McCain: To be or not to be…
According to the New York Times, Senator John McCain has problems with that classic statement when it comes to ethics:
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
Please read the entire article. All I can say after reading the article is this:
Mike Huckabee and his campaign may have the opening they were looking for and needed if this story has legs (which in today’s media, it probably will).
UPDATE #1
I agree wholeheartedly with Big Tent Democrat’s assessment of the sexual angle of this story. Why is it needed? Well I know the answer but it still sickens me. Sex scandals are beyond tired. They are used up. The real issue of this story and if it will have legs throughout this election season are what I said in the comments:
I think that the story is “appearances of ethical impropriety” from a man that says he stays away from that.
And that’s fair game.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
27 Responses to “McCain: To be or not to be…”
Is this really a story? Or is it just about “appearances of impropriety” and the weird quandaries it places McCain in?
I think that the story is “appearances of ethical impropriety” from a man that says he stays away from that. I think there is a unneeded sexual angle in the story that just irritates me.
But in this campaign, it is fair game (although a nasty game) to challenge someone in doing/saying one thing and apparently doing/saying another thing. Especially with the recent issues with Republicans and ethics (i.e. Abramhoff).
Yeah, I have no interest in McCain's romantic life. It's only a story for me if there is actual evidence of influence peddling in an unethical manner.
This is LITERALLY a story with “legs.”
McCain has a history of being a womanizer(here and here, but he isn't a hypocrite who rants about “family values”. Thisstory isn't a big deal, now the timing is interesting after the NYT endorsed McCain.
Isn't it also an issue of hypocrisy, esp. for the Republicans? With so many of their members retiring or resigning due to improprieties that reflect poorly on really walking the walk rather than just talking the talk, I would think this rumored behavior falls into that trap as well.
I suppose you're right, T. McCain even mentioned in his memoir that he needed avoid the appearance of impropriety because of the Keating Five incident. So did he not understand that being seen with a telephone lobbyist all the time might look suspicious – enough to worry his aides? Seems to be a lack of judgment in there somewhere. Probably not a huge deal, honestly, but not the sort of thing McCain wants out in the press now that he's consolidating the nomination.
Unless there was sexual abuse – which isn't mentioned – I'm not that interested in what someone may or may not have done with another adult almost 10 years ago, and agree that it shouldn't have been the focus of the story.
Should the story be discussed at this point in the campaign? Of course. Deciding on a candidate, one should know how they've conducted their previous years in public office. I'd be just as interested in articles regarding Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were they offered.
Unfortunately, media that cover negative (or “unwise”) points in a politician's career become labelled as biased, while the politician starts defending against the audaciousness of the source's hidden intent rather than the facts discussed.
Wait, wait, wait. OK, let me get this straight.
Blow-jobs and cigars shoved up the twat of a young intern by the sitting President in the Oval Office are a-ok (when it is a Democrat), but we are now supposed to get our knickers twisted in a tizzy over an 'appearance of impropriety' by a Republican candidate?
Move along you looky-loos. No double standards to see here.
Did you fully read my post AustinRoth? I said this story only has legs IF there are issues of ethical impropriety. The whole sex angle is a bunch of nonsense to me and shouldn't have been mentioned.
Austin, I think virtually every person who commented said that the sex angle was unimportant overall.
I was commenting on the press, not the comments here. And the point is valid. Does someone want to argue the position that what Clinton did was not ethical impropriety, but if McCain has had an affair, that is?
The argument put forth during the Clinton sex scandal(s) was that sexual scandals are soooo passe and American, and say nothing about whether a person is fit to govern. We were told to be so much more like the French about such things, oui?
So, please tell me how this is not a double standard? Actually, I think if he DID do something, it DOES say something about his character and fitness, just as I thought it did for Clinton. Maybe that is just me
[...] Blog, Attytood, Power Line, Hot Air, TalkLeft, The New Republic, Hullabaloo, Megan McArdle, The Moderate Voice, Firedoglake, protein wisdom, TIME: Swampland, michellemalkin.com, Prairie Weather, Booman Tribune, [...]
Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! The instinctual reaction. Rather than talk about a story on the basis of its inherent facts, you present a contradiction tthat none of the posters here have actually demonstrated, and then suggest yourself that the media has a double standard when they were just as obsessed with Clinton, even more so perhaps. The truth is John McCain, after being implicated in the Keating Five scandal, got into some sort of relationship with a telecom lobbyist and that isn't an issue of personal choices, that's an issue of possibly severe corruption. You're literally staging an argument no one is having because of the natrural, instinctive reaction of rank & file folks to go 'Clinton did it too.' Who here even supports Bill Clinton? You went into outright obscenity in order to avoid actually facing John McCain and his actions as will be investigated in the coming days.
Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! The instinctual reaction. Rather than talk about a story on the basis of its inherent facts, you present a contradiction tthat none of the posters here have actually demonstrated, and then suggest yourself that the media has a double standard when they were just as obsessed with Clinton, even more so perhaps. The truth is John McCain, after being implicated in the Keating Five scandal, got into some sort of relationship with a telecom lobbyist and that isn't an issue of personal choices, that's an issue of possibly severe corruption. You're literally staging an argument no one is having because of the natrural, instinctive reaction of rank & file folks to go 'Clinton did it too.' Who here even supports Bill Clinton? You went into outright obscenity in order to avoid actually facing John McCain and his actions as will be investigated in the coming days.
Austin: If any of the candidates cheated on their spouse in the past, I would want to know. The more recent that it occurred, the more weight it would have in my opinion of their character. As has been said, there were more facts in the article that were of interest than the allegations of an intimate relationship with Ms. Iseman.
The media leans towards an angle in a given story based on how much they think it will “sell” that story to their intended audience. Today's audiences pay more attention to scandals of romance than they do of political corruption. Add the two together, though, and it makes it easier for them to remember both.
Perhaps it's not quite yellow journalism; it's not pure white journalism either. Maybe, it's more of an antique white. It's been around for a while
.
Austin: If any of the candidates cheated on their spouse in the past, I would want to know. The more recent that it occurred, the more weight it would have in my opinion of their character. As has been said, there were more facts in the article that were of interest than the allegations of an intimate relationship with Ms. Iseman.
The media leans towards an angle in a given story based on how much they think it will “sell” that story to their intended audience. Today's audiences pay more attention to scandals of romance than they do of political corruption. Add the two together, though, and it makes it easier for them to remember both.
Perhaps it's not quite yellow journalism; it's not pure white journalism either. Maybe, it's more of an antique white. It's been around for a while
.
HappySurge, I agree with you. Monica and Bill had a consensual whatever and Monica didn't expect Clinton to use his position of power to sway Congress to grant her (or in the case of Vicki, Vicki's employer) contracts or write letters to regulators on her behalf.
I don't know if there is a sex angle between McCain and Vicki, but you don't have to be romantically involved with someone to grant favors. After all, I don't think most of the corruption that goes on in Washington these days involve sex. Most of the players were (are men) and I don't think they had sex with each other. Oh, I take that back… those meetings were really veritable political orgies conducted for mutual satisfaction.
But being serious again, the difference between Clinton and McCain (if there is a story with McCain) is the possible McCain/Vicki corruption aspect (and appearance of impropriety at the least).
I'm not excusing Clinton, either. But the Republicans did spend huge sums of money going after him and they diverted the nation's attention away from more important matters, such as the running of the government and protecting us.
HappySurge, I agree with you. Monica and Bill had a consensual whatever and Monica didn't expect Clinton to use his position of power to sway Congress to grant her (or in the case of Vicki, Vicki's employer) contracts or write letters to regulators on her behalf.
I don't know if there is a sex angle between McCain and Vicki, but you don't have to be romantically involved with someone to grant favors. After all, I don't think most of the corruption that goes on in Washington these days involve sex. Most of the players were (are men) and I don't think they had sex with each other. Oh, I take that back… those meetings were really veritable political orgies conducted for mutual satisfaction.
But being serious again, the difference between Clinton and McCain (if there is a story with McCain) is the possible McCain/Vicki corruption aspect (and appearance of impropriety at the least).
I'm not excusing Clinton, either. But the Republicans did spend huge sums of money going after him and they diverted the nation's attention away from more important matters, such as the running of the government and protecting us.
Well, everything is so vague on the influence peddling angle that I'll just leave it alone until actual facts come out.
As for a cheating spouse as a political leader, I really still have a hard time worrying about it too much. I would be less inclined to be friends with someone I knew was deceiving their spouse, but I wouldn't decline to see a great cardiologist on their 6th wife, read the papers of a lying SOB physicist, or remove Patton from his command because he had a thing going with two girls at once. At the same time, if a politician is great at fighting for causes that I think improve America, and at the same time lies to his wife and visits the strip club, I'd let him or her keep running things.
The main caveat to all this is that I do think it's the rare politician who isn't easily replaceable with a similar politician, and as such I think it should be easier to get rid of one. It's not like Gore would have been much worse than Clinton or Cheney much worse than Bush for their supporters — the latter thought is quite scary though.
Well, everything is so vague on the influence peddling angle that I'll just leave it alone until actual facts come out.
As for a cheating spouse as a political leader, I really still have a hard time worrying about it too much. I would be less inclined to be friends with someone I knew was deceiving their spouse, but I wouldn't decline to see a great cardiologist on their 6th wife, read the papers of a lying SOB physicist, or remove Patton from his command because he had a thing going with two girls at once. At the same time, if a politician is great at fighting for causes that I think improve America, and at the same time lies to his wife and visits the strip club, I'd let him or her keep running things.
The main caveat to all this is that I do think it's the rare politician who isn't easily replaceable with a similar politician, and as such I think it should be easier to get rid of one. It's not like Gore would have been much worse than Clinton or Cheney much worse than Bush for their supporters — the latter thought is quite scary though.
[...] PrestoPundit, Don Surber, Politics Blog, D-Day, Wonkette, Riehl World View, Mercury Rising, The Moderate Voice, the talking dog, Bang the Drum, Political Machine, Attytood, Emptywheel, All Spin Zone, THE [...]
AustinRoth brought up the CDS, so the opposite is true. Clenis' Democratic party isn't the family values party, the Republicans hold that dishonor. Notice how the Demoncrats are voting against Billary right now, maybe the Liberals are ready to jettison the Clinton baggage.
On the McClown front, ask his first wife about a trade in for a younger richer model. His second wifes money and family gave him hi start in politics.
AustinRoth brought up the CDS, so the opposite is true. Clenis' Democratic party isn't the family values party, the Republicans hold that dishonor. Notice how the Demoncrats are voting against Billary right now, maybe the Liberals are ready to jettison the Clinton baggage.
On the McClown front, ask his first wife about a trade in for a younger richer model. His second wifes money and family gave him hi start in politics.
The story has pretty much died quickly. It's largely a lib-media pre-emptive attack on McCain, predictable.
As far as ethics and hypocrisy: Have you forgotten the Keating Five scandal???
I may listen to the radio when I go out on the road at lunchtime today. It's either going to be a bunch of criticism of the lib-media, or it's going to be silence. Why silence?
McCain is a weak candidate who has little support from non-liberals, that's why.
The story has pretty much died quickly. It's largely a lib-media pre-emptive attack on McCain, predictable.
As far as ethics and hypocrisy: Have you forgotten the Keating Five scandal???
I may listen to the radio when I go out on the road at lunchtime today. It's either going to be a bunch of criticism of the lib-media, or it's going to be silence. Why silence?
McCain is a weak candidate who has little support from non-liberals, that's why.
[...] No More Mister Nice Blog, TownHall Blog, Political Machine, Riehl World View, Pensito Review, The Moderate Voice, Mercury Rising, All Spin Zone, the talking dog, Washington Wire, Wonkette, D-Day, Attytood, [...]