Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody thinks that drinking and driving is a good thing. However, I do not have a problem with the idea of McCain's wife owning a beer distrubtion company. I like beer and know how to drink it responsibily, so who cares.
However, I do find the resistance of American beer Co's to publishing the alcoholic content of beer a bit odd. I frequent some nicer bars that specialize in Microbrews and European beers and they almost always list the alcoholic content. I find it helpful in drinking responsibly, as a sensible person knows that there is a bit of a difference between consuming 3 pints of a 4.5%ABV lager and 3 pints of an 8%AVB Belgian Ale (and no, I would not drive after either).
McCain has recused himself for many years on alcohol issues in the Senate. As president, however, McCain would face far more difficulty distancing himself from an issue with such broad scope.
Public interest groups that lobby on alcohol issues say it will clearly be inappropriate for the McCain family to continue running or owning the company if McCain is elected.
"In a lot of government agencies, there is a concern about undue influence played by a regulated industry," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America. "But it has not been to the point that the president's wife owns a majority share of a company that is lobbying an agency."
Ralph Vartabedian's article in the Los Angeles Times solicits readers to be suspicious of a McCain administration, promoting the idea that he would be signing laws that strengthen beer distributor's profits and their implied opposition to the "responsible drinking" message.
This is as much a political fear tactic as it is a real concern for issues on alcohol consumption in America.
Pure Hogwash. Next it will be said that beer distributors are responsible for Barack Obama's excessive drinking when he was younger.
Ralph Vartabedian's article in the Los Angeles Times solicits readers to be suspicious of a McCain administration, promoting the idea that he would be signing laws that strengthen beer distributor's profits and their implied opposition to the "responsible drinking" message.
This is as much a political fear tactic as it is a real concern for issues on alcohol consumption in America.
Pure Hogwash. Next it will be said that beer distributors are responsible for Barack Obama's excessive drinking when he was younger.
So, if the President were married to, say, a lobbyist for NAMBLA, that would be all right with you?
So, if the President were married to, say, a lobbyist for NAMBLA, that would be all right with you?
Ha Ha, Sometimes you really amaze me delusianne. This proposition is off the deep end - even for you.
I hardly think you can compare NAMBLA to the beer industry. Do you think that distributing beer is immoral? Are you saying that President's and their spouses shouldn't be able to invest in the stock market?
If a candidate's spouse was a lobbyist for NAMBLA, that candidate would never be elected.
This is what I said:
Ralph Vartabedian's article in the Los Angeles Times solicits readers to be suspicious of a McCain administration, promoting the idea that he would be signing laws that strengthen beer distributor's profits and their implied opposition to the "responsible drinking" message.
This is as much a political fear tactic as it is a real concern for issues on alcohol consumption in America.
Pure Hogwash. Next it will be said that beer distributors are responsible for Barack Obama's excessive drinking when he was younger.
If a candidate's spouse was a lobbyist for NAMBLA, that candidate would never be elected.
The point is, you should have a concern about a person with close ties to a particular industry or company in the White House. Doesnt matter for whom. Even advisors have to cut their corporate ties. Look at poor Dick Cheney, he'd already left Halliburton months before Inauguration Day 2000.
Last edited by delusianne; 08-18-2008 at 01:17 PM..
Reason: wrong word
I do understand the concern of a politician being to close to a particular industry, however, I do not think this warrants the hand-wringing that is currently being expended. It seems that McCain handled this appropriately before, and last I checked, the president of the united states generally doesn't get too involved in the regulation of alcoholic beverages. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for McCain, this is not one of them.
The real issue for McCain and MADD is at the local level. It is very hard for local government to be anything other then pro MADD. All you need is one teenage traffic fatality and a failure as a local leader to support MADD to the nth degree and you have a problem. Especially away from big cities. If MADD ever got into the campaign actively supporting Obama then they would be effective in challenging McCains family business interest at the LOCAL level.
Being anti-MADD myself, I would view that as a plus.
Me too and I don't even drink. Go get 'em McCain!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Go get 'em McCain!
