In A Word: No
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-08-27 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 679 references Ignore this thread
In A Word: No *
[Comments enabled]
Category thumbnail

Everyone is fawning over the deceased Senator from Arizona.

I will not be joining the party.

In fact, in my considered opinion he lived too long and the world is better for his passing.

Yeah, call me an asshole.  I don't care; I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are.

I don't base my view on his military service, nor on him being held in the Hanoi Hilton (or what he did while there.)  I've commented on that before during his Presidential run on these pages but it is neither the foundation of my extreme dislike of the man nor does it really modify anything, other than reinforce my basic opinion.

In my opinion John McCain was a self-serving bastard who didn't give a damn who got hurt or who he screwed as long as whatever he intended to do could advance what he wanted to obtain.

He ditched his first wife, who stayed faithfully married while he served and was imprisoned.  However, when she suffered a grievous accident through no fault of her own and was no longer pretty and thus not the sort of woman that a successful politician would want be seen with in public from a physical beauty perspective (as I judge to be his opinion, of course), and she never had been nor was at the time rich, he dumped her on his return to the United States for a women much younger, far prettier, uninjured, and a heiress who had a crap-ton of money to bankroll the start of his political aspirations.

If all that time apart had simply made for irreconcilable differences that might be able to be understood.  The raw power-seeking aspirational nature of who he hooked up with, however, never mind the timing and manner of his acts in that regard is quite another matter and belies both McCain's true intent and willingness to leave as much human wreckage behind as was necessary so long as he got what he wanted.

For that alone, in my opinion, John McCain deserves to burn in Hell.

Through his time in the House and Senate and indeed during his run for President he may have been known as a "maverick" but I think the better phrase to describe him is corrupt bastard.  May I remind you of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and the "Keating Five"?

In 1987 these men, McCain among them, got involved in a regulatory action against said bank on behalf of the Chairman and improperly intervened.  Two years later the bank collapsed, costing the federal government over $3 billion.  But far worse was the impact on bondholders and investors, many of whom were completely wiped out and left destitute.  Keating had made massive political contributions to all five.  While McCain escaped formal sanction by the Senate this was largely because he had taken office in the Senate after the salient events regarding those financial matters and thus the ethics committee claimed to lack jurisdiction.  The House Ethics committee ducked it as well, since he was now a Senator (despite having been in the House when the financial events happened.)  Fortuitous?  I suppose, but evading sanction by a bunch of limp-wristed worthless, corrupt cucks is not the same thing as not having done anything wrong.

Oh, and in the aftermath there were of course leaks intended to harm..... other politicians involved who happened to be Democrats. The GAO investigated and concluded McCain was responsible.  Of course nobody thinks that's a problem -- right?  Yet another example of "I don't give a damn who I burn or what sort of underhanded, backstabbing horsecrap I pull as long as I get what I want."  That's McCain for 'ya.

This pattern of leaks was to continue up until very recently -- from McCain.  It's funny how when you look at the Press though, or through Google, all you find in the search is leaks about McCain -- specifically, the leaked comment from the West Wing a few months ago that someone was glad he was dying.  Gee, where are all the other leaks that McCain himself committed along with improper influence and abuse of his office?  Buried down the memory hole, I see..... but the Keating incident, being infamous enough, is still findable if you know where to look.

Indeed it appears the only thing that stopped this pattern of outrageous conduct was McCain being rendered physically incapable of doing it anymore.  You know, by being on your deathbed and then (of course) dying!

Then there's the underhanded and arguably felonious urging of the IRS to use audits to destroy political opponents that came out of his Senatorial office -- including, specifically, Tea Party groups during Obama's Presidency.  His staff was caught doing it and proof is now out in the open in Judicial Watch's hands.  For that crap, in my view, he should be indicted, tried and hanged.  Of course you can't hang a dead person, so I guess this one goes to the guy in the Red Suit to adjudicate.

Of course it would be ridiculous to omit McCain's apparent involvement in the Steele Dossier.  While the book has not been closed on that as of this point it appears that taken as a whole the entire charade was a series of outrageously illegal acts intended to first subvert a federal election for President and then overthrow it's results -- and McCain's motive for being involved certainly looks like nothing more than pure, unbridled hatred.  I'm not sure I can actually count the number of likely felonies that will get tallied up when all is said and done on this and in any event that's another one for the guy in the Red Suit since you can't indict a dead man.

I should also point out McCain's trademark and decades-long condescending manner of speech.  In 2008, during the middle of the financial meltdown and an election season, he excused the banksters who ripped off the country and then voted for TARP.  When called on this the condescension came thick and fast, burying any criticism (including mine) under the old I'm smart, you're dumb, now shut the fuck up and get out of here tone of voice.

We'll top this off with McCain's long and sordid history of war-mongering but for those who are dead, too numerous to count as a consequence, it's certainly not last.  His advocacy and acts in this regard during his time in government have been incessant, outrageous, in many case based on lies and have gotten a lot of people killed.  I'm the first one to defend America but advocacy for wars and military actions that have no defined goals, no stated point at which they can be called at an end and at best a compromised justification (e.g. the Second Iraq incursion) are another matter.  We'll let the red suit guy adjudicate that one as well.

Rest in pieces, jackass -- let's see how the Ethics Committee of One passes judgement and unlike House and Senate committees he doesn't seem very amenable to mealy-mouthed excuses:

Go to responses (registration required to post)

No Comments Yet.....
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ