Interesting how the apologists come out of the woodwork on this.... The GOP was all over Clinton in a heartbeat over his affairs. And Cindy McCain is a real piece of work in this regard as well... both her and her husband have broken moral compasses.
What is worse is the impropriety around lobbyists and the sale of influence in return for all kinds of favors.
And the consequences of not playing ball, like Rove and Seigleman or Valerie Plame.
I disagree with JimMan15 - either you have morals and ethics or you don't. It isn't acceptable that you are politically moral and ethical but you are an adulterer and a liar in your private life. These people promote themselves as virtuous and ethical and they should be held to that standard.
A cheater and a liar is a cheater and a liar.
If that is what McCain is, then I want to know and he doesn't deserve the luxury of having an "indescretion (a fancy word for cheating and lying)" overlooked. If he is dirty, and we had hints that he might be through the Keating 5 matter and other incidents, then we need to find out now.
When will the GOP take responsibility for the monsters its has created like Bush and Cheney and Rove and co? These people tanked the country, abused everyone and the GOP won't clean house. They were all over Clinton's picadillos but visciously defend their own in the face of clear and obvious malfaesance and obfuscation....
Why I Don't Care If John McCain Had an Affair in 1999...and Why You Shouldn't Either
You've read the allegations. I don't need to repeat them.
The compulsive game of "sexual gotcha" has officially begun this election season. More than a few commentators have worried what will happen if there is a not-so-unexpected discovery of a Bill Clinton post-White House affair. We remember back to other presidential campaigns unraveled by allegations of extra-marital sex. Who knows how many reporters are investigating past or present romantic relationships by the other candidates, but I am sure they are out there.
I think we need to go back to the "good old days" of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt. The press knew that these men were having sexual relationships, and they also knew it wasn't the public's business.
In my more than 30 years of counseling and educating adults about their sexuality, I know that there are many ways that couples create contracts, explicit as well as unspoken, about their understanding of monogamy. Although in a given year, most married couples are monogamous, the life time incidence of extramarital sex, depending on the study, ranges from one quarter to 50 percent. I'm guessing a study of politicians -- who almost by definition are charismatic and powerful and often away from their spouses, all factors in who have affairs -- would find much higher rates.
The point is that these are intensely private issues that should be addressed in the privacy of their own marriages, not in national newspapers. I do not know if John and Cindy McCain had an agreement that allows for outside romance under certain circumstances, but I do know that's not my business. And I for sure know that these issues don't belong on our front pages, when we should be debating the moral issues of the economy, the budget, and the war.
I said to the press during the Lewinsky episode, that President Clinton, rather than saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" while shaking his finger at America, should instead have said "these are intensive private issues that I will not address with anyone except my wife and daughter. We hope that you respect our privacy at this difficult time." I think it's fair to say that would have avoided impeachment.
Of course, I want to know about the candidates' character, values, and positions. I want to know if any of them are or have taken money illegally or allowed their personal relationships, whether familial, romantic, or friendship, to cause them to make improper decisions.
I just don't think it's our business if and how they are engaging in adult, consensual sexual relationships and the agreements they have about fidelity in their marriages. And I think each of the candidates needs to say, when asked, when provoked, "I am happy to answer any questions you have about my policies or decisions; my family life is not open to discussion except with the people I love."
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's NOT the sex. While I do not condone cheating on one's spouse, I also do not consider any of this to be any of my business. But you and most of the MSM are missing the point of this story. It's the LOBBYISTS, Stupid. We all need to start to call McCain out on his corruption. He is a crook and a phony. He hasn't improved one bit since his Keating 5 days. Our media need to put down the kool-aid, and tell it like it really is.
I agree with jstock, BUT when you hold yourself up as a great moral hero and your 2'nd wife says she trusts you because you wouldn't harm your family, what about his first family that he harmed by having an affair with Cindy. It is just so goofy for words. It only is our business when He and Cindy make it our business and that is what they have done by their self righteousness.
As long as it's not true, I agree. If it is true, then he's lied about it now, and she was a lobbyist, which makes it worse.
This is not at all about having AN affair.
Its about having THIS affair.
It should bother you and everyone because when a Senate Committee Chairman is having an affair with a fmale lobbyist requesting govern$$$ment assistance, that right there is the definition of corruption.
To some, its just a little corruption.
To some, its a lot.
But the real question still isn't whether or not he had an affair with her, it whether or not she had an undue influence on him. If she did, then there's corruption, and THAT belings in the public sphere. Whether or not there was any sex, does NOT belong in the public sphere.
Were you as charitable when it was Bill Clinton getting oral sex from an intern?
Argh. Rather than reply to all the comments I agree with, I just figured I'd add to the "it's not the sex, it's the favors" refrain.
What he did to wife #1 is not my concern, and what he did to wife #2 isn't either.
But if he is trading BJs for influence, then I do care about that.
I didn't realize that your "God" made exceptions for political allies, but that is irrelevant. The issue is whether favors were granted, if they weren't, I don't care either. Who's riding the wandering winkie shouldn't matter any more for McCain than it did for Clinton, should it?
I don't care about any dirt on John McCain. The reason I won't vote for him is because I don't agree with him on the issues I consider to be important.
I agree on the second part - would never vote for him period.
But I do care about the corporate corruption of American politics that has taken over this country.
And I think it will be a long while before we get the really straight-talking on this that it deserves.
Again not because of AN affair.
But this quid-pro-quo relationship with a corporate lobbyist in THIS affair is what corrupts the whole political system.
Its the corruption.
That kind of dirt is unacceptable.
That kind of dirt appears on every presidential candidate still running in both parties with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. The cleaner you are, the less popular you are with the press. I wish the American voters would acknowledge that.
McCain voted to convict Clinton at his impeachment trial, so turn the dogs loose on him, I say.
http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/mccain.shtml
You know, it's good to encounter an enlightened perspective. Thank you!
Disagree. Bill Clinton schtupping an intern was an ugly piece of business and McCain doing a lobbyist (if true) is even worse, for obvious reasons of influence peddling. Not saying is disqualifies these men, it just needs to be factored in.
Are we allowed to care that the woman in question was a lobbyist, and that a sexual or even close friendship with Sen. McCain could have resulted in undue influence? Becuase that's the real story (try reading the nuanced story in the Washington Post, rather than the slap-dash "sexy it up" job in the NYT).
There's a lot more to be concerned with in this story than the sex issue, although the Repubs have no one to blame but their braying hordes who insisted that we HAD to know every detail of Pres. Clinton's affair. Character, dontcha know. It's fair game now, sadly, but they did it to themselves.
Heck, they're probably falling all over themselves that it was a hetero affair. Kind of a step up as scandals go, these days.
McCain's dalliances are none of our business; just as President Clinton's were none of our business. Only the Republican party cared about the President's sex life. I doubt they'll care equally about Senator McCain's. The only thing that's ever constant in the Republican Party is hypocrisy. I would never have voted for the far right lunacy of McCain anyway, it will just be interesting to see the twisted logic of the GOP voters who will still support in McCain the same thing they found reprehensible in Mr. Clinton.
Rev,
So you only believe in NINE COMMANDMENTS?
no, she simply recognizes that the only people it should matter to are the senator, his wife, this lobbyist, and her husband (if she has one, I don't know)
Again, did you say the same thing when it was Bill Clinton? I really want to know if you felt like Bill's indiscretion was between he and his wife and NOT an impeachable offense that warranted a 90 million dollar investigation and impeachment hearings.
And you want to vote for someone who, in his private life has so little character that he was unfaithful to his first wife--divorced her because she'd had an accident while he was in Vietnam and wasn't pretty anymore--and then later cheats on his 'trophy' wife? This is someone you would trust with the codes to open the football and launch a nuclear strike? CHARACTER MATTERS in our public officials, and if someone doesn't have a decent character, that should be spelled out plainly to the voting public.
Hey, that's 90%!
Yes, you're missing the point. The woman involved was a lobbyist.
Two reasons why you are wrong: First, the Republicans and their candidates ALWAYS tout themselves as the "values" party. By not so subtle inference, the Democrats are labeled by them as immoral, godless deviants. So, when the top candidate of the holier-than-thou sect is suspected of adultery, that is newsworthy.
Once the Republicans can no longer sell their "superiority" on moral issues, then situations like McCain's won't be of interest.
Second, the woman in question was getting government money for her clients. McCain was helping her get it. If there was a quid pro quo of any kind based on their relationship, that is big news. It would mean McCain is unfit to be president.
Rev. Haffner,
Were you as charitable with Bill Clinton when his indiscretions came to light as you are with John McCain?
Loading comments…
Posted February 21, 2008 | 03:18 PM (EST)