Political Parietals?

I believe the New York Times story on McCain is irresponsible.

The lede follows this logic:

1. Several McCain advisors believed that he had a romantic relationship with a woman
2. He spent lots of time with that woman, who was a lobbyist
3. Even the appearance of impropriety shows McCain's shaky judgment

There are two stories here -- there was a rumor of romantic attachment, there were problems with ties to lobbyists. By blending them, the New York Times is coming down strongly on the side of political parietals: If you are an older man, in a position of power, don't have close relationships with younger women. Don't go out to dinner with them, like you do with male colleagues. Don't mentor them.

As a technical matter, the Times did not say that the impropriety was that she was a woman, but that she was a lobbyist, but the logical sequence of the story strongly suggested otherwise.

The panicked advisors are not heard giving any evidence that they were romantically involved, and they are portrayed without any skepticism.

You will not find any more anti-lobbying person than me, and I think McCain should rightly be investigated--as should all presidential candidates--for close ties to big money.

But the idea that an older, powerful male had a close relationship with a woman gives the Times license to lead a front page story with eight-year old rumors--never substantiated, apparently--is not good news for gender equality on the job.

We're an adult enough culture, I hope, that we don't need parietals for our political candidates.

Comments

[Lemeritus]

I don't give a flying you-know-what if he had an affair (although it may not play well in the mega-churches since it was, after all, with a woman -- sorry, don't mean to dial down the quality of debate, but come on!)

What I do care about and what makes the NYT story very important is the coziness he has and (one might conclude) has always had (pre- and post-Keating) with LOBBYISTS. This would seem to invalidate the very foundation of his campaign -- and don't you think that's kinda-sorta important since the man is running for President?

[NotUnoriginal]

While I think that you have a point about the assumptions people make when they see older men mentoring younger women (actually, I know you have a point; I've experienced my share of looks at restaurants when out for business dinners with older men), I don't think it holds here.

McCain was -is- a senator. Why would he be mentoring a lobbyist, male or female?

He shouldn't, and that's the point. This leaves us with three options: he was accepting favors in return for favors, having an extra-marital relationship, or both. Given what we know about the December attempts by McCain and Co. to squash this piece, which he lied (or misspoke) about during today’s address, I’m inclined to believe that there’s more information here there than has met the presses to date…While the lobbyist ties are probably the key point, but I don’t fault the Times for giving us as much as possible and will be waiting to see what other facts crop up in the next few days.

[jsinclair]

It is never appropriate for a married man to have a private relationship with a single woman where people close to them conclude their having an affair.

VERY inappropriate. Very disrespectful to his wife.

Of course, he cheated on his first wife with Cindy McCain, so it's no surprise that he's unfaithful. And personal morality IS a political issue to some Republicans. So it's a fair topic.

Add in the fact that he did special favors for this "special friend" who was a lobbyist and, yes, it looks corrupt. Especially for a man who has made such an issue of his "ethics".

A very legitimate story on both counts, in my opinion.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I don't care who he has sex with, I'm concerned about the whole POW thing, I think once you've been subjected to psychological coercion, be it a bad, manipulative boss, or a vietcong with a Kalashnikov, that karma's going to play itself out through you and into your relationships with everyone you come into contact with.
There's this war thing, and we need someone with clean karma to take issue with it. Ending the war is on the menu, my pick is Ron Paul.

[longislandlol]

The lobbying part would hurt him-- and other candidates who cozy up to lobbyists..

[jhNY]

Yep, like mommadona, I think journalists' focus today, after the revelations of yesterday, should be on the pattern of 'girlfriends while married' that has now been established. It's not so pronounced as Rudy's, but it does have its parallels with Mr. 9-11. Should drive whatever fundamentalists there are who would have otherwise voted for this man in the other direction from the voting booth, and fast, despite the fact that I believe most pundits on air will work themselves into a froth (especially that fat head)in an effort to defame the NYT and promote their straight-talkin- guy.

And as for fresh-out-of-college females being 'mentored' by married men decades their senior, I'm certain nothing overtly sexual takes place in most instances, but can these women in their secret hearts honestly say that their youth and attractiveness didn't win them the opportunity, and can anybody else remember a case of such mentoring wherein the woman was remarkably unattractive?

[mommadona]

(?)

When I read the story, the only thing that jumped out at me was that she was a LOBBYIST and that McCain was getting cozy to the point of USING A CORPORATE JET OWNED BY THE LOBBYIST'S BOSSES.

The other innuendos are - well - typical male lockerroom bonding fodder to 'draw attention'

And, 'draw attention' it did - to the WRONG FOCUS.

I would also suggest that with McCain's PAST HISTORY with 'girlfriends-while-married' (the CURRENT MRS. McCain), his 'handlers' had every bit of concern that he'd be 'up to something' again.

ZIPPERS and MEN - never the twain shall meet.