Comments on: Smear job on John McCain unjustified, unless…

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:46:13 +0000

Here’s a short and sharp video about John McCain’s “Friends.” http://therealmccain.com/

By: Mark Tiedemann

Mark Tiedemann — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:09:08 +0000

Molly Ivans once responded to a question regarding the the relation between sexual fidelity and public integrity this way (roughly; I paraphrase): “It would be nice to think the two are somehow connected, but even a cursory look at history shows that they seem to have nothing to do with each other.”

For my part, I would point out that Nixon was probably pathologically faithful to Pat and damn near destroyed the government.

Eisenhower’s pecadilly was apparently a matter of unfulfilled urge—according to the woman in question (his driver in London during the war) he tried but just couldn’t.

We seem to forget that people are complex, multilayered, usually compartmentalized—one would think it ludicrous to fire an architect who had a demonstrated ability for fine work just because he had sex with someone outside marriage.

But the question here really is the same one that involves money—did McCain grant political favors in exchange? And, further, how would you prove it?

I’m waiting for someone to raise a spectre from the past regarding McCain that, to my mind, is far more devastating than this little piece of nonsense (and one of the reasons I have no doubt this smear comes from within the Republican Party, as it acts as a good smokescreen for what could have farther reaching consequences): anyone remember the Keating Five?

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:59:12 +0000

Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O Lakes, the UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae. [...]

In McCain’s case, the fact that lobbyists are essentially running his presidential campaign — most of them as volunteers — seems to some people to be at odds with his anti-lobbying rhetoric. “He has a closer relationship with lobbyists than he lets on,” said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “The problem for McCain being so closely associated with lobbyists is that he’s the candidate most closely associated with attacking lobbyists.”

Public Citizen, a group that monitors campaign fundraising, has found that McCain had more bundlers — people who gather checks from networks of friends and associates — from the lobbying community than any other presidential candidate from either party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/mccain-the-antilobbyis_n_87941.html

By: Vicki Baker

Vicki Baker — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:05:28 +0000

I think Ms. Iseman is a disgrace to us Vicki’s with an “i” not for allegedly having extramarital sex with a politician (it could happen to anyone) but for being a lobbyist for the telecommunications industry.

By: projektleiterin

projektleiterin — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:44:43 +0000

If one places the emphasis on sex in an extra marital affair then it could pass as a merely personal problem, but if one places the emphasis on infidelity and violation of trust then maybe this act is more than just a personal preference, because it then reflects on the character. Just imagine finding out that your boss, whom you admire and respect, is constantly having affairs with women who are not his wife. You are aware how respectful he is towards his wife when they are together, but you know that secretly he is doing the secretary. Does this not make him somewhat sleazy and untrustworthy? Or should we regard it as a problem that most powerful men have learned to successfully compartmentalize and that does not affect their ethics in other areas?

By: Dan Klarmann

Dan Klarmann — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:59:24 +0000

Aren’t Republicans the party where members are usually ousted for felony convictions, and Democrats impeached for heterosexual personal peccadilloes?

By: Erika Price

Erika Price — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:39:30 +0000

It reminds me of the should-we-should-we-not conundrum of outing a closeted, married, gay Republican. By most accounts, forcibly “outing” someone violates their privacy, disrespects their personal choices, and tears apart their lives. And usually, who cares what they do in secret? Usually, the fact that a closeted person is gay (or that a straight person is sleeping around in this case) shouldn’t concern us.

But this respect for privacy seems to disappear when someone’s secret doings makes them a hypocrite. If someone spends their life affiliated with a party that preaches morality and sexual temperance, most people don’t think they deserve any dignity if they are found in a compromising sexual situation. I don’t think I really agree with this- smearing anyone on the basis of their sexual history strikes me as a low, childish blow. And an irrelevant criticism.

But the sheer frequency that we catch these Republicans with their pants down does quickly become compelling…I know I shouldn’t care/approve of such criticism, but damn it, I do nonetheless.

Thanks, Erich, for placing criticism in a more civilized, sensible domain.