The real John McCain story
Yesterday, The New York Times published a story about John McCain’s “relationship” with a beautiful lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. They have tried to draw a picture of romantic involvement between the two and the McCain campaign has wholeheartedly denied that anything of the kind went on. There are questions as to the timing of the story and I will not get into that. However, I believe the mainstream media is missing the bigger picture and possibly, the bigger problem with the “relationship” between McCain and Ms. Iseman.
Andrew Romano, over at Stumper, points out one huge point about this story and it’s implications. You can read the entire article, it is well worth the read, but here is an excerpt that comes toward the end of the article.
But over the past 20 years, McCain has styled himself a crusader for reform, routinely launching stinging critiques of lobbyists and maintaining that he has “never, ever done a favor for any lobbyist or special interest group.” Now there’s Iseman on one side of the story, “[speaking] up regularly at meetings of telecom lobbyists in Washington” to “extoll… her connections to McCain and his office,” according to the Post. On the other side, there’s a cabal of worried staffers struggling to separate her from McCain–and, in so doing, tacitly conceding that McCain’s connection to this particular woman was stronger and stranger than any of his dozens of other relationships with lobbyists. And in the middle is the senator himself, perhaps betraying the intensity of that connection in a series of “highly unusual” moves that look a whole lot like favors.
Forget the “romantic relationship”; at this point, it remains a huge, hovering question mark. For now, whether you think McCain did anything wrong depends largely on whether you believe he should be held to the standards of “politics as usual”–or whether he should be held to the standards he’s set for himself.
I have been reluctant to write anything about this story, simply because I do not want to be a part of a smear campaign. Let me be clear about something. I do not trust John McCain, although I will vote for him to prevent Clinton or Obama from winning the election. The reasons are too numerous to mention, but I will say this. If a man or a woman can not be trusted to be faithful to their spouse, then I do not believe they can be trusted with running our country. That being said, these allegations actually have very little to do with McCain being romantically involved with Ms. Iseman and more to do with the fact that he was interceding in the Senate on behalf of some of her clients.
While the mainstream media would like to have us focus on the possible romantic connection between the two, we need to look at the “bigger” picture. For years, John McCain has been calling for reform, fighting against special interests, trying to lessen their influence in Washington. It appears now, that the pot has been calling the kettle black. Just one more reason to elect Mike Huckabee as our next President.
That’s my take!
Larry
Political candidates have to survive the heat of scrutiny on any level. How Mr. McCain reacts is everything. This heat is nothing comparatively to what is to be endured during a presidency. The whole question is whether or not McCain has the right stuff. Does Mrs. McCain have the right stuff to be the first lady. This is a test. And the American people are ringside to determine whether this is a man to lead. One can always vote their heart, or if not their heart, who they consider is the next best.
To the right stuff.
Jill
This is exactly what I have been thinking … not so much whether he was in bed literally with this individual (as dispicable as that would be), it is more about whether he has been in bed figuratively with lobbyists that he supposedly abhors.
Personally, McCain’s true character comes out with his pursuit of his current wife and the demise of his first marriage.
The question of whether John McCain can be trusted was answered long ago. The question of whether he is a faithful husband was answered long ago. He abandoned his wife who had been crippled in a car accident, and was no longer the same “pretty little thing” he had married. She stuck by him while he was overseas. He came back and violated military and moral law, discarded his wife and violated his promise. Under the uniform code of justice, he should have been dishonorably discharged via a court martial.
Why should he be trusted now?