Cats Chase Mice, Cute Blonds Make Headlines
That's my statement on the Vicki Iseman thing. It's kind of detailed here, although with a long interruption in the middle going over the Keating Five snooze rehash to pad the story. Whenever a newspaper has to make a "scandal collage" it to make a story seem substantial, especially if there's a pretty blond involved, you have to ask if there's really a smoking gun. The "evidence" of McCain and Iseman alleged involvement is presented mostly in the form of staffers trying to keep her away from the Senator on the campaign trail and earlier in the senate office.
The article is mainly accusing McCain of hypocrisy which is somewhat akin to accusing him of having vocal chords. Each is almost universally found in humans, but both are more annoying when their presences are noticed in a politician.
It looks like desperate smear material to me. A posed picture of Iseman and Bush is appearing on Wonkette, Huffington, etc., most likely because a photo of her with McCain wearing sunglasses at a hotel piano bar at 2:30am was not available. Her bio has reportedly been pulled from her firm's website which I won't doubt has probably been suffering many bandwidth limit related issues. So we'll have to wait and see what develops. At this point it seems as likely as that loser white guy who said he had a gay relationship with Obama. Dream on, honky.
Here's the official response from the McCain campaign:
It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.
McCain clinches the GOP nomination, so cue the media taking the man down the same media couldn't stop talking about in glowing terms a mere 6 weeks ago. it's funny -- that was exactly the prediction of the conservatives "having a hissy fit" over the nomination of "the only republican who can win". this is only the beginning of unloading on McCain. the media built him up, and now they are going to tear him down.
ReplyDeletewhen are republicans going to wise up to the media and stop being played like a violin? here's a hint for future elections, since this one is already lost: if the overwhelmingly mainstream media fear a republican candidate, they're not going to talk about him. it follows, then, that maybe it's a good idea *not* to vote for the GOP candidate the overwhelmingly democrat media celebrates.
Who is surprised by the media "turning" on McCain?
ReplyDeleteThat's not the point. ask yourself why they didn't turn on him *before*, if they found him such a threat to the democrats winning the election.
ReplyDeletePS you shouldn't comfort yourself that the media doesn't have a lot to work with in today's story. it's only february. this is just the beginning of the drumbeat. they're saving the big guns for closer to november.
ReplyDeleteThe story resonates because it is consistent with the stereotype of McCain being loyal to no one but himself.
ReplyDeleteRecall that after multiple affairs, he dumped the wife who stood by him while he was a POW so he could marry a blonde 17 years younger. Cindy McCain can't possibly be surprised, since she was once on the other side of the same story.
Call me old-fashioned, but I still think that the way a man treats his wife and family says a lot about his character. It's a sad commentary that Obama is the only one left standing who can pass that test.
The story is complete piffle. It all boils down to the "unease" of a few staffers. How on Earth can the Times justify running a story based on such non-evidence? That's right, it can't. And the editors knew that had nothing to go on, and decided to run the story anyway. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteCall me old-fashioned, but I still think that the way a man treats his wife and family says a lot about his character. It's a sad commentary that Obama is the only one left standing who can pass that test.
It also says a lot about a guy's character when he supports abortion in all forms, and is so much in the pro-death camp he can't even abide the prohibition on partial birth abortion.
And I guess the fact that McCain has, by all accounts, been a good husband to his second wife, and has confessed wrongdoing as it relates to his first marriage, means nothing?
I think we have to just wait and see what effect it has, but yeah, objectively-speaking it is piffle. I've seen people taken down by these sorts of rumors in the past, though. It all has to do with the reaction. Some people no doubt still think he fathered a black child, horror of horrors.
ReplyDeleteThe very lack of substance to this NY Times story confirm what "hissy fit" conservatives have been saying all along! the media created this guy -- his "connectedness" to a broad majority of republicans, his supernatural ability to "reach across the aisle" while affectionately dubbing him the "maverick" -- out of thin air. Since the media clearly succeeded doing that, they are confident they'll take him down out of thin air too (although i'm willing to wager they've got a lot more on McCain than today's story).
ReplyDeleteOne might almost suspect that the McCain campaign planted this story. A dust-up with the NYT about what appears to be a non-story based solely on hearsay and innuendo can't but help to lead many conservatives to begin to develop a fonder view of McCain.
ReplyDeleteI should have clarified above, I'm sure the NYT wishes to take down McCain. He denies any wrongdoing. In the absence of other evidence, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that stories like this are a lot more plausible, and therefore get more attention, when the target is someone with a known history of such behavior.
McCain points to the noble things he did in his younger days as reasons he should be president. Fine, but it should then not be surprising when the less-than-noble things he did back then become subjects of conversation as well. He can't have it both ways.
In a similar vein, a candidate who wants us to believe he is the leading anti-lobbyist, but then surrounds himself with lobbyists, can hardly complain when people say this doesn't add up.
It also says a lot about a guy's character when he supports abortion in all forms, and is so much in the pro-death camp he can't even abide the prohibition on partial birth abortion.
Totally agreed. Obama is, nonetheless, the only one in the race who has managed to maintain (as far as we know) a stable marriage and family. This means something. Certainly it does not outweigh his support for evils like abortion, however.
Obama is, nonetheless, the only one in the race who has managed to maintain (as far as we know) a stable marriage and family.
ReplyDelete...by letting his wife say whatever she wants. We'll see if that floats or flushes.
As far as we know
Oh... yeah... he IS like JFK & MLK in that regard.