the investigative pressure off of Keating. Those are facts. The McCain's invested $359,000 dollars in Keating shopping-mall project. That's a fact. McCain accepted over $100,000 dollars in campaign contributions from Keating. That's a fact.

Where is this "aid" to Obama that you keep talking about? How much did it amount to? What were the "rewards" which Rezko received as a result? Quit slinging vague bull@!$%# around in your effort to tar Obama. If you've got a substantive claim to make, then do us all the favor of actually making it.

McCain, a reformer? Hardly. At least not today. His 1997 legislation would cripple the campaign he is currently running. Evidence of commitment to reform? The opposite, actually. In 2005, he proposed The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005. Now he opposes it, seeking to strip key provisions from the act. Why? Because John McCain loves lobbyists. He loves kickbacks and "special interests." They're what keep campaigns such as his alive. In fact, McCain has a habit of abandoning his own reform legislation. Putatively in order to avoid the "hypocrisy" labe, when he chooses not to abide by it.

Yeah, he's a real prince.

Ain't nobody clean in this scrum, pal. Nice tacit admission that your basic thesis-- McCain is more honest than Obama-- is simply bull@!$%#. Thanks. I appreciate that.

No. Mccain does not own these properties. His rich wife does. She's part of a large company, if he dealt with this it would open a can of ethical worms for Mccain. You take something irrelevant and play it entirely out of context and i must admit its a beautiful art. Much like the art my dog made this morning on my kitchen floor :(

Mccain does not own these properties. His rich wife does. So he hasn't ever lived in "his" houses? He hasn't "visited" them? He's not familiar with the financial details of his own household (sort of like he's not an expert on the economy)? He can't count to eight?

Which is it?

They are not houses he sought out and bought. They are his wife's properties. This has already been stated. This is similar to the ridiculous viagra vs. birth control question he was asked. It was an irrelevant question that he directed away from because theres no need to answer it. While you can make arguments why b.c. should be covered, comparing it to viagra is just not relevant.

@iarnuocon,

Just because you own a property doesn't mean you will live in it. Some people buy properties then rent them out, or gut them, refurbish them and sell them for a profit.

Lets put it a different way. Do you know all of your wife's/husband's business dealings and portfolios?

Two things wrong with what you all are saying.

1. Cindy was standing right there and she didn't say anything either.

2. The question was homes, meaning places that you dwell.

They didn't ask him how many proprieties he owned.

Again he can't even do the fiances of his own home, you all are like he shouldn't know? You want this guy to check a budget that his own wife doesn't trust him with theirs?

And do I know all my wife's business dealings yep I know every contract she has signed, know what she makes and have access to check all that info.

Again question was how many homes not how many proprieties.

Yea, and if he has said how many "homes" they had, and not properties, people would have nailed them for that.

As for his taxes and budget? No, he probably has an accountant, like most people with his finances do.

You are much more in the know of your wife's money than I ever was. I knew roughly how much my wife made, and trusted her enough that she would tell me if we had a budget crisis. I worked on other parts of the family.

This is similar to the ridiculous viagra vs. birth control question he was asked. It was an irrelevant question that he directed away from because theres no need to answer it.

Do you really want to open up this can of worms? His own adviser pointed out the unfairness of this situation. And good for her!

Todd. You seem to imply that, in the McCain household (if we can even call it that) the buck does not stop at John McCain. It's his wife, or his accountant who are ultimately responsible. That's not the kind of President I want in office. But who knows, maybe Cindy gave John the cold shoulder after she heard he didn't know much about the economy. Can you blame her?

I'm implying that as President he would have economic advisers, financial advisers and military advisers to keep him informed. Just as he said"I'll have to get back to you on that." He'd check with his financial adviser and find out.

I'm also implying that Cindy and John are two individuals with lots of different things going on at the same time. I don't expect John to know how many plants Cindy planted at the summer cottage while he's campaigning and I don't expect Cindy to know the name of every major contributor that John met on the campaign trail.

Oh, I see. So you want a President who leads by committee, a President like George W. Bush? I guess Romney will be his go to man when it comes to the economy? Where does the buck stop?

I'm sure if Obama is elected he'll know how many houses are being built off the top of his head, along with the unemployment figures, the where about of all American forces and the updates on all bills in Congress. He'll live in a glass bubble so that no one will be able to influence him in any way.

I guess that way he won't be able to pass the buck. But then, isn't government a team game, and not solitaire?

Well, if you want to play the game of who's better, clearly Obama wins. This is not about a "team game" versus "solataire." This is about responsibility and knowledge of the facts. But by all means, keep making excuses for the man.

As clear as the coffee you drink.

As clear as the coffee you drink.

I don't drink coffee, so I guess you're right. LOL!

A president that is good should know alot of the info themselves and they should take it from advisers too. If they don't have knowledge of the information, how do they know which advisor to listen to? And if the plan is sound? Or is this the Simpson's movie, and they tell him to pick #4? What you're saying is McCain will have advisers, ok who? Well Republicans of course which ones? Ones that know about how the system works like the ones in there right now? Yep but remember it isn't 4 more years of Bush.

To #4.6 your statement that you focused on other areas and trusted your wife is an insinuation that I don't. I find this funny being you don't know me, she is the one that does the finances because she does have issues with them. I use to do book keeping so I check to make sure everything is ok. See she saw a weakness in herself and she is trying to improve herself. Though this is all off topic.

Look if he would of said I have no houses Cindy owns the properties, and if the Dems did attack him they would have been wrong. That isn't what happened, he said I don't know let me check with my staff? Why would his staff know over his accountant?

Also for those that say this is non relevant it sure was when the Republicans tried to point out that Kerry was an Elitist when his wife ran their finances, and that he had 5 houses.

Most Dems aren't even talking about the number it is the fact he doesn't know. Completely different. Oh by the way Kerry knew he had 5.

Or is the question "Why do you not wear a lapel flag pin, do you hate America?" A relevant one?

Tom, you just love those talking points. You going to send him $1000 too? What do you make of Cindy McCain claiming she an only child?

Tom, above, you condemn James for (supposedly) questioning McCain's commitment to his adopted daughter, as if the question is off limits. But here you are -- obviously unaware of the complete facts -- passing judgment. The hypocrisy is palatable. And you fail to even mention anything about Cindy's half sister.

McCain's "commitment" to his daughter is not something that should be questioned

Please, cite where someone questioned that. Fact is, you're just trying to make an issue out of it.

What would you like me to say about Cindy's half sister? What would you like me to say about Obama's half brother?

That's rich. You bring it up, and then expect me to take the lead, as if it's something I brought up. Nice!

Double sigh. Also, please see your comment at #4.16.

As long as they dissent in a "free speech zone" located several miles from anywhere that he might be. And as long as they take to heart his administration's admonition that they "watch" what they say.

America should be a free speech zone.

I don't agree that Bush is a "dictator," but if you're implying that Bush is a friend to America and has any respect for the Constitution he swore to uphold, you are sadly mistaken.

History in the long-term will be kinder to Bush than many of us living today may be. I think Bush has made numerous mistakes, but his good far outweighs the bad. I disagree, his bad far outweighs the good, and Americans for the foreseeable future will be paying for their decision to vote for "folksiness" over ability. And what I see you counseling with this article is the repeat of exactly the same mistake.

I don't think that foreign-born terrorists are guaranteed the same legal protections as American citizens Straw man, as well as being tangential. Do you think foreign born detainees deserve any rights? Because you make the huge assumption that all the detainees are terrorists, and that none deserve any rights, when you accept at face value the Bush administration arguments.

I am also thankful that - against all odds - we have not been hit by a serious terrorist attack since 9/11. I'd like to see how you calculate the odds. I certainly don't think that Bush has had much to do with the absence of another attack. Certainly not when one considers the gaping holes in security which Bush has simply left ignored over the intervening seven years.

I don't think civil libertarians would have a problem with Bush addressing the gaping hole in port security. I don't think they would have a problem with making sure that all the baggage that goes in the belly of the plane gets scanned. I don't think they would have a problem with law enforcement aggressively pursuing leads on terrorism, as long as law enforcement doesn't ignore the Constitution while doing so.

But those aren't actions that Bush ever advocated. He'd rather ignore the "goddamned piece of paper" in favor of expediency. He has, in fact, done far more damage to America than bin Laden ever did, 3,000 dead notwithstanding. He has made America poorer, less safe against terrorism, and unable to address threats outside of Iraq.

If that doesn't make his Presidency a dud, I don't know what would.

Well, Frank, as long as you don't mind folks mocking the messiah and his willy-nilly pick, it's okay with me.

As E.J. Dionne noted this afternoon on NPR, McCain doesn't come across and isn't seen as rich and arrogant. That is, though, how the Democrats desperately seek to paint him.

Now, about Obama admitting to how boneheaded he was to take advantage of that crook's services when he purchased his mansion.

McCain doesn't come across and isn't seen as rich and arrogant. On the other hand, he is both. Parallels to Bush in 2000...

Re: favors, list them.

In the meantime, you might want refresh your memories about John "Keating 5" McCain. Hypocrisy, thy name is "conservative."

Again, despite the request, no list.

I'm beginning to think you don't have any evidence to support your position, Tom.

McCain is not the average guy he claims he is. But here's the worst part. He's not just rich, he a kept man. He did not earn the riches, he married into it. Thus, it's no surprise that he has no idea about his family's finances. If he didn't earn it, why would he keep track of it? Ha! Makes perfect sense.

Aren't you referring to Gigolo John Kerry?

I didn't realize John Kerry was running again. Oh wait.

You did describe him, you know.

I'll give you that. So what? Kerry is a loser. Ran a horrible campaign in 2004. Still doesn't negate what I said of McCain. Why don't we focus on the two who are running?