Lying About Saints And Babies
Hillary lied about campaign contributions, Bosnia and her opponents’ records. McCain has taken it up a notch to test the tensility of the press’ protective envelope about him. He lied about both a future saint and babies.
The McCains generously adopted a child, Bridget, from Dhaka. That much we know. The story of it, prior to this campaign, was, as told by Cindy:
Mother Teresa has an orphanage in Dhaka. … [W]e saw 150 newborns on one floor. … And the nuns said, [This little girl with a cleft palate]–can’t you take her and get her medical help? And I thought, well, sure I can, I can do that.
A moving tale. It’s hard to deflate the appeal and value of that, and one would be wrong to try.
Similarly, it would be wrong to inflate it. It just so happens that is precisely what the McCain 2008 campaign did. As Cindy said, before they took it off the McCain Web site:
“While working at Mother Teresa’s orphanage in the early 1990s, I stumbled upon the most beautiful little girl I’d ever seen. … As only Mother Teresa can, she prevailed upon me to take this baby and another baby to the United States for medical care.”
On the Web site, it read:
On one of those missions, Mother Teresa convinced Cindy to take two babies in need of medical attention to the United States.
The claims, since the publication of the investigative article I linked to, have since vanished.
But the question lingers - why embellish? It’s generous enough to have done what she did. Why bring Mother Teresa into it unless it was purely a lie to increase one’s political prestige by association?
This incessant fabrication is getting pathological. It’s not enough to be pro-life now; you have to have a “25 year pro-life record” even though you don’t. It’s not enough to run against your opponent’s positions, you have to lie and say he’s not made his clear. Let me tell you, dear reader - when you so consistently avoid the truth, it’s because you have a lot to hide.
The only thing more pathetic is how the media pays absolutely no attention, preferring the spine-tingling surge of a shouting match to the substance of reasoned and productive debate.
It never stops, does it! As you say, it’s not enough to make a kind gesture, but now we have to amp up the volume and no Mother Teresa in sight to say yea or nay. I saw that pathetic ad by a “supposed” Clinton supporter now voting for McCain. What’s next, endorsements by the Yeti or Abominal Snowman on animal rights?
And there’s always the article in The O.C. Register noting that McCain is now trying to appeal to Hillary’s disenfranchised by saying that “Hillary was snubbed.” Hillary made me happy by coming out clearly and early and saying that “she was Hillary Clinton and she did not endorse that message.” Go, girl! How about a disenfranchised Bayh supporter — was it because he parted his hair on the wrong side? Or that Tim Kaine spells his name funny? I can hardly wait to see what they come up with next. It would be pathetic if it weren’t so frustrating and irritating!
Also mentioned in the Register was that McCain and his “second” wife sat and watched the Faith Forum tape in which McCain referenced his total regret at the failure of his first marriage. Is that why Cindy’s not in California? If I were her, I would be getting REALLY TIRED of putting up the funds and support and getting a pie in the face for her trouble.
Comment by Cranky Woman — August 25, 2008 @ 5:37 pm