Previous Next Latest

The Myth of Cantor’s Vetting

5/5/09, 11:31 am EST

A source close to the McCain campaign is telling me that the story that Eric Cantor — the “rising star” of the GOP — came anywhere near to being John McCain’s running mate in 2008 is bunk:

“The notion that Eric Cantor was somehow a high profile candidate for vice president is a complete and total joke,” a source close the top former leadership of the McCain campaign told me. “ He was never on the short list. Never vetted. But if you read the press today you would believe that Eric Cantor ever so close to being vice president. This was created by Cantor’s PR people. He’s got a ton of them.”

Cantor’s shameless self promotion is the source of bitter jokes among McCain veterans. “They just laugh about it,” says the source, who has long been a close observer of Cantor’s career. “When Cantor’s asked about it, he won’t comment directly about the vetting. He just hints and struts. It’s very revealing. Its’ the old politics: You get ahead by courting the spotlight without doing anything necessarily different or interesting. There’s nothing there.”


Previous Next Latest

Comments

Cosmic Charlie | 5/5/2009, 12:28 pm EST

A Republican who is all fluff and no substance. I’m shocked!

Brainspore | 5/5/2009, 12:59 pm EST

If I was associated with the McCain campaign I’d be doing everything I could to spread rumors that Palin wasn’t the first pick.

Cosmic Charlie | 5/5/2009, 3:08 pm EST

The McCain campaign vetted Palin on the back of a bar napkin, so I’m not sure I believe this excellently sourced story.

SCOTUS | 5/5/2009, 3:36 pm EST

Speaking of vetting:

—Governor Bill Richardson bows out of the running for Commerce secretary amid questions over a pay-to-play scandal.

—Hillary Clinton is appointed Secretary of State despite concerns there’s still no real transparency about her husband’s foundation accepting large donations from international donors and foreign governments.

—Timothy Geithner, appointed Treasury secretary, hit with major tax evasion problems.

—Nancy Killefer, who was to be appointed Obama’s “performance czar,” withdraws after it’s revealed she didn’t pay taxes on domestic help for over a year.

—Tom Daschle, HHS nominee, withdraws over serious tax evasion problems and not before several questions about his role as a high-paid influence peddler have been raised.

DirtyDennis | 5/5/2009, 5:06 pm EST

I thought this was a liberal blog. Who gives a whit about the GOP?

David | 5/5/2009, 6:50 pm EST

Elections always bring out a tremendous amount of partisanship. Now that the elections are over, we need to focus not on the parties but on getting things accomplished. Specifically, I want to see the new administration address severe poverty and health problems in developing countries.
The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

CleanCalvin | 5/6/2009, 1:45 am EST

I thought this was a conservative blog. Who gives a whit about global poverty?

SoothSayer | 5/6/2009, 2:35 pm EST

At least he didn’t claim to come under gunfire in Bosnia.

Dave | 5/6/2009, 3:51 pm EST

Calvin, you are stupid just like the rest of the conservative idiots who post on this blog. Get it through your thick skull:

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

Bojo10 | 5/6/2009, 6:32 pm EST

Eric “The Weasel” Cantor! Come on. He’s got a worst speech impediment than Palin. That’s all we need another wannabe Grass Roots, I’m a better Christian than you are moron. The results would have been the same. Eric Cantor V.P. Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha Ach! Cough! Cough! Sorry. HA! HA! HA! HA! you get the message.

McQueen | 5/6/2009, 11:46 pm EST

Bojo, this isn’t a “who’s a better Christian issue”, Cantor is jewish. Nonetheless, Rush Limbaugh is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party. They owe him big time for getting Obama and them in power. As long as Rush is the voice of the GOP, the Dems will rule. Keep it up Rush!!!

Kole Slaw | 5/7/2009, 12:56 pm EST

This happens all the time. Campaigns allow politicians to spread rumors about being vetted. LA Mayor Villaregosa was “rumoured” to be a Obama cabinet possability but had zero chance of ever being tabbed. In return Obama may call in this favor some time in the future. It’s called politics people!

Crazy Chester | 5/7/2009, 1:23 pm EST

Not one proponent of a single-payer health care system at the table for the Senate Health Care hearing this past Tuesday. What a crock! Kudos to the protesters who stood up at the hearing and let their voices be heard. More of us should follow their lead. I doubt the corporate media will cover the story, but you can check it out at You Tube.

Leroy Brown | 5/7/2009, 4:00 pm EST

Chester, I agree. It’s appauling to me, the lengths that these elected officials go to restrict our choice in health care. THEY get single-payer health, but we don’t? That’s weird. Plus, isn’t there a way we could OFFER single-payer, while allowing private health to continue? It’s akin to ‘checking a box for health care’ when you file your taxes. If you want it, check this box. If you’re happy with paying 150 bucks a month, don’t check this box.

It really could be that simple. Yet, the amount of money being made AS PROFIT in the current system creates a massive lobby akin to the oil industry.

Lobbyists restrict advancement. Remove the lobbying on national issues.

Leroy Black | 5/7/2009, 11:52 pm EST

Actually Leroy it would be more accurate to say, if you want the GOVERNMENT to control and ration your healthcare decisions and have other taxpayers pay for it, check here.

If you want to be free, check here.

DirtyDennis | 5/8/2009, 9:52 am EST

Free to do what? Obey the rules?

Leroy Brown | 5/8/2009, 11:53 am EST

Hey Black, you just don’t get it. Those that don’t want gov’t health care won’t pay a single dime for it. Those that do, they’ll pay extra when filing their returns.

It’s time to drop the “I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s health care” argument.

Besides, why would anyone be against paying less for health care? I just don’t get it.

“No thanks. I’d rather pay $150 bucks a month and then have to haggle over prescription prices.”

Go ahead Black. Enjoy your current system that disallows ANY FREEDOM whatsoever. You HAVE to buy health insurance. Does that sound like freedom?

Leroy Black | 5/8/2009, 12:35 pm EST

Brown, the implementation of govt. rationed care would virtually destroy all private insurance companies, largely due to the fact that employers would drop employee based health insurance.

Also, to argue that I should drop the “I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s health care” argument is nonsense. What you advocate is the confiscation the private property, through govt coercion, of individuals that choose (pro choice) not to participate in the spread the wealth schemes of redistribution.

Health care costs will skyrocket(ie Medicaid and Medicare) and the govt will then be forced to ration, as well to have the ability to regulate your life, for the good of the collective.

If you HAVE to buy health insurance, the why are 40 million people uninsured, considering they HAVE to pay for it?

Dennis: I forgot the govt never sets rules (ie banks, car industry)

Leroy Brown | 5/8/2009, 4:39 pm EST

Black: “What you advocate is the confiscation the private property, through govt coercion, of individuals that choose (pro choice) not to participate in the spread the wealth schemes of redistribution.”

So, it’s either one or the other? There’s not one single scenario that you see other than that? USPS vs. UPS? Ring a bell?

Despising government doesn’t mean that the private sector is doing any better. It’s still health care, either way.

Keep paying your 150 bucks a month Black. If Canada, and most of western Europe can do it, so can we.

Mayday | 5/8/2009, 6:59 pm EST

Big Bad Leroy, don’t sweat the small stuff. Yes, you’re right. Canada, western Europe, etc., have no problem with, and in fact, love their social health system. What you’re hearing is good old fashioned, irreasonable American sentimentality.

One must ask Mr. Black why he cares so much if the private health sector collapes. He does realize that its replacement, (in this extreme scenario) is gov’t hospitals, right? Ask him if HE’S ever been to one. Ask him if HE’S ever spoken to anyone from Canada, etc.

This country can have it both ways, and he knows it. He just despises government, at least when it’s democratically controlled.

Irrational Trivialities will Rule the Day as long as Republicans are holding their breath and stomping their feet.

Leroy Black | 5/8/2009, 11:41 pm EST

Yes, Brown it is either one. The USPS had a net loss of $2.8 Billion in 2008 and threatened to cut their services while at the same time will raise rates on May 11, 2009.

Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS – with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year.

And by the end of the decade 200,000 “health tourists” will fly as far as Malaysa and South Africa for major surgery to avoid long waiting lists and the rising threat of superbugs. Also, have you seen these people’s teeth? Of, course Canadians love their health care, because they come to America to get it.

Brown and Mayday, please use some logic and cite some facts, rather than appeal to the emotions (Oh, they love their health care, just look at their teeth and watch them die as they wait for treatments).

I don’t despise Govt., I despise TYRANNY.

Merkwurdigliebe | 5/9/2009, 2:02 am EST

Mayday– Their socialized medicine works because in many situations, its what their primary GDP is spent on. In Western Europe espescially, who’ve essentially turned their military operations over to the EU and NATO, they have tons more to spend on government health care. They also have vastly smaller populations than the US; the average EU country has about half just California or Texas’s popululation. Its easy to have total health care with so few people. Another problem is that the system works great, but only in times of abundance or low demand. When the need for something skyrockets, the availability of items becomes rationed, ala the UK with open heart surgery and Canada with beds for childbirth (Canada had to ship a majority of its expecting mothers across the border as they didnt have enough beds for everyone). So, the universal health care system aint all sh*ts and giggles either…

That said, I do think there is plenty of room for both a public and private system. Let them compete; the free market and the consumer will determine who is the better deal. If it can be accomplished without A)raising taxes, or B) Rationing/care descending into the lowest common denominator, then lets get on with it.

You’re right in that we can have it both ways, so long as there are a few ground rules and the plan is prudently implemented to do the greatest good for the greatest number…

Coach | 5/9/2009, 10:06 pm EST

How anybody can compare universal health care to tyranny is beyond belief. But, concerning this current argument about universal health care, the only two numbers I’m even remotely concerned about are these two:

1. Industrialized nations with Socialized health care live longer than we, in the United States, do.

2. Those same nations also, routinely, poll (according to Gallup) as being ‘happier’ than the United States of America.

Mayday | 5/9/2009, 10:11 pm EST

Coach, I’m not sure conservatives actually WANT people to live longer and be happier.

They want to give everybody guns, scare the bejesus out of people with scripture, and single out the ‘unamerican’ (gays, lesbians, immigrants, liberals….)

FACTS like those two polls you listed aren’t going to resonate with the Leroy Blacks of the world.

JP | 5/9/2009, 11:27 pm EST

i’m always humored by the republican line that… pssstt… did you know 1,000’s of canadians come to the US to get “real good” health care.

what BS.

and, to believe people who are paid off, bought off, and just plain jack off by the big health care industries is like a trailer trash white welfare woman with 5 kids by 4 different dads say they are republicans.

Universal | 5/10/2009, 8:23 pm EST

Not only do we need universal health care, but we also need universal mortgage payments/rent, universal cars, universal gas for my universal car, universal education, universal jobs, universal televisions and cable, universal internet, universal cell phones, universal books(of course they must be govt approved), universal airplane rides, universal guns, universal abortion, universal music and concert tickets, universal magazine subscriptions, and universal gallup polls telling us how happy everyone else is.

Does anyone have any other ideas of what else we can make universal?

That way everyone will be equal and someone else will have to pay for it. HOORAY!

Why Not | 5/10/2009, 11:17 pm EST

Hey Universal: You forgot to mention the push by the right to have universal guns, universal religion, UNuniversal sexuality, UNuniversal nationality, and UNuniversal opportunity.

Far as I can see, I’d MUCH rather live in the world you describe. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

Who Pays | 5/11/2009, 12:26 am EST

Hey Why Not: Who’s going to pay for it?

We Already Do | 5/11/2009, 5:45 pm EST

Ask the other industrial nations about it. Or, continue to listen to, and believe, the perpetrated propoganda from the doomsday scenarientists in the pharmaceutical industry. Either way, we’re already paying for universal health care that we don’t recieve.

Here’s a question for YOU:

Why are you so against something that’s NEVER been done in this country, but IS done elsewhere with great success (please don’t mention the few people that fly here for ’surgeries’). How can you be so sure it won’t work, when, it’s clear, that it works elsewhere?

Who Pays | 5/12/2009, 12:29 am EST

I love leftists, they always make their points and then tell others that disagree not to mention a valid point.

See: We Already Do | 5/11/2009, 5:45 pm EST

See: Leroy Brown | 5/8/2009, 11:53 am EST

Also, we are already paying for universal health care we don’t receive. WHAT?

Enough Already | 5/12/2009, 12:09 pm EST

I completely love ‘rightists’ that sit here and, pretentiously say, that public sponosored health care wouldn’t work.

Even though we already have it in the form of medicare and medicaid, they claim it wouldn’t work.

And, even though we’ve never had single-payer offered to everybody, they say it wouldn’t work.

How anybody can support our health care system is beyond me. It’s proven to be one of the world’s worst, aside from our plastic surgery industry, and exotic surgeries.

Merkwurdigliebe | 5/12/2009, 4:55 pm EST

Enough Already– I wouldnt point to the tax vacuums and incompetent boondoggles of Medicare and Medicaid as high points to be followed in a national system.

It seems foolish to me that one can believe that we can simply import European style healthcare, and that overnight all of our problems would vanish, without understanding fully how the Euro model “works”. There are serious faults in a national healht care system as well, problems that the proponents of it reluctantly, if ever, want to talk about, as it spoils the overal utopian image. The problesm of rationing, waiting lists, prioritizing, and the massive spending that would accompany such a program have to be addressed. European health care “succeeds” (which is a loaded term) because their GDP’s are structured differently to pay for it; on top of that, they also pay exhorbitant taxes. I dont forsee either happening in a plausible notion for the US anytime soon

A more proper, less costly solution, would be to regulate and reform our current system, and work on improving it as opposed to shouldering the America people with a tax burden in a recession. Again, every system has its problems…don’t look at it as if we sould implement nationalized health care, but what the result will be (realisitcally) if we implement said programs.

Maybe | 5/12/2009, 5:45 pm EST

Dear Enough Already, aren’t Medicare and Medicaid going broke?

Medicare is now paying out more than it receives, while trustees of the programs say that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year.

I wonder what will happen if we nationalize 1/7th of the US economy?

AND

Why should I be forced to pay for your health care?

Coach | 5/12/2009, 6:50 pm EST

Defense
Security
Health Care
Border Patrol
Port Inspections
Education
Roadwa ys
Air Traffic Control

Just a number of things that WE ALL PAY FOR, yet ‘Leroy Black’ is going to make a big deal about “not wanting to pay for somebody else’s health care”.

Why do you, Leroy Black, care so much about this, but not about the money that goes for paying for ‘other people’s safety and security’??

exile | 5/12/2009, 11:23 pm EST

—Hillary Clinton is appointed Secretary of State despite concerns there’s still no real transparency about her husband’s foundation accepting

good god

“concerns”

WTF

yo u repukes stalked Bill Clinton for the 8 years he was in office and very well liked (you are still steamed about that)and continually stalked for the 8 years little george was “in” office.

you wackos still follow him around to this day.

what | 5/13/2009, 11:14 am EST

Hey Enough Already,
Why should I be forced to pay for your health care, isn’t that your responsibility?

EA | 5/13/2009, 3:51 pm EST

What: Why are you okay with paying for everything else for everybody?
By your rationale, if you don’t live in a border state, you should be up in arms about having to pay for border security. Or, if you don’t drive on an interstate, you should be up in arms about paying for highway upkeep. Or, if you grow your own food, you should be up in arms about paying for port inspection.

And the money that you claim would be paying for ’somebody else’s health care’ would also pay for yours.

what | 5/13/2009, 5:36 pm EST

Hey Coach,
Of course WE ALL PAY for those things, becasuse no one person can provide for our defense, security, border patrol, roadways and air traffic control, Yet you as an individual can pay for your own health care and education (I know because I am paying for those things on an individual basis). So your saying that you aren’t responsible enough to pay for your own health care. BTW Health Care and Education should NOT be funded by the Federal govt. Why then should I not pay for your housing? You lose.

Dear exile, at least little george was never impeaced.

Anonymous | 5/13/2009, 5:55 pm EST

Jed Clampett

There is socialized health care in America for members of congress, government employees, military personnel and wards of the state such as prisoners.
Today, health care ‘providers’ are responsible for implementing the health care a person needs to regain their health, insurance companies make decisions on a daily basis trumping doctors over what tests or procedures are necessary. Yet no one is bothered by some rich guy in a corporate office with no medical background denying a cataract procedure for an elderly person.
We pay the highest fees for medicine and procedures in the world, yet are repeatedly shown the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the system. But apparently there is enough excess money in the system to provide insurers a healthy profit and CEO’s of Healthsouth with several BILLION dollars in bonuses.

Irrationality Rules The Day | 5/14/2009, 3:34 pm EST

Let’s contain a few of these current arguments by saying this:

America already practices socialized medicine, but it only goes to half of society.

Waterboarding is still illegal, no matter how it’s interpreted. It’s still listed as illegal, the laws never changed.

Marijuana will be legal soon, it’s as inevitable as same-sex marriage.

The amount of new income from legalizing marijuana combined with a cut in defense spending (bombs we never use) will be plenty of money to cover UNIVERSAL health care.

Being irrational about health care, same-sex marriage, and marijuana doesn’t solve anything.

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement