When McCain was tossing aside the wife who waited out his time in Vietnam for the beauty queen many years his junior, he neglected to divorce the first wife when he got the marriage certificate for the second. If this were a Democrat the MSM wouldn’t be able to stop talking about it. But it’s a Republican, especially John McCain, so expect heads to remain firmly buried in the sand.
» Breaking News
Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Ronson Fight At Dubai Hotel
Russian Billionaire Sergei Rodionov Publishes Book Of Nudes… Of His Wife Olga
Alexis Tyler: Breaking Beauty
Kristin Chenoweth @ Four Christmases Premiere
Obama Has Plan For 2.5 Million Jobs
Kerners are GO!
I await Larry Johnson’s in depth Photoshop:CSI to refute this and prove it’s a liberal forgery.
Hmm. Shitty. Yes. Bigamist. No. (Get a dictionary.)
By the way- a marraige license is different from a marraige certificate. Back when divorces were difficult to get, it very well could have taken several months (and perhaps years) for a divorce to be finalized. The marraige license was not executed (by a marraige) until five months after the divorce was finalized.
But I’m sure you’ll get your wish on this one Oliver. The media will likely pick up on this as Dems like you beat the drum. I’m sure the Media Matters press releases are flying like migrating geese by now.
Marty:
You are missing the obvious point.
…so expect heads to remain firmly buried in the sand.
Well, buried somewhere, anyway.
The media will likely pick up on this as Dems like you beat the drum.
No they won’t.
The obvious point is the more I learn about John McNovocain, the more I don’t like him.
Nice job all around. Your headline is factually incorrect, as is the single paragraph post below it. The blog you linked to also has a headline which is factually incorrect.
The nugget that you’re trying to attach some importance to is this: …the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.
So McCain decided to marry his second wife, and got a license to do so, before his divorce was final. How scandalous! Good luck with this lame story.
OW: If this were a Democrat the MSM wouldn’t be able to stop talking about it. But it’s a Republican, especially John McCain, so expect heads to remain firmly buried in the sand.
If this were a Democrat and the MSM wasn’t able to stop talking about it you’d be all over their case. But it’s a Republican, especially John McCain, so expect you to firmly complain that it isn’t being picked up.
Double standards, anyone?
Hey, scratchy, it’s as relevant as the whole Barack’s forged birth certificate bullshit.
And it has the added bonus of showing McCain for the dick that he is.
Duros…
Maybe I missed the extensive reporting on that story in the mainstream media. Just googled it and got a bunch of blogs.
I guess the fourth largest newspaper in the country is no longer part of the mainstream media.
This doesn’t surprise me. Obama has used divorce records in the past to his political advantage so don’t be surprised to that this nugget was leaked to the press by his surrogates as well.
Marty, if I was you I would withhold my opinion until I learned how to spell “marriage”.
Captain Jack Sparrow: It’s pronounced ‘egregious’
IMHO, Oliver’s credibility is taking a hit recently. Yes, this is definitely a left-leaning blog. But as a left-leaning reader I’m taken aback by an increasing tendency to post things that are intentionally misleading, alarmist, and just plain untrue. In short, the same tactics that have been complained about as the standard playbook for the right.
In just the past few days, there has been this post declaring McCain a bigamist when that was clearly not the case and a bitch about college Republicans not honoring non-9/11 dates that was also easily shown to to have no real basis in fact“.
I expect things here to have a definite viewpoint. But I don’t expect them to be blatantly false.
Obama has used divorce records in the past to his political advantage so don’t be surprised to that this nugget was leaked to the press by his surrogates as well.
Oh, stop it.
Maybe I missed the extensive reporting on that story in the mainstream media.
Extensive reporting? Mainstream press? Oxymorons.
Oh, stop it.
Sorry, but it’s true:
It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time.
Axelrod denies it of course, but it’s not like he’s going to come out and just say, “Yes, it was me!”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5124&en=bdcf482b83101092&ex=1333252800&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Sounds like hearsay to me.
I thought you were talking about Jack/Jeri Ryan.
Since the original story is near worthless, can we convert this into a Jeri Ryan thread?
IMHO, Oliver’s credibility is taking a hit recently. Yes, this is definitely a left-leaning blog. But as a left-leaning reader I’m taken aback by an increasing tendency to post things that are intentionally misleading, alarmist, and just plain untrue. In short, the same tactics that have been complained about as the standard playbook for the right.
In just the past few days, there has been this post declaring McCain a bigamist when that was clearly not the case and a bitch about college Republicans not honoring non-9/11 dates that was also easily shown to to have no real basis in fact.
I expect things here to have a definite viewpoint. But I don’t expect them to be blatantly false.
can we convert this into a Jeri Ryan thread?
Only if there are pictures.
Duros, the Tribune reporter said the campaign was pushing the story. The only thing at issue is whether or not Axelrod leaked the story. Judging from his role, it wouldn’t be all that surprising if he did.
What it goes to show is that Obama, despite all his blather about “hope” and “change” is pretty much like any other politician in the tactics he allows his campaign to use and his move to the center on some issues (I expect that will continue as the campaign goes on).
I’m taken aback by an increasing tendency to post things that are intentionally misleading, alarmist, and just plain untrue.
Me too. I enjoy this blog and appreciate the good stuff, but I’m not a fan of fighting dirty. This is a smear on McCain. If we want people to vote Obama instead of McCain we only have to talk about McCain’s political policies. The personal stuff is his business.
The point is not that McCain is a bigamist, but that he is a liar.
According to the LA times article investigating the issue, either McCain was having an affair while still living with this wife for nine months or he lied on his divorce filing:
“I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow,” McCain wrote. “I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.”
An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had “cohabited” until Jan. 7 of that year — or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.
Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.
That’s not character and integrity we can believe in.
I didn’t get a chance to go to the local superior court here in Phoenix to see what a marriage license application looked like in Arizona and what sort of questions they ask about on the license application. However I did find out that Arizona doesn’t require proof of a divorce for previous marriages why you apply. As far as second-hand info is concerned a co-worker who was married in November didn’t remember anything about “are you currently married” on the application. If I can remember to go downtown on Monday I can drop by the courthouse and check the application personally.
The point is not that McCain is a bigamist, but that he is a liar.
Indeed, that is central to my point. Just another example in an increasingly long list.
Dr. Zaius has kindly put it all together in a very handy chart for us. McNovocain has more flip-flops than a tropical island.
Snip-n-save. And tell your friends.
Then tell me why there are actually people who support him.
When you don’t even support your own legislation, there is something seriously wrong with you.
mCcain was not lying about this. He truly is forgetful when it somes to getting facts straight. Honest mistake. Just a gaffe.
Wilbur: The point is not that McCain is a bigamist, but that he is a liar.
Duros: Indeed, that is central to my point.
And yet, OW headlines it with the lie.
Ah yes, the old “he’s a liar” tactic of which the left is so fond. I’ve never seen anyone proven a liar with indirect quotes and a calendar, as is being attempted here.
In many states there is a required period of separation before a divorce can be finalized. Any “cohabitation” resets the clock on this separation. What is “cohabitation?” In my state, it is defined as spending the night in the same house. That means that if an estranged husband comes over to visit the kids or mow the lawn or fix something in the house that he still co-owns with his soon-to-be ex-wife, and it gets late and he decides to sleep on the couch rather than drive home, then he and his wife have cohabitated and they have to start over with the required separation. If a man is filling out a legal form and is asked when he and his wife last cohabitated, in my state he would have to put the last date that he spent the night in the same house as his wife.
And what is separation? Most people would define that as the period between when one person in a couple moves out, and when their divorce is finalized. In other words, it is entirely possible to cohabitate while separated (co-habitation only takes one night, don’t forget.) Is this the case with John McCain? I don’t know, and I doubt anyone else here does either. The speculation and accusations based on old legal documents and an autobiography is extremely thin and, to be frank, quite foolish.
When you’re ditching the woman who faithfully waited for you while you were a POW, why piddle with little details such as divorce finality?
Bring on the beer baronness!
And referencing McCain’s own biography the dates show that he was dating his second wife six months before he told his first one he was moving out.
Now THAT’S family values.