...and they want you to make her First Lady of the USA??
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): ...and they want you to make her First Lady of the USA??
In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to opioid painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin, which she initially took to alleviate pain following two spinal surgeries for ruptured discs and to ease emotional stress during the Keating Five scandal, which involved her as a bookkeeper who had difficulty finding receipts. The addiction progressed to where she resorted to stealing drugs from her own AVMT.
During 1992, Tom Gosinski, the director of government and international affairs for AVMT, discovered her drug theft. Subsequently in 1992, her parents staged an intervention to force her
to get help; she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treatment facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of active addiction. A hysterectomy in 1993 resolved her back pain.
In January 1993, McCain terminated Gosinski's employment on grounds of budgetary reasons. In spring 1993, Gosinski tipped off the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate McCain's drug theft, and a federal investigation ensued. McCain's defense team, led by Washington lawyer John Dowd, secured an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that limited her punishment to financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program, without any public disclosure.
Oh, for pete's sake, Bea. Thousands of people become addicted to prescription pain meds every year. It's one of the risks of that kind of medication, which the medical world is very aware of. Yes, stealing the drugs was morally and legally wrong. But, with help, she overcame her addiction. If she becomes First Lady (and I certainly hope she doesn't), she wouldn't be the first First Lady who had and overcame addiction problems. As for Gosinski, it does seem interesting that he didn't report the drug theft until after he had been fired (possibly for whistle-blowing about the drug theft), after she had faced and begun to overcome her addiction. Nor would she be the first person under investigation to enter into a plea bargain. Sounds to me like a very typical and probably reasonable plea bargain, given that both the addiction and theft had ended and, I suspect, other than Gosinski's testimony, there probably wasn't much evidence. "[W]ithout any public disclosure"? Wonder who broke the law by revealing the information about Cindy McCain's plea bargain? The Keating 5 involvement - again, I have a more tolerant view. She is by no means the first "support staff" person who participated in a cover-up to protect her bosses, nor, sadly, the last. Again, morally and legally wrong, but understandable.
None of which has anything to do with your headline - do we want to make her First Lady. Personally, no. Not for any of the reasons you cite, but because I don't want another 4 years of Bush-type policies coming from the White House. I want this misbegotten war directed by someone who understands that we should get out of Iraq, I want a president who does understand something about economics and doesn't think "tax breaks" actually produce more revenue (they don't, and I can cite numerable sources), and who understands that the health insurance and health care crisis in this country can't be solved by throwing more money at profit-making health insurance companies.
Given that a First Lady has no official position and has very little influence on laws, policies or regulations, I tend to Queen Victoria's view - I don't care a whole lot what she does as long as she doesn't do it in the street and scare the horses. At least Cindy McCain knows better than to go around saying "just say no" about a serious issue like drug addiction.
My voting choices are not made on the basis of the candidate's spouse, except that who the candidate is married to does say something about the candidate's choice-making tendencies. I am much more bothered by information that alleges that McCain had several extra-marital affairs while married to his first wife, who was permanently injured in a car accident while he was a POW, and that one of those affairs was with Cindy McCain, whom he married a month after his divorce from his first wife. Not an uncommon series of events, but it does say something about the character of the candidate. It does seem, however, from everything I have read, that the McCains have an admirable marriage, and that Cindy McCain has done many admirable things with her life and her personal wealth since their marriage. Maybe both of them learned some lessons and decided to get their acts together.
I have history I wouldn't want "out there" (as, I am sure, does everyone else). What is important, in my life and the McCains' lives, is that they both appear to have overcome earlier behaviors. I haven't read anything about anything either of them has done since the investigation into Cindy McCain's drug issues that would be major character flaws in my eyes. I still won't vote for McCain, but neither Cindy McCain's long-past history nor McCain's extra-marital affairs over 25 years ago influence my choice.
By the way, Bea, your post looks like a cut-and-paste from another source. It would be helpful if you would cite your source, both so that readers can determine if they consider it a reliable source, and for copyright reasons.
Betty Ford was first lady. Ann Richards was a recovering alcoholic and governor of Texas.
Cindy McCain is fairly forthcoming now about her addiction problem and how she overcame it.
I don't think her past troubles with addiction would make her a bad first lady. They just might make her a better one.
I am a little confused as to why the fact that she became addicted while under stress was underscored. Is it somehow worse to that she became addicted while under stress? Are there circumstances in which addiction is more acceptable?
The more I think about this, the angrier I get. I had a terrible thing happen to me and unfortunately turned to alcohol to help me 'forget' and deal with the stress. I had never been a drinker prior, but I definitely became addicted. It took a few years, but I was able to overcome it. Does that mean that I shouldn't be first lady? (and God forbid..who would really want the job if you have to deal with cr@p like this!)
I agree with Ginny and Annie here.
Some people want Bill to be the first lady. Gee, hmmm the first lady's job is to entertain the wives of other dignitaries. Can our womanizer Bill handle that job with the grace needed? Should we just add an extra bedroom for him to use?
I guess this is just one more reason to Vote for Obama. Just give me the Big O!
LOL Kaye, hadn't thought about Bill. He definitely has a past that would make one leary about him entertaining the wives! ;)
Ginny - Regarding your third paragraph, I totally agree and that is why when Hillary talks about her "thirty five years of experience", it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time. Just being the wife of a former President does not qualify you to "take over on Day 1".
My husband was a soldier for thirty years. Does that me that I could be a platoon sergeant and lead men into battle?
I am so fed up with all of them. I, too, have no respect for McCain because of his infidelity (and other things). I think that Michelle Obama is an angry, militant woman with a chip on her shoulder, and very "unAmerican" ideology. And the idea of the Hil-Billy's in the White House again makes me sick.
Take a good look at the spouse when you consider a candidate. That person is the President's closest advisor. Theresa Heinz Kerry helped greatly to defeat her husband's campaign. Talk about a loose cannon!!
Hol, what would be done with Bill is something I've thought about a lot, too. As for Michelle Obama, I don't think she is angry or militant, or "unAmerican". She made one poorly phrased remark, which has been misquoted and misinterpreted all over the internet. That's the only thing I know of that gives people fodder for the charge she is "unAmerican". Most of us say stupid things or say things in unconsidered ways that leave them open to negative misinterpretation at various times - we just don't have them put on TV and the internet.
Personally, I really resent that the news media spends so much time picking apart the few stupid remarks the candidates (or their spouses) have made. And they are few, because the same ones keep being recycled. I don't know why the media focuses so much on trivia (like Hillary's neckline or Obama's bowling score) rather than issues, except that they think we're so stupid that we'll think the trivia is important. If you think about it, you'll probably remember more print and broadcast time about, for example, Hillary's stupid misstatement about Bosnia than her health care coverage or economic policies. Which is more important?
Yesterday the Washington Post pubished an entire column in which the writer was, essentially, criticizing Chelsea Clinton because she is, according to this writer, "out of step" with her generation. The writer, herself a member of the same generation, describes her generation as "We're ironic, sarcastic and self-deprecating, a reflection of the pop culture and politics that played out while we grew up in the 1980s, 1990s and onward.", and laments that Chelsea doesn't fit this mold. Here is a young woman who has nothing in her closet to be ashamed of, no record of, for example, underage drinking, and the only thing a writer can find to criticize her for is that she keeps her private life private, and doesn't fit the writer's mold for her generation. This is the kind of media nonsense that drives me up the wall.
As for Kerry, in my opinion he was defeated by things like the Swift Boaters and the out and out lies that were told about his VietNam service by the Swift Boat group and other groups. That he sounds like an intellectual - someone you'd drink wine with, rather than someone you'd have a beer with - didn't help. So the country elected someone they'd rather have a beer with. Are we better off?
|
Members
