John Edwards affair also happened recently. McCain’s infidelities were decades ago, its beyond old news.
I see it mostly as a non-issue: infidelity happens in marriages that lived in far less trying times than his, and it doesn’t necessarily mean he was a bad person. We’d all commit infidelity under the right circumstances probably. The only reason I ever bring it up is when he attempts to make moral decisions for others, such as with abortion (i.e. he’s said it was due to his Christianity, yet his Christianity didn’t prevent him from divorcing and remarrying even though Jesus himself spoke against it) and gay marriage (i.e. you lost your right to revere or define marriage as some sacred immutable institution when you divorced and remarried). On pretty much any domestic or foreign issue that doesn’t require moral judgment (and that’s 99% of them), I find it irrelevant.
Yes, and it includes Carol McCain’s two children from a previous marriage, who McCain adopted.
My thoughts:
- Marriages break up, divorce is pretty normal, but cheating on the wife who waited for you for five and half years and who suffered a debilitating injury is really scummy.
- That has nothing to do with your qualifications for president.
- But if something isn’t supposed to matter any more because it happened thirty years ago (infidelity), then being a prisoner of war more than thirty years ago shouldn’t matter any more, either.
Is there a relatively unbiased cite out there for what happened? It doesn’t have to be tabloidian in nature, but a quick summary of what happened.
Here’s the story as told by the LA Times. Some excerpts:
There’s more, including how the Reagans, close friends of McCain and his first wife, reacted to the marriage’s dissolution; take a look.
ETA: It’s not laid out in that cite, but in others it’s made clear that he whored around on Carol before hooking up with Cindy, continuing the womanizer pattern he’d displayed since his midshipman days.
A friend of mine was going to vote for McCain until she found out about the screwing around on his crippled wife thing. I personally think there are better reasons not to vote for the guy (not that that doesn’t make him an asshole) but if it gets a vote for Obama, I’m happy.
It is ALWAYS OK if you are a Republican. Senator David Vitter saw prostitutes while wearing a diaper and he is still a hero to the Republican Party. Senator Larry Craig attempted to pick up another man in a public bathroom stall and he is still in office. John McCain dumped his crippled wife for a beer heiress and laughed his way to the bank. Bill Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office and was impeached.
I don’t consider it a deal breaker, per se, except in the context of his “family values” campaign. It’s not the only issue out there, an certainly not one that has any impact on the nation. I agree that the disintegration of his first marriage is his business and has no bearing on his ability to lead. Heh-heh…that should BE his only issue!
I dunno, Larry Craig kept his seat despite GOP efforts to get him to resign, and I’d say that scandal did hurt the Republicans. Vitter got off OK, but other Republicans have resigned due to adultery scandals (Bob Livingston), while some Dems have been more or less unaffected by their’s (David Patterson). And none of these cases are really comparable to McCain, who again, commited adultery decades before his Presidential run (it also helps McCain that his affair was pretty vanilla compared to paying a prostitute to put him in diapers or asking another man to have sex with him in the mens room of an airport).
Indeed I suspect Repubs are actually damaged more by their sex-scandals on average, if for no other reason then their focus on family-value talking points gives the press more soundbites to play up the hypocrisy angle.
It’s been “restructured” because there are several kinds of people who can’t talk about it - [ul][li]those who claimed that Clinton’s adulteries were irrelevant. []those who claimed Clinton’s adulteries were relevant[]those who claimed that Kerry dumping his first wife when she was having health problems to marry a richer woman was irrelevantthose who claimed that Kerry dumping his first wife when she was having health problems to marry a richer woman was relevant[/ul]Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a sexual harassment case. The adultery wasn’t the major part - it was that he lied about everything else, and there was hard evidence that he lied about his adulteries, and in a court of law. [/li]
Plus, hell, people change, especially after a major traffic accident or five years in a torture camp. It may not be admirable that a marriage doesn’t survive those kinds of stressors, but it is understandable. Maybe if Edwards had had some kind of excuse in his own life for cheating on his dying wife, people would be more forgiving of it.
Some people, that is. There are always going to be folks ragging on politicians of the opposite party. I’m talking about the broad mainstream here.
Regards,
Shodan
If it’s made an issue in the media, it will be an issue. See: Bill Clinton. The Dems should really work on this.
Your notion that hypocrisy is a factor in politics is, to borrow a phrase from a former Attorney General, “quaint.” Remember Jeb Bush’s crack-addicted daughter going to rehab while Bush was all for putting all druggies in jail? Remember Rush Limbaugh’s oxycontin addiction, from another man who advocated jail for druggies? Remember the anti-gay Republican who turned out to be … gay?
Thanks largely to conservatives, in the modern political landscape, hypocrisy does not exist, for all practical purposes.
Again the two aren’t anywhere near equivalent. Clinton was cheating with an intern in the oval office during his Presidency and then was caught lying about it. McCain cheated on his wife decades ago and admits it. There isn’t any real story there other then the occasional mention in candidate biographies. And note no one has come into this thread saying that this is the first they’ve heard of McCain’s infidelities. No doubt most people will have heard the story before November rolls around and the few people who really care about such things will be able to vote accordingly The Dems aren’t going to gain anything by harping on it except looking like jerks for dragging up a personal moral failing many years after the fact.
Isn’t it at least minimally relevant with respect to the candidate of a party that seems to make such a big deal out of the sanctity of marriage that denying it for gays plays a major role in motivating the faithful?
The more someone wishes to influence intimate aspects of other peoples’ lives, the more relevant I consider an investigation as to how they’ve conducted their own.
Suggests hypocrisy to cheat on your wife, and then tout yourself as an advocate of “family values” and criticizing other peoples’ lifestyle choices. Same way larry Craig’s sex life becomes relevant if it appears his personal choices are grossly at odds with his political positions. Do they believe what they are advocating?
Because Republicans have positioned themselves - in part - as wanting to curtail available private choices, I think it makes it tougher for philanderers or divorcees such as McCain, Guilliani, and Gingrich to claim to lay stake to a higher ground.
Yeah, Clinton and other Dems have been horndogs. But what specific portions of their political agendas were inconsistent with their private conduct?
It has worked for the Pubbies in the last two elections, why shouldn’t it work for the Dems in this one? I’m all for attacking McCains character in this way.
Kerry didn’t meet his current wife for several years after his divorce from his first wife. There was no adultery or other woman involved with that split up.
Another case of the facts themselves being biased.
A good article with lots of background on Cindy by a Brit journalist.