Too bad your name is not Cindy McCain. Because if it were you could request your own cell phone tower and then let your husband, who sits on the committee that oversees the telecom industry, deliver it to you.
In June, Verizon delivered a portable tower free of charge to the ranch property after an online request from Cindy McCain's staff.The "cell site on wheels" is ordinarily reserved for restoring service during emergencies.
AT&T brought in a tower in July.
2 Comments:
Apparently the Washington Post thinks it has an ethics violation to hold against Cindy McCain, wife of GOP presidential candidate John McCain. The Post is trying to claim that Cindy McCain somehow illicitly got a portable cell tower delivered to her remote Arizona ranch so that their phones would work there. The truth is, however, the Secret Service ordered up the portable cell tower, not Cindy McCain.
Even the words the Post uses to report the story prove somewhat weasely because, as the Post can't find any actual wrong doing, the story relies on vague ways of implying wrongdoing without actually saying it. In the end, there doesn't seem to be much there, there, but I suppose the Post had to justify the money it spent by publishing this non-story anyway.
The story starts right in with the vague verbiage of implied wrong doing. After saying that Cindy McCain sought to improve the cell reception around her "remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, Ariz" and that she did so "just as her husband launched his presidential bid," the Post tried to imply that it was all at undue costs. (bold mine)
"""Over the past year, she offered land for a permanent cell tower, and Verizon Wireless embarked on an expensive public process to meet her needs, hiring contractors and seeking county land-use permits."""
"Embarked on an expensive public process"? what can this be but a weasely way to imply that obscene costs are involved here and that maybe, just maybe these obscene costs are done just because Cindy McCain is privileged? But, let us be reminded that this "expensive" cost would have been at the expense of a private corporation. The government is not paying for this. So, if Verizon wanted to build a cell tower for the McCains, isn't it their right to do so?
This article is also a thinly veiled effort to paint McCain as an elitist. The Post is engaging in class warfare at its worst with this piece. It's the old she's-rich-so-she-gets-more-than-you argument...
http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/2008/10/16/wapo-tries-to-claim-cindy-mccain-unethical-for-erection-of-cell-phone-tower/
The Cindy McCain Cell Tower Story is Bogus. Of Course.
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/16/the-cindy-mccain-cell-tower-story-is-bogus-of-course/
Much ado about nothing, but the Post will STILL try to make it into "something."
Getting a cell phone tower somewhere doesn’t require hugh political connections. Heck, even churches are putting these in their steeples these days to get a little extra revenue.
Cindy offered her land FOR FREE for the cell tower. So, I’m sure Verizon thought that it might be feasible financially to embark on the public approval process (which isn’t that expensive). Cell companies often pay $12K per year in rent to landowners, so Verizon was getting something in the deal. When environmentalists got involved, that’s when it became expensive and Verizon dropped their plans. Now there is a temporary tower because the Secret Service requested it for security reasons.
Any landowner can approach a cell company and see if they are willing to put up a tower on their land. If the company wants to, they will embark on the “expensive” process of getting government approval to place a tower there. Washington Post is just plain stupid because they don’t understand how the real world works.
I experienced a similar problem. When I bought my iPhone, I first checked with “Got Reception?” (Gotreception.com) It’s a great resource for finding out where reception problems are most likely to occur BEFORE you lock yourself with a specific carrier.
Post a Comment