NY Times, Washington Post Confirms That McCain Did Not Vote For Bush, page 1

NY Times, Washington Post Confirms That McCain Did Not Vote For Bush, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 9-5-2008 @ 09:49 AM by grover

NY Times, Washington Post Confirms That McCain Did Not Vote For Bush

www.huffingtonpost.com

On Monday, Arianna Huffington reported that John McCain told her he had not voted for George W. Bush in 2000. Today, both The New York Times AND The Washington Post published articles with sources confirming John McCain had indeed told Arianna and other members of the group she was with, that he did not vote for the President in 2000.

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 09:49 AM by grover

Can you really blame him given the dirty campaign Karl Rove and bush minor ran against him... especially in South Carolina when a "a group not affilated with the bush campaign" (yeah right) sent out a mailer claiming that McCain's adpoted Bangleshi daughter was actually a love child between McCain and a black prostitute.... talk about playing the race card.... and then the bush camp refused to repudiate it.

There has been bad blood between bush minor and McCain ever since which McCain has plastered over in his bid to get the eventual nomination.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 10:31 AM by Alxandro

Hey this is good for McDaddyCain, especially considering what's going on with the Libs on the left and Hillary not having a plan for withdrawal.

So much for the "a vote for McCain is a vote fore Bush" belief.

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 10:37 AM by TheBandit795

reply to post by Alxandro

Yeah, you're right. A vote for McCain isn't a vote for Bush. It's a vote for Henry Kissinger..

And you know who Henry Kissinger works for

Kissinger Advising Bush

McCain appears at Mass. campaign stop with Kissinger

I'm sure that they're using that news article to get anti-Bush republicans to vote for McCain.

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 05:17 PM by Alxandro

reply to post by TheBandit795

Maybe someone can help me out with a name here, but hasn't one of Kissinger's cronies taken Obama under his wing?

I may have read about it here, but I can't remember the person's name.

If Kissinger is involved, I guess that means McCain will be our next Prez.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by Alxandro]

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 05:23 PM by jpm1602

I have to snicker when I see two politicians who've had a poop slinging contest get up on stage and hug each other like long seperated twins.
Slimey, greasy, and pretentious. Just once I'd like someone to take a glove off and wap the other in the face with it for an old fashioned duel.

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 05:31 PM by kosmicjack

Actually, it only confirms that he said he didn't vote for Bush.

He probably wouldn't have though - he had a seething pot of hate for Bush in 2000.

This story only serves to help him with independents. I wonder what the party affiliation is of the person who first came forward?

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 08:01 PM by TheBandit795

reply to post by Alxandro

Zbigniew Brzezinski. Both he and Kissinger work for David Rockefeller.

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 08:25 PM by GradyPhilpott

We have a secret ballot in the US and no one is obligated to reveal that information, not even at a Hollywood dinner party.

It is of no importance whatsoever whom McCain voted for.

One thing we know for sure is that McCain is no party hardliner.

We are reasonably sure that McCain exercised his Constitutional right on election day and that is all that really counts.

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 08:51 PM by Maxmars

I shared this with my neighbor who smartly replied, "Maybe he is not as stupid as I thought he was."

I almost peed myself.

reply posted on 9-5-2008 @ 09:40 PM by Sestias