McCain's Blue Dress

We will probably never know if John McCain had an affair with that pretty blonde lobbyist, as suggested by the New York Times today, and in my heart of hearts I don't give a damn. I know there are some out there who are still worrying about the sex life of Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy, but I am not among them. In the case of McCain and his lady lobbyist, they will both deny it and there is no way of proving it. It will probably remain more of a smudge than a stain on the McCain name. But, of course, as a committed Democrat I do care, in so far as it punches a hole in his egregious campaign as flag-bearer of Republican morality. Personally, I think his physical and political embrace of George W. Bush was the most lewd and obscene act this guy could commit, proving that it was easier for him to withstand years of torture by the Viet Cong than resist his own tortured political ambitions. I wouldn't care about McCain's sex life if he wasn't the soon-to-be nominee of the Republican Party; the party who cared more about the stains on Monica's blue dress than about Americans who couldn't afford a new dress or shoes for their kid's first day at school.

So, if, like McCain, you're the guy who knows better, but you turn your back on your own moderate beliefs and swallow whole the right's agenda on social, economic and foreign policy, indeed, if you contribute to that agenda, you leave yourself open to newspapers and ordinary folks like me saying, "John, we hardly knew ye!" Or did we know you? And do you know better? Weren't you one of the Keating Five, a politician who took big favors from and advanced the cause of a corrupt Savings and Loan company and barely escaped the fallout of its wreckage? Weren't you the guy who made ugly jokes about the looks of the young Chelsea Clinton? Weren't you the guy who left his wife to marry the beer heiress, Stepford Cindy, who is so proud to be an American that she was obliged to break her long vow of silence and take a whack at the words of Michelle Obama? As Henry Kissinger proved to us when he went about with beautiful starlets, power is a great aphrodisiac, and McCain, having reached great power in the Senate, should be allowed the usual senatorial hanky-panky as part of the perks that come with his arduous job: the free airplane rides, hot tickets to sporting events, and charming a gullible mainstream press on the campaign trail, while back-tracking on former political beliefs in the greater cause of making John McCain POTUS.

Comments

[Astroboy]

Let us not forget that Karl Rove still exists.
Consider the TIMING of the NYT article. The Times had this story months before ENDORSING McCain.
Consider the SOURCE(S) of said article. Republican insiders.
Consider Romney only SUSPENDED his camgaign. If McCain is taken down Romney can resume.
Consider the Rushes and Hannitys of the Far Right and their unhinged vitriole toward McCain PRIOR to the NYT article. Now they RALLY for McCain, which fires up their base into lockstep obiesance(again) and reminds them of their eternal Liberal ENEMY.
The Republic(sic)Party wants a potential WINNER, and McCain AIN'T IT.
The New York Times isn't so much trying to bring down McCain as they are attempting to assist the Republican's in replacing their candidate.

[rbenjamin]

Karl Rove does not in fact exist. He is a composite of Attila the Hun, several less famous huns, Moriarty, The Grinch, The Pillsbury Dough Boy, Donald Trump, Roy Cohen and many other personalities both real and imagined . He is an evolving urban legend intended to frighten little children exiled at summer camp.

[ignrnthllblly]

Only in America could being in bed with a lobbyist completely hide the significance of being in bed with a lobbyist.

But then, only in America can the addition of the word "sex" to any public discourse cause mass hysterical blindness.

[Wilbur]

Oh, how correct and insightful you are!

Wilbur

[CharliePfromHB]

McCain will enhance his image from this smear. The opportunty for Democrats is to focus in on the Obama's. In spite of Michelle's single rookie mistake, she will shine as a prospective first lady from her articulate support to her devotion to and from her loving husband. She's the best thing since Nancy Reagan and the Obamas are a major alternative to the image of the Clintons. The Obama team should effectively present the reality of them as a shining light on the hill for family values.

[lucylou]

Republican Morality?
We've got an ex-user & addict in the White House, the gay evangelists in the massage room, the Senator in the bathroom, the pill-popper on the radio waves, the Giuliani, Newt, et.al. affairs in the bedroom, the lecherous pedophile in Congress...and the Republicans are going to still roll out the morality scroll?
Do they even want to 'go there'???
Only their beloved Christian Church is more hypocritical.
Or, is it standard Republican fare...if you repeat the lies enough, they will become the truth?

[LeftRight]

"...standard Republican fare...if you repeat the lies enough, they will become the truth?"

Yup, right here. Just like bushco(tm) talking about WMDs and Saddam-9/11. The only probelm with it was that the real world doesn't go like bushco(tm) always wants it to, so the WMDs never showed up...

[moonglowsun]

So true, so true...hypocracy at it's finest. I often wonder what they see when they look into a mirror. I'm reminded of the character in "Lord of the Rings" who suffered a split personality. One side aspires to be the pillar of purity and goodness, while the other evil side taunts them and niggles their ego impelling them to test the water and give into the dark side.
I was also reminded by a friend just a few days ago that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Initially I railed at this ever having a possibility in our fair nation, but the cold hard truth is, if you set the bar too high, you set yourself and everyone else up for failure. When you combine both of these theories, you get the pompous Republicans who have convinced themselves that the rules, which they supported or created, pertain to others and not themselves. They are above the law...after-all wasn't it their law?

[Kirby]

A mess on the dress he won't have to address
In the first place, it was on her face
And, anyway, it's not something to which he'll confess
So there's nothing there he has to replace!?

And an Ethics Committee full scale investigation
Would only unsettle the Republican "nation"
And the country would have to scuttle lobbyists
For monies shot off all over the place makes constitutional realists!

[TXfemmom]

Look, Clinton got SEX from Lewinsky. She never got money, prestige, or position from him, and she never influenced his political stances or had an effect on the everyday lives of Americans.

This woman supplied him with money, flights on private planes, campaign things, and access to the rich and powerful and John McCain drank from the nectar of either her sexual favors or other favors. The entire time, he was loudly voicing his distaste for this type of behavior and conduct. He is either a liar or is incapable of judgement and acknowledging his behavior. This is just another Keating in his life, and another set of denials on his behalf.

[LeftRight]

EXACTLY! Let's please get beyind the sex issue and realize that he was getting favors from her, and he was giving favors to her clients, all the while claiming that he hated the lobbying trade and decrying his compatriots for taking favors from lobbyists.

[alamo]

Oh yeah, Johnny Mac, we knew ye, and even prior to the Times' firing that shot across your bow. To now be exposed as the sleaze bag politician you are and always have been, must have been a shocking experience.

The Times article isn't "swift boating", its "Sure Boating" because its the truth!

A moralizing, do gooder while selling your soul to the highest bidder (or the most curvaceous bidder) Abandoning the disfigured wife that waited for your return from your one distinguished period, the time spent in 'Nam as a POW. That's it, and you want to close that sorry self-serving career with the title, "President of the United States of America".

Surely, the people of this nation will not fail this country three times in a row. We cannot let this senile old disaster follow in the Bush/Cheney debacle that we have ben plaqued with since 2000.

[sacto92]

How in the world does this punch "...a hole in his egregious campaign as flag-bearer of Republican morality"??? Do you have information that nobody else does that proves these allegations? I sure haven't seen it. I guess that's the nature of "journalism" today. All you need is an allegation. Any hard evidence is just a footnote. I guess the folks who consider our last President a rapist are justified under your standards.

[rahgolf]

BS!!

[guru75]

Morality as used in this blog doesn't necessarily refer to sexual morality alone. If cozying up with a lobbyist by a Senator with enormous power, and voting in favor of that lobbyists interests isn't an immoral political act, then what is?

[grisgris]

Well said, guru.

[wrabbitt]

Republican morality? The congress of our country takes money for what they do. Nothing gets done. I was wondering when McCain would start getting his past thrown up at him. With all the screwing lobbyists do to the public, someone would have to bring the fact to light that McCain has found a place for lobbyists.

[darcy]

Well said, Sherman Yellin.

[Dangoodbar]

When I read the story about McCain having an "improper relationship with a lobbiest" even if SEX may be the first thing people think of, it should not be the last.

Or to put another way, if this is about sex then McCain has an issue with his wife.

If this is about influence, then McCain's has a more public issue.

That is there are lots of "Improper Relationshps" . Only a person whose nose cannot rise above the gutter for fear it will bleed from high altitude would think first let alone only of sex.

So my question is was policy at all involved?

[LeftRight]

There's a large body of evidence that policy and money were involved. So yes, there is an issue, and no, it's not about sex.

[larry278]

This blog shows that 2007 & 2008 must be cancelled due to rain. The games must be replayed from the 1st inning on.

[Wordknight]

I used to have respect for McCain when all I knew about him was that he was a POW and he did not bow to the religious right. His current stance on the war, embracing Bush, embracing the religious right, and apparently selling his soul to get what he wants has made me lose all respect for the man.

That having been said, I think the NY Times was wrong to run the article. They don't have it. If one of his staffers they could name said there was an affair, then they would have a news story. Unless I am missing something, all they have is one staffer asked the lobbist to stay away because some staffers speculated about a romantic involvement between McCain and Iseman. The speculation, as best as I can tell, was based on nothing more than the time they spent together and the staffers were fearful of the appearance that would create. Given that logic, shouldn't we assume that whoever McCain's spends the most time with in his campaign must be sleeping with him as well? In fact, I am sure that there are several people in McCain's campaign that have spent more time with him than Iseman. Just based on the time spent together, using the same logic, McCain must be bisexual and that straight talk express must be doing some rocking. Hell, maybe there is something going on between Hillary and Barack because I hear that they are meeting again tonight.

In my opinion, McCain would be a horrible president but that does not make the Times article newsworthy. Maybe it will come out that the two did have an affair. With nothing more than speculation and rumor, however, running the article says more about the Times that McCain.

[davefoc]

This is a commonly held sentiment, but I wonder if it is based more on the media's coverage of the report than the report itself.

The report does a pretty good job of making the case that McCain has been both a crusader for government reform and an abuser of his position for personal gain. The details of the NY Times article concerning that seem to be true based on the public record and the lack of an effective contradiction by the Republican spokesmen.

Nothing in the article concerning Iseman has been disputed. The NY Times article only claimed that some of the available information suggested the possibility of an affair. And whether there was an affair or not it appears that Iseman had provided favors to McCain and that McCain took actions which were arguably beneficial to Iseman's clients.

I would not like to think that the NY Times would not run a story like this because not everything that was suggested by the available evidence could be proved to a certainty.

[Triangulate]

To the Dems, an extramarital affair is forgiveable and only jeopardized our nation because the Repubs went after our former standard bearer, the Honorable Bill Clinton. To the Repubs, the horror...not because he had an affair but because he's now being criticized by the "liberal media". I love how they like it both ways...like John, no doubt.

[AC500]

The members of the senate and congress should be ousted after serving something like an 8 year term. Why are these old timers kept in government year after year, decade after decade? Human nature being what it is corruption seems inevitable. Save them from themselves and force them out after serving a term then perhaps you will get people applying for the job who actually give a damn about the country and serving the people instead of themselves. You would have fresh blood and fresh ideas and fresh alliances. You can't bank on change with one person, the President. You need to clean house entirely. Make change where it will really counts ... as Obama says, from the bottom up.

[KPeters]

Too true, but I still think the worst idea in the history of all democracies is the notion that these jerks should be compensated for participating in government. They're already super-rich and super-connected. Paying them only facilitates their further removal from society at large. Politicians have about as much in common with you and I as a sea sponge.