Stakes Soar After McCain Denial

John McCain's repeated flat denials of any romantic or otherwise improper involvement with lobbyist Vicki Iseman have sent the stakes of this scandal soaring. No longer does he have to have just been faithful to his wife. In order for his integrity to hold, he's also got to be vindicated on his claim that his advisors never urged him to stop seeing Iseman for any reason.

If his denials don't hold up, it could sink him. Watch top Republican Bay Buchanan fume about what Republicans expect from their candidates.

We -- we -- you know, conservatives are -- we believe that we are the family value party. We believe it seriously. We expect our candidates to live up to those values, not just to talk about them and expect us to vote for them, and not be there really when it counts.

And our -- we have a basic belief. If can you lie to your wife and your children, then the voter doesn't have a prayer. And, so, that's where we stand. We assume our candidates are that way, unless we -- we have reason to believe otherwise.

Remember: John McCain voted to impeach President Clinton over alleged lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Other Republican ringleaders of the Clinton impeachment jihad who were later found not to have been saints in their own lives were quickly thrown overboard by their Republican colleagues. Republicans may not have the ability to do that with McCain -- he's got too many delegates -- but if McCain is lying about any aspect of this story (including whether or not aides asked him not to cavort with lobbyist Iseman), he will have doubly undermined his already shaky claims to be a politician of honor. "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust and anything that would favor any one or any organization," McCain said at the beginning of his news conference. Well, not so much, but McCain better hope that that holds up at least this time.

On the other hand, if McCain's denials are true and The New York Times was anonymously sourcing its story on the basis of junior aides' rumors, that could be a huge gift for McCain. Nothing unites people like an attack, and nothing unites Republicans quite like The New York Times (check out, for instance, this latest fundraising appeal from the GOP). It would mean that McCain could start pandering a bit less to the right wing lunatic fringe by doing things like endorsing torture or dishonestly obstructing clean energy legislation.

Of course, whether right wing loyalty will help close the gap between him and Obama is dubious -- while McCain was dueling with the Times, Obama's closing in on 1 million contributors, whose money he'll use to disprove McCain's claims to holiness. Watch out St. John -- the Barack attack is coming!

Comments

[whatstheidea]

A lie is a lie but your forgetting one thing, Clinton lied under oath, they were not "alleged lies"as you claim.

Do get all NY Times on us now.

[WarrenPeace]

The assertion that McCain's candidacy would be sunk if he is found to be lying is, quite simply, absurd.

Remember back in 2000 when the big controversy was whether or not George Bush lied about being arrested for drunk driving. And if he were found to be lying, then that would surely sink his candidacy.

Politicians lie. McCain lies. He's lying about the favors he gave to the lobbying group in question. (Who knows about his romantic entanglements, and who really cares?) McCain gave preferential treatment -- the evidence is clear, and he's doing the only thing he can: lie. And guess what? It will have no effect at all on electoral politics.

[CaptainObvious]

Gore didn't hammer him on it. And it only took the American people a week to completely forget about it.

McCain is handing his democratic opponent a huge gift, should they be willing to accept it.

[desmirl]

One can only hope that after the conventions, Obama opens McCain up like a stinking can of worms on A LIVE TELEVISED DEBATE. And if he does, McCain will probably snarl, crawl across the stage, and bite him on the ankle!