Audio: Kerry says McCain’s staff approached him about joining the 2004 ticket; Update: McCain camp, Newsweek dispute
posted at 2:00 pm on April 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Emphasis: they approached him. Admittedly, we’ve got a not-very-credible source here in Waffles, but there does seem to be an awful lot of corroboration for the rumors about McCain’s aide, John Weaver, being unusually chatty with Democrats about rescuing Maverick from the clutches of the Republican Party. And not all of that corroboration is recent, i.e., election-flavored: Daschle first mentioned it in a book published four years ago, and WaPo did a story about it as far back as 2001.
Now here’s Kerry with another story about McCain wanting to jump ship, this time in the grandest way possible.
Fred!’s only two points behind St. John in the new Rasmussen poll (although no one’s quite sure why). This ought to change that.
Update: McCain admitted in 2004 — to Rush Limbaugh, no less — that he’d “entertain” the idea of a fusion ticket, but here’s how he played it off on “Good Morning America”:
“It’s impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk. … They’d have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen.”
If it’s impossible, why did Weaver (allegedly) approach Kerry?
Update: Weaver and J-Mac chief of staff Mark Salter have already hooked up with TownHall for a quickie interview to deal with this. According to them, it was Waffles who first approached McCain (in 2003) about a fusion ticket and offered him the sun, the moon, and the stars to bring him onboard. A Newsweek article published in 2004 corroborates their story, with Kerry allegedly having told McCain’s camp that he wanted “plausible deniability” at having made the offer in case McCain turned it down. Wouldn’t both sides have wanted plausible deniability, though? Pro-war sentiment wasn’t exactly sky high among the left in 2004.
Also, how’s about this from the TownHall interview:
“At no point did John consider it. Not for a nanosecond,” said Weaver.
Not even for a second? Then why did he tell Rush, “Obviously, I would entertain it” at the time?
Update: Since we’re piling on McCain, check out the Iraqi shopkeepers at the Shorja market unloading on him for pretending that security has improved in Baghdad. Although one of them did see fit to damn him with faint praise:
“Although these U.S. officials were using this visit for their propaganda to tell the Americans ‘we are gaining progress here don’t worry,’ it left a kind of good impression with some of us,” he said. “They are at least better than Iraqi officials who never venture out their Green Zone to talk to normal people and see their problems. I hope that this visit will encourage Iraqi officials to leave their fortified houses inside the Green Zone.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
this is nothing new
the MSM was salivating over every detail about this
Defector01 on April 3, 2007 at 2:03 PM
And his team thought the first quarter fundraising was bad?
I have my doubts whether McCain will make it to New Hampshire.
Slublog on April 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Does this surprise ANYONE? He’s tried every chance he’s had to switch sides. Traitorous scum. Watch that slimeball run 3rd party.
Bad Candy on April 3, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Honestly, McCain probably should get on a Democrat ticket. A lot of libs like him and might vote him in.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 2:15 PM
McCain should get out today and stop wasting our time.
rplat on April 3, 2007 at 2:18 PM
WOW, big shocker!!
gmaninatl on April 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Yeah, all my super lefty friends are always like “You know, I don’t really mind John McCain. Why don’t Republicans like him?”
He would be better as a Democrat.
Enrique on April 3, 2007 at 2:28 PM
So now he is a traitor? What crimes has he committed?
Bradky on April 3, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Seems like all it would take is someone to ask McCain if it’s true. I don’t think he’d lie about it because Kerry probably has the evidence to back up his charges.
One thing is odd about it. If Kerry did have proof of this, why wouldn’t he ( and Daschle ) wait until McCain was nominated and then totally destroy his chances of becoming president by dropping this bombshell?
Perchant on April 3, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Oh c’mon, not traitor in the legalistic sense, traitor in the ‘you sold us out’ type, but you knew that already.
Bad Candy on April 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Good job by Singer to absolutely confirm waffles’ recollection of the event. He implicated McCain’s campaign manager, John Weaver, by name.
He is a traitor to conservatism which should be a crime among primary voters.
Valiant on April 3, 2007 at 2:46 PM
This is not true…If there is one person on this earth that John McCain absolutely hates it is John Kerry, and for obvious reasons…This is just not to be believed.
DoctorDentons on April 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM
There is something about John McCain which makes me very queasy. I would trade John McCain and Chuckles Hagel for Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.
Hilts on April 3, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Not quite sure that’s true. After all, McCain defended Kerry against the Swift Boaters and defended his record on national defense.
Slublog on April 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM
One guy who went through hell on earth in the Hanoi Hilton, running with Jane Fonda’s blow buddy.
Quite a pair. All that’s missing is the rubber pants and the whips.
Labamigo on April 3, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I can’t get to the Rasmussen page, can anyone say what the poll results were?
RW Wacko on April 3, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Everyone would know about Fred Thompson if they read all the facts at IMAO.
I just don’t see McCain getting the nomination; it relies on us having too short a memory.
frankj on April 3, 2007 at 3:05 PM
The word traitor has been used so liberally that it has lost the stark meaning it once had. Benedict Arnold, Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, the Walker father and son team… those are real traitors.
I don’t like McCain for a couple of different reasons regardless of which party he is claiming to be in.
Bradky on April 3, 2007 at 3:15 PM
rplat on April 3, 2007 at 3:36 PM
And treason has become so common from Democrats that it has lost the stark meaning it once had. It’s not something that happens in the shadows anymore. Heck, the Democrats chose the male Jane Fonda as their presidential nominee last time.
Perchant on April 3, 2007 at 3:42 PM
All Democrats are traitors? Again? What specific charges makes you say that. How exactly was Kerry a traitor? Poor candidate and someone whose ideas I didn’t agree with - yes. But if the best you can do in the way of debate is to use labels there is no point in debating. Gets a little boring to hear it over and over as well.
Bradky on April 3, 2007 at 3:46 PM
“I actually didn’t ask McCain to join my 2004 ticket, before I asked him to.”
RightWinged on April 3, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I agree with DoctorDentons on April 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM.
McCain’s not my guy I, but if Kerry says it, it must be a lie.
georgej on April 3, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Bradky said: “All Democrats are traitors? Again? What specific charges makes you say that. How exactly was Kerry a traitor?”
Let’s take these one at a time.
“All Democrats are traitors?”
Not all. About 25% of the rank and file, and all the party leadership.
“Again? What specific charges makes you say that.”
Aiding abetting Al Qaeda since the 2003 invasion. Giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war. Actively sabotaging the war in Congress by (1) attemtping to defund a “hot war” while American troops are in combat, (2) openly undercutting the President by “separate diplomacy” in violation the Logan Act, and (3) by unathorized contact by Rep. Jim McDermott with Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion following Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s divulging of our war plan to Saddam’s ally, Assad, in Syria.
“How exactly was Kerry a traitor?”
Kerry went to Paris in 1971 to coordinate the activities of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War with the government of North Vietnam. In addition, John Kerry committed perjury under oath that American’s were wantonly, repeatedly, and with command approval, openly committing war crimes on the people of South Vietnam. Finally, John Kerry, as a national director of the VVAW, at a meeting of the board of directors, voted on a proposal to MURDER SIX UNITED STATES SENATORS. Further, as required by law, John Kerry failed to notify the FBI that his organizatin was conspiring to commit sedition.
John Kerry did all these things as a RESERVE OFFICER of the UNITED STATES NAVY.
Why John Kerry sits in the United States Senate instead of having long ago, kicked his last at the end of a rope after having put to death for treason, I’ll never understand.
Does this answer your questions, sir?
georgej on April 3, 2007 at 4:10 PM
No, it doesn’t really answer them, sir.
(a) What empirical data do you have to define 25% of all Democrats as traitors?
(b)What credible sources support your claims about Kerry?
(c)You are adding your interpretation of aiding and abetting to the three actions you described regarding members of congress.
Just as the 9-11 truthers can’t prove all their claims, I can’t accept your explanations without that credible source information. And the fact that you start off with “25% of the rank and file” leads me to believe you don’t have the credible sources.
Bradky on April 3, 2007 at 4:31 PM
What empirical data do you have to define 25% of all Democrats as traitors?
Ya! That number seems low to me!
TheBigOldDog on April 3, 2007 at 5:09 PM
As for what credible sources support those statements about Kerry–I highly suggest you look for yourself. Those statements are NOT in dispute, by anyone, that I know of. Kerry was used for propaganda by the North Veitnamese, and he gladly participated. If that’s not treason, what is?
Vanceone on April 3, 2007 at 5:48 PM
So smear and innuendo are what is important, not facts? If you are so convinced about this you should have seen at least one or two sources which caused you to decide this. Or is reading it on the internet enough?
I do note that you don’t offer anything at all to support the other two claims.
Riiiiiight.
Bradky on April 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Bradky asks:
“(a) What empirical data do you have to define 25% of all Democrats as traitors?”
We had this discussion before, remember? I responded with my estimate that between 15% and 25% of rank and file Democrats are traitors. Why do I think this?
From: Investor’s Business Daily poll published 2/16/07:
Question: “How important is a US victory in Iraq.” 53% of Democrats answered “very important” or “somewhat important” in February, 2007.
100% - 53% = 47% of Democrats DO NOT THINK IT IMPORTANT THAT THE US WINS IN IRAQ.
Interestingly enough, in the IBD poll taken in December 2006, this percentage was 53% of Democrats DO NOT THINK IT IMPORTANT THAT THE US WINS IN IRAQ.
I was giving you Democrats the benefit of the doubt…..
“(b)What credible sources support your claims about Kerry?”
Are you a truther, too?
Kerry’s statements concerning claims of rampant US war crimes were made before the Fullbright committee while under oath, and are a matter record. Google it!
Concerning the other points I made…
From: The Boston Globe, “Kerry spoke of meeting negotiators on Vietnam,” by Michael Kranish and Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, March 25, 2004
From: NY Daily Sun, “HOW KERRY QUIT VETERANS GROUP AMID DARK PLOT When Talk Turned To Assassination He Exited, Vet Says,” by Thomas Lipscome, March 12, 2004.
From: WorldNetDaily, “FBI verifies Kerry at ‘assassination summit’; Records back claim he was at meeting that discussed killing senators,” by Scott Stanley Jr, March 23, 2004.
Are these credible enough?
Some of the FBI files in question can be viewed at http://www.paperlessarchives.com/john_kerry.html
Here’s more, from the Opinion Journal, “Kerry’s Other War Record His antiwar activities deserve more scrutiny from the press,” by John Fund, March 29, 2004
The above article describes all 3 issues in detail.
As to you statement: “And the fact that you start off with “25% of the rank and file” leads me to believe you don’t have the credible sources.”
I’m guessing that you’re a liberal Democrat or a “truther.”
Further, I also don’t give a crap if YOU think my sources are credible or not. You seem to be in denial of the truth.
georgej on April 4, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Uh, what happened to my post that I made at around 1am?
georgej on April 4, 2007 at 6:51 AM
(a) The poll about the importance of winning in Iraq mentions nothing about traitors, this is your warped interpretation. 1+1=3 if you will.
(b)If the FBI knew of this plot, why didn’t they prosecute? Innocent till proven guilty still is a core of our constitution. Apparently the FBI didn’t feel there was enough evidence to prosecute.
(c) You must give a crap about what I think if you are staying up till 1:36 a.m. to put your scree together and checking it the first thing when you wake up.
You seem to be in denial of more than I am.
Bradky on April 4, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Bradky:
“(a) The poll about the importance of winning in Iraq mentions nothing about traitors, this is your warped interpretation. 1+1=3 if you will.”
If half of the Democrats do not want America to win, then who do they want to win in Iraq? There is only one other choice for them: they must wish the enemy to win. Given the ACTIONS of the Democrats in Congress, it is obvious who they want to win. So, if you are rooting for your country’s enemies, what are you?
1+1=2.
I meant it when I said that I was giving most Democrats the benefit of the doubt and only labeling between 15% and 25% of them as traitors, when I could easily have defended the proposition that about HALF of the Democrats are. Further, their position on the subject is clear, given the party line votes that the party’s leaders (including all but a few their elected officials in Congress and the Senate) are acting as traitors as well by enabling Al Qaeda’s victory. Their behavior speaks for itself, just like they did in Vietnam.
“(b)If the FBI knew of this plot, why didn’t they prosecute?”
You should ask them. The facts, as I have stated them, are the facts. That reality does not agree with your perception is YOUR problem, not mine.
“Innocent till proven guilty still is a core of our constitution. Apparently the FBI didn’t feel there was enough evidence to prosecute.”
Nevertheless, what is, is.
“You must give a crap about what I think if you are staying up till 1:36 a.m”
Don’t flatter yourself.
Given your reaction to others on Hot Air on this and other topics, I have come to the conclusion that you are a liberal Democrat. Therefore, I decided to (1) place the facts about John Kerry on the record for others here to use in future discussions with you concerning facts about the Democratic Party’s 2004 candidate for President, and (2) to watch you try to dance, dance, dance in denial.
You haven’t disappointed me, BTW.
What does it say about Democrats in general when they nominate a man who (1) met with our enemy’s government in violation of the UCMJ during a time of war, (2) plotted with an anti-war organization — of which HE was a national director — to ASSASSINATE 6 US Senators, in violation of the US Code, and (3) lied under oath claiming that his “brothers in arms” were committing war crimes with the approval of the chain of command?
What does it say about the LOYALTY of the party membership as well as their leadership when they KNOWINGLY go to the primary polls to nominate a man whose entire career in public life was devoted to undermining the US military and intelligence services as a Senator, who openly supported the communist regime in Nicaragua, who openly supported the unilateral disarmament of the United States, and generally took the side of America’s enemies each and every time he was given the opportunity?
What does it say about the Democratic Party when they nominate a man whose photograph is on the wall of heroes of our former enemy’s war museum?
What it pointedly says about the Democrats is that they are NOT a patriotic party; that they are willing to elect a man who has already — OPENLY — violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL ENEMIES. If the Democrats are willing to elect such a man to the post of Commander-in-Chief in their quest for political power, then one can hardly be blamed for believing that the Democrats are disloyal. That is what the evidence says.
You know, if your party WERE loyal Americans, they would have nominated a patriot like Joe Lieberman in 2004. But, instead, they nominated a liar and a traitor instead and in 2006, attempted to remove Lieberman from office.
Lieberman proves that it is possible to be a political liberal AND a patriot. But not as a Democrat.
Cased proven.
BTW, when I choose to post ought not to concern you. Be glad that I bothered to educate you, instead.
georgej on April 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM