McCain broke or gave in - at least twice

[N7SC]

Well, now to start the most epic flame wars ever:

Was just thinking about something that needs to be said and discussed. Preferably rationaly and politely. That is that Sen. John McCain has given in, or broken, at least twice in his life.

The first time was in Viet Nam. Yes, he was brutally tortured, but so were thousands of other Americans who were captured, and not all of them signed "confessions" as did McCain. Many were tortured much more harshly than McCain, but refused to give in. Some others gave their lives rather than sign "confessions."

The second time that I wish to point out (there may be others in between these two) is when he decided to give up his honesty and integrity, hire members of the Rove/Bush campaign team, end the open, frewheeling and honest "straight talks" with the media on his bus and plane, and sink to dishonest, negative and nasty campaigning of the type that he is clearly on record as disliking and claiming that he is against. He simply sold out in order to win.

I have to ask myself, "What does it say about McCain's character?" "Does this guy have a serious character flaw or weakness that makes him unfit to be the President and Commander in Chief?" And, "Could I ever trust a man who seems to have a pattern of giving in?"

Before anyone explodes in wrath in their reply, note that I was, not too long ago, looking forward to Sen. McCain setting a new standard in running a campaign, holding his head up and doing it right, in his own way. I was hoping that he would elevate the discourse to a much higher standard than has been the norm lately. And I was even looking forward to a campaign that would have two good men passionately arguing the issues and laying out their visions, policies, and goals for the American people to consider and decide upon. I fought with my own, heavily Democratic, family because I favored McCain. Under those circumstances I could over look McCain's breaking once, and under torture. But now it just looks like it is a pattern of his behavior and reveals a serious character weakness. I'm horribly disappointed by him. He gives in when necessary to get what he wants.

[frenchie]

I wouldn't go into the torture thing... People can only go through a certain amount of pain. I'm not american so I guess it's not really a debate for me. However, if I had to vote in the election, I wouldn't hold him accountable for that. Everybody is brave... up to a point.

To me this "confession" is the least of his problems. His bigger problem is this gun-loving women-hating lipstick-loving Miss Nobody right next to him... and women seem to like her... scarry...

As for honesty and integrity... was he pushed in this direction but his "advisors" ? Is it something he personnaly wanted... not sure... I mean he is smart, he really doesn't need this to campain against Obama.

PS : Not that Obama is not smart. He certainly is. I'm just saying that since they are both smart they could have had a very productive debate for the american people. Too bad it turned out like this...

[jhhoffma]

Well, now to start the most epic flame wars ever:

Was just thinking about something that needs to be said and discussed. Preferably rationaly and politely. That is that Sen. John McCain has given in, or broken, at least twice in his life.

The first time was in Viet Nam. Yes, he was brutally tortured, but so were thousands of other Americans who were captured, and not all of them signed "confessions" as did McCain. Many were tortured much more harshly than McCain, but refused to give in. Some others gave their lives rather than sign "confessions."

Below a quote from Wiki:

"After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda 'confession'.[30] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, 'I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.'[42][43] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[44] He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[45] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements,[46] with many enduring even longer and worse treatment. Virtually all of the POWs who were tortured eventually yielded something to their captors."

Let me know how long you last when you are tortured by the NVA...

He also refused to accept a release (repatriation) until all of the men underneath him were granted it as well. Think about that...they offered to let him go AND HE SAID "NO". If you were being tortured/beaten 3 times a day, would you say "no" if they said you could go home? I want to say that I would, but I can't imagine what that kind of horror would do to my psyche.

Whether or not I agree with McCain or Obama's message or political track record is irrelevant. I find it offensive to call a soldier's dedication and mettle into question that way. This isn't like questioning GWB's "service" in the National Guard. You're basically calling McCain a coward for signing a piece of paper after his 4th day as a POW, despite the fact he never did it again and stayed for another 5-1/2 years under horrible conditions. That's pretty messed up, IMO.

[Solid Snake]

Then exactly how does John McCain argue against torture, calling it ineffective? Sure, he's gone through it and he doesn't like it because it was used on him, but he's in no position to argue its effectiveness. He spilled the beans, didn't he?

[m0002a]

Then exactly how does John McCain argue against torture, calling it ineffective? Sure, he's gone through it and he doesn't like it because it was used on him, but he's in no position to argue its effectiveness. He spilled the beans, didn't he?

Spilled the beans? No, he only gave them some information that was of no military use. When you are flying off a aircraft carrier, there is not much you can give them, especially since they don't even have an air force.

When the North Vietnamese captors found out that McCain's father had been placed in charge of all Naval operations for the theatre, they offered to release him. McCain refused saying that he would not leave until the other prisoners who arrived before him were also released.

This stuff about McCain giving up information or confessing more than the other prisoners is ridiculous.

[m0002a]

Whether or not I agree with McCain or Obama's message or political track record is irrelevant. I find it offensive to call a soldier's dedication and mettle into question that way. This isn't like questioning GWB's "service" in the National Guard. You're basically calling McCain a coward for signing a piece of paper after his 4th day as a POW, despite the fact he never did it again and stayed for another 5-1/2 years under horrible conditions. That's pretty messed up, IMO.

There seems to be a disproportionate number of Obama supporters who are messed up, who have no shame, who will slander or libel anyone, and who generally have no sense whatsoever of truth or human decency. They take their cues from the Nazi propagandists who proclaimed that if you repeat a lie often enough people will eventually believe it.

[jnporter]

I don't fault McCain for his Vietnam "confession". Self-preservation is the strongest impulse we have. I do think he has sold out any claim of personal integrity by endorsing/approving all these misleading campaign ads attacking Obama's patriotism and making untrue claims about his legislative record. Not to mention the subtle racial overtones to the McCain campaign's line.

Hey, when Karl Rove states that McCain went over the line into dishonesty, its like the Pope saying somebody sinned. Geez, will we ever again be treated to a political campaign that is waged on the issues instead of just a gutter fight where its perfectly acceptable to kick your oppenent in the crotch and then stomp on his head when he's down?

JN Porter

[m0002a]

I don't fault McCain for his Vietnam "confession". Self-preservation is the strongest impulse we have. I do think he has sold out any claim of personal integrity by endorsing/approving all these misleading campaign ads attacking Obama's patriotism and making untrue claims about his legislative record. Not to mention the subtle racial overtones to the McCain campaign's line.

Hey, when Karl Rove states that McCain went over the line into dishonesty, its like the Pope saying somebody sinned. Geez, will we ever again be treated to a political campaign that is waged on the issues instead of just a gutter fight where its perfectly acceptable to kick your oppenent in the crotch and then stomp on his head when he's down?
JN Porter

I don't know much about these campaign ads because I don't live in a "contested" state and the candidates don't want to spend their money here (thank God).

But regarding patriotism, Michelle Obama said that when her husband got the nomination it was the first time in her life that she was proud to be an American. If someone is not patriotic it is nothing to be ashamed of. A substantial percentage of the population is not patriotic, apparently including Michelle Obama. And please don't tell me her quote was taken out of context.

Regarding Obama's legislative record, what record? He has been in the Senate for less than two years and he has been running for President for about 1.5 years.

If Carl Rove says McCain's ads went too far, I am sure they did. But what did he say about Obama's ads?

[seemingly.random]

Rove saying that any campaign ad has gone too far is astonishing considering the source. But then, giving Rove's comments any credibility is like giving Goebbels or Eichmann credibility.

[jhhoffma]

Rove saying that any campaign ad has gone too far is astonishing considering the source. But then, giving Rove's comments any credibility is like giving Goebbels or Eichmann credibility.

Comparing an American political strategist to Nazi war criminals is the best way to make your point sound reasonable and valid.

[psyopper]

Comparing an American political strategist to Nazi war criminals is the best way to make your point sound reasonable and valid.

Actually, in the case of Karl Rove, it is reasonable and valid!

[m0002a]

Comparing an American political strategist to Nazi war criminals is the best way to make your point sound reasonable and valid. :roll:

Just for the record, I am not comparing anyone in this thread to a Nazi war criminal. I did compare some politicians to a Nazi propagandist. Distorting facts is part of what I was referring to..

[jhhoffma]

psyopper,

Then we should probably say the same thing about Dick Morris and James Carville (because they were political advisors)? Let's try to make the points objective so that they can still hold a little bit of validity. Shouting, "he's a Nazi/facist/etc" at every person you think to be wrong/evil, just makes people tune out, unless they agree with you already; and in that case, who are you trying to convince/talk to? Sounds more like talking to hear the sound of your own voice to me.

m0002a, I think my comment was directed at "seemingly.random". I might conceed the Goebbels reference (though I don't care for it), but the Eichmann reference has no place in this discussion. He wasn't a politician, he was the administrator of the Holocaust.

[qviri]

Geez, will we ever again be treated to a political campaign that is waged on the issues instead of just a gutter fight where its perfectly acceptable to kick your oppenent in the crotch and then stomp on his head when he's down?

I want to hope so - but seeing the fine example of "us vs them" thinking the population itself is setting even in this very thread, I find it hard to believe.

[Scrooge]

To me this "confession" is the least of his problems. His bigger problem is this gun-loving women-hating lipstick-loving Miss Nobody right next to him... and women seem to like her... scarry...

My (female) boss loved her, even long before she was selected. I don't get it.

[Tzupy]

I find a lot more dangerous for the USA to have a president that gives in to the public opinion.
Obama (and many others) certainly did that, asking for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Which IMO would have resulted in a boost for Al-Qaeda and ruined any hope for peace in Iraq.

As for McCain, maybe he wasn't between the bravest POWs in N. Vietnam, I agree with that.
But I wonder: how many of the really brave POWs returned safely and were able to have a normal life?

[thejamppa]

The most dangerous thing what leader of an nation can do really, is to give in public opinion when public doesn't have all the pieces and just voices what they feel or think without knowing anything.

Let's face it, we regular peoples do not have any idea what is really going on in there, in politics, between nations, in wars etc.

Modern media plays very dangerous game by giving mass' loud voice and affects mass' easily and changes public opinion forces leaders sometimes to very unwise decisions.

Media hardly does anything for patriotism or for sake of right thing. Media does thing so it can make money. Mass' give media tremendous power.. to the peoples who do not know anything really about matters...

I am begin to understand why Plato thought demokratia was so dangerous and why he supported teokratia putting demokratia as the worst possible choice...

U.S. outer policy has been... Mostly something to satisfy mass'. War on terror was to satisfy american needs of retaliation. Without it, Bush would have seemed weak and incompitent. Mass' cheered when bombers started bombing afghanistan and baghdad.

But when war was not to be wan like gulf war, media started slandering and changing attituteds against the war in terror. USA is currently on situation that it would be suicide to obey will of the mass'... and path there was will of the mass...

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

A very interesting story was just broadcast on the radio, about the similarities between the Savings & Loans scandal and the current situation -- and how ironic it is the John McCain is now calling for regulation reform; when he worked very hard to bypass similar regulations for his long time friend Charles Keating, who owned Lincoln Savings. Lincoln Savings had broken the most important rules for about 600 million dollars of loans, and John McCain almost succeeded in getting the regulators to let the violations go.

John McCain has been very much involved with the very same kind of crimes that have now lead to the current financial market meltdown. His convenient belated conversion to the side of improved oversight and regulation; is not convincing. In fact, it is pretty damning...

[MikeC]

Hi,

A very interesting story was just broadcast on the radio, about the similarities between the Savings & Loans scandal and the current situation -- and how ironic it is the John McCain is now calling for regulation reform; when he worked very hard to bypass similar regulations for his long time friend Charles Keating, who owned Lincoln Savings. Lincoln Savings had broken the most important rules for about 600 million dollars of loans, and John McCain almost succeeded in getting the regulators to let the violations go.

John McCain has been very much involved with the very same kind of crimes that have now lead to the current financial market meltdown. His convenient belated conversion to the side of improved oversight and regulation; is not convincing. In fact, it is pretty damning...

Ah, good. I was wondering when someone would bring this up... whether anyone remembered. One of my buddies was telling me all about McCain's role in that quite a while ago. One thing you have to know about politicians and marketers: They both reply on the public having a short collective memory.

[Reachable]

The topic below does not seem to have been broached, at least to my attention, but it has the utmost relevance:

You hear about how McCain 'bounced back' from his imprisonment of war -- but did he really, or did he just bounce on? Five years as a POW, tortured and starved. Finally returning home to a country increasingly of the opinion that what he had suffered so much for was misguided and futile -- very different than WWII. The gorgeous wife that he'd dreamed about during his captivity had become badly broken and disfigured by a horrible accident in his absence, and he had no knowledge of it until they were reunited.

How do you recover from something like that? It can't be easy. You would need a saintlike acceptance and equanimity, one that would carry over in how you deal with your ongoing experience. By all accounts McCain is not like that. He has a hairspring temper and is prone to meanness. Perhaps we can't blame him, but it doesn't mean we should give him the world's most critical position.

Why hasn't this been mentioned by the press? Probably because it would be considered unpatriotic or off limits to civilized decency.

But that's precisely the point. When a man comes back from being a long time prisoner of war you go easy on him. You give him a break. You pave the way. But you don't put him in charge of the world's mightiest army. I suspect (and I may be very wrong) that the U.S. military proceeds with great caution in advancing in rank individuals who have been through what McCain endured. But now, even as we speak, he is out there campaigning for the one job he absolutely should not be doing.

Also, no one should make the mistake of comparing McCain to Nelson Mandela or the many others who were political prisoners and then ultimately became leaders (good and bad) of their countries. These individuals were enduring their captivity for precisely the objective that they later ascended to, while John McCain's was something quite different. Thus he sounds, both from conjecture and from things he actually said, like someone in full justification mode, who would unhesitatingly objectify as an enemy anyone who speaks disparagingly of capitalism, Christianity, and U.S. policy, and would be easily inclined to use military force. God help us.

[NeilBlanchard]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 109.column

Once upon a time, a politician took campaign contributions and favors from a friendly constituent who happened to run a savings and loan association. The contributions were generous: They came to about $200,000 in today's dollars, and on top of that there were several free vacations for the politician and his family, along with private jet trips and other perks. The politician voted repeatedly against congressional efforts to tighten regulation of S&Ls, and in 1987, when he learned that his constituent's S&L was the target of a federal investigation, he met with regulators in an effort to get them to back off.

That politician was John McCain, and his generous friend was Charles Keating, head of Lincoln Savings & Loan. While he was courting McCain and other senators and urging them to oppose tougher regulation of S&Ls, Keating was also investing his depositors' federally insured savings in risky ventures. When those lost money, Keating tried to hide the losses from regulators by inducing his customers to switch from insured accounts to uninsured (and worthless) bonds issued by Lincoln's near-bankrupt parent company. In 1989, it went belly up -- and more than 20,000 Lincoln customers saw their savings vanish.

[JoeWPgh]

The most troubling thing about McCain and his involvement in the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 80s is how little he learned from it. Rather than realizing the usefulness of reasonable regulation of the financial industry, he remained in the knee-jerk, all regulation is bad camp. His campaign's top economic advisor is Phil Gramm, who's legislation led to to today's Wall Street melt down, not to mention an association with Enron and UBS - a sub prime player. You would also think that after McCain's Savings and Loan scandal, he would have learned that putting some limits on lobbyists would be a reasonable regulatory action. And while he talked the talk, he staffed his upper campaign staff almost exclusively with lobbyists.
As Caribou Barbie falsely claims to have said, Thanks but no thanks. McCain is offering more of the same stale fiscal ideology that led to the mess we're now in.

[NeilBlanchard]

Amen to that Joe -- I could not have said it better myself!

[m0002a]

Hi,

-- and how ironic it is the John McCain is now calling for regulation reform; when he worked very hard to bypass similar regulations for his long time friend Charles Keating, who owned Lincoln Savings.

That is categorically untrue. Keating asked McCain for help, but McCain refused (in fact McCain told him to f-off). The other 4 senators (all Democrats) did try and help Keating in some way (some more than others). McCain was exonerated by the Senate investigation.

It is quite shameful that people would say these things that are completely untrue.

[aristide1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating

In 1972, Charles Keating began to work for American Financial Corporation, a company involved in insurance and banking. Four years later he moved to Phoenix, Arizona to run the real estate firm American Continental Corporation, a spin-off of American Financial Corp. In 1984, American Continental Corporation bought Lincoln Savings. Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them the opportunity to make highly risky investments with their depositors’ money, an opportunity of which Keating took advantage.

Some regulators noted the danger posed by these deregulations and pushed for more oversight, but Congress refused. This may be due, in part, to the Keating Five, five Senators — Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, John Glenn, Don Riegle and John McCain — who had received, for both themselves and for groups they supported, well over $1 million from Keating in the 1980s as favors and political contributions.[1] They later met twice with regulators who were investigating American Continental Corporation, in an attempt to end the investigation. (In 1991, they would be rebuked to various degrees by the Senate Ethics Committee.)[2]

This is [2]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/po ... ref=slogin

Which contains:

Mr. Keating had taken over the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and used its federally insured deposits to gamble on risky real estate and other investments. He pressed Mr. McCain and other lawmakers to help hold back federal banking regulators.

For years, Mr. McCain complied. At Mr. Keating’s request, he wrote several letters to regulators, introduced legislation and helped secure the nomination of a Keating associate to a banking regulatory board.

And why would McCain help the guy?

During Mr. McCain’s four years in the House, Mr. Keating, his family and his business associates contributed heavily to his political campaigns. The banker gave Mr. McCain free rides on his private jet, a violation of Congressional ethics rules (he later said it was an oversight and paid for the trips). They vacationed together in the Bahamas. And in 1986, the year Mr. McCain was elected to the Senate, his wife joined Mr. Keating in investing in an Arizona shopping mall.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Unethical is what's made the US what it is today. McCain, after a brief debute warning not to follow the siren song of change, now claims he's the poster child for change. Does this history look like change to you? By the way conservatives are by definition not for change, well, unless they and their flock can profit from it financially.

[m0002a]

According to the article you posted:

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him

.
and

The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.

Here is more accurate explanaiton of what happened:
http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml ... ked+McCain

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly.

By March 1987, Keating was asking McCain to travel to meet with regulators regarding Lincoln Savings; McCain refused. Keating called McCain a "wimp" behind his back, and on March 24 the two had a heated, contentious meeting. On April 2 and April 9, 1987, McCain and the other senators met at the Capitol with regulators, first with Edwin J. Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and then members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln. At the latter meeting, the regulators revealed that Keating was under criminal investigation, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating; Glenn continued to help Keating after that revelation, by setting up a meeting with then-House Majority Leader Jim Wright, which turned out to be the only questionable thing Glenn did throughout the whole affair.

I watched every single minute of the Senate hearings that were broadcast on CSPAN during that timeframe (the hearings were replayed in the evenings and on weekends). At the time, McCain received compliments for his actions from every single senator on the committee, both Democrats and Republicans. It was obvious from the comments of the Senate committee that none of them would have stood up to a wealthy constituent (Keating lived in Arizona and his company was based there) like McCain did. If you look at what the other 4 senators did (including the Democratic senator from Arizona) it was clear that McCain's actions in rebuffing Keating were commendable.

But what is even more reprehensible than what the 3 Keating Five senators (Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle) who were reprimanded by the Senate did, is the current smear campaign being conducted against John McCain by those who claim to believe in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As I said before, these smear tactics are based on the idea that if you repeat lies often enough, people will eventually believe them.

[NeilBlanchard]

(click on image for link)

Few advisers in John McCain's inner circle inspire more loyalty from him than campaign manager Rick Davis. McCain and his wife, Cindy, credit the shrewd, and sometimes volatile, Republican insider with rescuing the campaign last year when it was out of money and on the verge of collapse. As a result, McCain has always defended him—even when faced with tough questions about the foreign lobbying clients of Davis's high-powered consulting firm. "Rick is a friend, and I trust him," McCain told NEWSWEEK last year.

Last week, though, McCain's trust in Davis was tested again amid disclosures that Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant that was recently placed under federal conservatorship, paid his campaign manager's firm $15,000 a month between 2006 and August 2008. As the mortgage crisis has escalated, almost any association with Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae has become politically toxic. But the payments to Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, are especially problematic because he requested the consulting retainer in 2006—and then did barely any work for the fees, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement who asked not to be identified discussing Freddie Mac business. Aside from attending a few breakfasts and a political-action-committee meeting with Democratic strategist Paul Begala (another Freddie consultant), Davis did "zero" for the housing firm, one of the sources said. Freddie Mac also had no dealings with the lobbying firm beyond paying monthly invoices—but it agreed to the arrangement because of Davis's close relationship with McCain, the source said, which led top executives to conclude "you couldn't say no."

[m0002a]

Neil,

You are engaging in a shallow smear campaign. The fact is that Obama has even closer links to Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner ... donors-oba

In a 2005 video Daniel Mudd, at the time the interim CEO of the catastrophically failed mortgage lender Fannie Mae, affirmed his fealty and that of Fannie Mae to the Congressional Black Caucus. The top three campaign donation recipients were Democrats, number two of which was Barack Obama, yet the media is laying mum on these facts. One wonders what would be going on in the media if John McCain were a top recipient of campaign donations from a market crashing, government bail-out getting organization like Fannie Mae?

The three top campaign donation recipients from Fannie Mae were all Democrats. Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) got $165,000, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was given $126,349, and failed presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) took $111,000 from the folks at Fannie Mae.

Most of the top Fannie executives were also Democrats each of whom worked closely with Democratic presidents and Barack Obama. Franklin Raines, Clinton White House budget director, ran Fannie Mae and pocketed $50 million. Jamie Gorelick was a Clinton Justice Department Official (famous for adding to our intelligence failures helping cause the attacks on 9/11) was paid $26 million. Jim Johnson, who most recently served on Obama's VP search committee, was the CEO of Fannie Mae and has also made millions. These Clinton/Obama associates sat at the head of a failing financial agency all the while raking in millions and donating hundreds of thousands to top Democrats.

Have you no shame?

[JoeWPgh]

Have you no shame?

You can ask this question after citing Newsbusters?!?!?!?!?! This is a case of life imitating satire.

First of all Raines was never an Obama advisor. They both deny any connection other than a brief phone call. But in the whacked out world of Newsbusters, we are to ignore the statements of the actual individuals and take the word of Newsbusters. Johnson served on Obama's VP committee for all of two weeks and was asked to leave. I guess that proves Obama's a secret America hating Muslim or something - there's just no predicting how Newsbusters will 'interpret' their 'facts'.

Then there's Rick Davis' wee problem of getting paid by Fanny as late as last month - until Government auditors pulled the plug on that little deal. He claims he had severed ties with his lobby shop for the duration of the campaign, so he made nothing off the deal. His problem there is that it has come out that the McCain campaign has been paying Davis through his lobbying firm. Hardly a severed relationship, on it's face.

If there was anything resembling a brain at the top of the McCain campaign, they would have never uttered a word about Fanny/Freddy connections, because they're in it themselves - up to their eyeballs.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Did you read the Newsweek article I linked to? Rick Davis was getting paid personally -- in two ways, directly and as an "investor" in a side company that had the same address as his consulting business. He got more than $1,000,000, for doing nothing.

Yeah, McCain is fighting graft and corruption, fer sure...

For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling