I have run into this story in a couple sites browsing tonight. Boy will that throw a monkey wrench into politics for the next week or so. Huffington shows her picture…cute. McCain has already denied it.
The story is already up on nytimes.com. It’s pretty underwhelming by late 90’s standards. The most substantive parts are little more than repeats of the Keating scandal. YMMV.
Why is McCain’s personal life even slightly relevant to anyone outside of his family?
In this case, because the alleged affair was with a lobbyist. Though to call it an “alleged affair” might be giving it even more credence than it deserves.
I don’t like the lobbying culture in D.C. anymore than anyone else, but there’s no evidence McCain acted improperly. This is just scandal-mongering.
FWIW, I’m casting my meaningless vote for Obama or Clinton. I just don’t like Gossip mag politics.
Scandal-mongering it may be, but you asked why it was anyone’s business. That question depends on the nature of the allegation, not its truth. Do you contend that, if true, this would be none of our business?
The Good Book says “Thou mayest not comfort thy rod with thy staff”. Leviticus, I think.
I can only see myself voting for McCain in the highly unlikely circumstance that Hillary is his opposition and he thoroughly trounces her in all the debates, but in any case, this couldn’t possibly effect my vote. Like Larry Borgia said: it’s scandal-mongering.
Not much there, is there? Color me baffled.
The full article is on the Times and the topic is NOT an affair.
It is one of the topics. They spend quite a bit of space on the aides believing the relationship was romantic, people denying it, etc.
Because he needs the support of people who do believe that the morality of every ones business is their business. It is hypercritical to accept the support of these folks and not live up to the standard.
Seriously…who gives a shit?
Look, I don’t think the evidence the article presents is sufficient to conclude that McCain had a romantic affair with a lobbyist. But it is obviously a relevant inquiry. Does anyone really not care if McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist on whose issues he was working?
A certain scurrilous
While it does look like he probably really was corndogging this lobbyist (he really likes them thin and drawn, doesn’t he?), the NYT is going to need a lot more than what’s in the story for this to really mean anything. If they’ve got evdience of McCain trading influence or legislation for ass, then that’s a story, but they better have hard evidence (heh) or the Times is just making itself look like the partisan rag that so many right wingers already think it is. It feeds into the paranoia about a biased, liberal media.
It seems strange that the NYT would run with what looks like suvch an unfinished story. Maybe they’re playing a rope-a-dope with McCain to get him on the record denying something and then smack him with a pie.
If this is really all they have, well then fuck the NYT for living up to the stereotype.
Ahem. A certain scurrillous lefty blog site futher purports that:
Ms. Lewins…Ms Iseman was a lobbyist for a media mogul who was pressing for permission to buy a TV station.
Ms Iseman pressured Sen McCain for his intervention, and he complied, writing a letter to the FCC
The chair of the FCC rebuked Sen McCain by letter for his interference
These slurs are passed along without comment, no opinion is to be inferred. I might mention the scandal mongering lefty source, but that might not be, I think, progress.
That’s all in the article.
This is journalism? I don’t like McCain, don’t plan to vote for him, but if it turned out he had a three-way with the lobbyist and Anson “Potsie” Williams I couldn’t care less unless it had provable political influence peddling. If there’s not a lot more hard-evidence of the latter than prelims lead us to believe then my already negligible respect for the NYT (other than their books/arts section) lessens a bit more.
Apparently they’ve been sitting on the story for a while, but The New Republic was about to publish a piece about the story, so the Times’ hand was forced.