The Internet is all atwitter tonight about rumors that senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain had a sexual affair with a corporate lobbyist by the name of Vicki Iseman. Most mainstream news outlets aren’t saying that. They’re playing a game of winking and nodding, with phrases like “intimate relationship” or “inappropriate relationship”. Outlets like Raw Story are describing the story in a somewhat more raw form, asking the question “Could this be the unreported political sex scandal that had the blogosphere buzzing late last year?”
Note that that question isn’t really answered. No one has proof in their hot little hands, and no one wants to be sued, so the story is all about reporters talking to political aides talking to someone’s half-sister. Blah, blah, blah.
Does it matter? Does it matter if John McCain had a sexual affair? It won’t affect my vote, and that’s not just because there’s no way in hell I’d vote for John McCain in a million years. News of a sexual affair wouldn’t affect my vote even if I would vote for John McCain in a million years (or ten thousand years, which is how long John McCain suggests we might need to be in Iraq).
Who or what a presidential candidate has sex, so long as it’s legal and consensual, has no relevance on the election.
Now, if John McCain gave this Vicki Iseman special access to government information, or gave her clients government contracts, in return for money or sex, then that is very important. It’s illegal bribery.
As far as I can tell, though, there’s no evidence of that. In fact, as far as I can tell, there’s no evidence of anything.
But then again, I don’t think that’s the point. The point is that it’s a great opportunity for somebody to make John McCain look like a big sleaze in a sexual kind of way.
Like I said, I don’t think that the private sexual matters of presidential candidates are relevant. Only bubbleheads who don’t have enough neurons to hold onto a coherent political concept care about such things. The trouble is that there are a lot of that kind of bubblehead out there in America these days.
Which brings me to Mike Huckabee.
What, am I accusing Mike Huckabee of being a bubblehead without enough neurons to hold onto a coherent political concept? Well, yes, but that’s not the point. The point is that it’s Mike Huckabee, or his supporters, who are pushing this McCain sex scandal rumor out there, in a desperate attempt to take the Republican nomination away from John McCain, after even the Republicans have largely agreed that Huckabee is too much of a wacko to trust with the presidency.
Haven’t you wondered why Mike Huckabee decided to go on campaigning even after John McCain got what appeared to be a lead in the delegate count that could not possibly be overcome, unless some terribly embarrassing scandal about McCain came out?
Isn’t it awfully convenient that this McCain lobbyist sex scandal rumor is now coming out at a time when there’s a two-week break between primary elections – enough time for sex-obssessed Republican faux-prudes to talk about nothing else?
If John McCain has to pull a Gary Hart and withdraw from the race, it won’t be Ron Paul who gets his delegates, folks.
Oh, but I don’t know for sure that’s what’s going on, of course. There is another bubblehead possibility for the source of this vapid little scandal, and this is a bubblehead with teflon hair.
That’s right, it’s one of the former, or not-so-former, Republican presidential candidates, and his name rhymes with Bitt Domney. Okay, Mitt Romney. Remember how Romney gave that mealy-mouthed speech at which he declared that he would be “suspending” his presidential campaign? That was awfully curious language, wasn’t it? At the time, people interpreted it as a sign of Mitt Romney’s denial, a refusal to admit that he, the one mighty and strong, had failed. In retrospect, one could say that it also sounded as if Mitt Romney knew something might happen that would bring him back into the race.
Will we now be seeing a Huckabee vs. Romney race to the Republican nomination? Well, shucks, I don’t know.
What I can see is this: There’s a big red curtain and three big elephant-shaped things wrestling with each other behind it. It’s getting pretty rough and tumble back there from what I can see, though I can’t really tell who is butting up against who. Will one of them slip and rip the curtains down with their tusks so that we can see what’s really happening, or will it all get smoothed over as one of the elephant shapes whispers sweet nothings like “I promise you the VP spot,” or “ambassadorships for all your illegitimate children”?
Oh let’s do keep an eye on this one – not for the sex, but for the much more tawdry soap opera of the betrayal of Republicans against Republicans.
Oh, no jclifford, let’s keep an eye on it for the SEX!
According to the wikipedia bio, it was McCain’s infidelity that broke up his first marriage, and he admitted to it publicly. Does a lion change its spots? I’m tired of all the public lies and betrayals. If you want to fool around, you shouldn’t be married.
I don’t know what to think of this just yet. Personally I do not really care about the sexual aspect, that is his business. However if he did in fact act with her professional best interest’s, meaning voted, spoke in a way he wouldn’t have if she were a non factor, then I see a issue. A huge issue actually.
Iroquois, I think that’s a matter for McCain and his wives. I have to apply the same standard I did for Bill Clinton. If McCain actually had a sexual affair, which we really don’t know for a fact yet, then that’s not nice of him. However, I’m interested in having a President who supports nice policies, not a President who is nice in person.
HyerStandard’s approach is more what matters to me, although I still do think evidence of wrongdoing, and not just the suggestion of it, is what’s needed.
Indications are that several newspapers have known about these allegations for at least year, but have not written about them. That indicates to me either that the newspapers have a political interest in McCain or that they had one or two sources but not corroboration.
The New York Times is running with the story this morning, suggesting either that new information has come to light or that they just view it as more timely, and screw their standards of journalism. Another possibility is that the information got out to bloggers who were set to release one or two pieces of information, and the Times didn’t want to be scooped.
A colleague of mine (in Romance Languages) often travels to Europe and is still very alert to the concerns of France mainly, but also Italy, Spain and Germany through family and friends. She and i have talked at length regarding the European attitude toward sex and politics, so i relate this information to you secondhand, admittedly. According to her, in Europe the adult news reading population would laugh at this. There are newspaper pictures public figures like a prime minister walking to a state function or just being out in public, mistress by their side and often with their wife also. It’s not even news over there. The population isn’t as distracted by our puritanical attitudes toward life and they are much more concerned with the issues impacting their daily lives (don’t get me wrong – they have “scandal sheets” too, but it’s like the National Star here as far as journalism and public regard is concerned).
Why view it as a personal matter if you can think of a conspiracy theory. The one that immediately comes to mind is Hillary’s slipping ratings in the latest primary. Then there is a poll this week that shows she can’t beat McCain but Obama can. A lot of party pundits think Obama would be a good candidate, but not now. Some were saying he should run now just for name recognition but others were saying yes, this time for real, this election cycle. Who was it that took down Dean? I’m looking for another “screech” event soon, and this might be it.
“According to her, in Europe the adult news reading population would laugh at this.” — Maybe, maybe not. If it was just sex, sure. But, if it’s true that he was doing favors for her, then that’s not a sex scandal, it’s a bribery scandal. If it comes to that, we have to ask ourselves: do we want a President who’s known to take bribes?
Maybe I’m being a prude here, but it seems like it does matter to me.
Regardless of Euro norms, North American norms categorize this behavior as a matter of honesty and integrity. If I were voting in your American election, I would be thinking twice about putting somebody in the White House who has been caught lying. You put a bold faced liar in office last time and look at the disastrous effect.
Of course, this is all assuming that the allegations are true.
Scott, there’s the interesting bit for you philosophy types, isn’t it? A bold faced liar. Would an italic liar be OK? That’s a jest, but seriously, we all lie in the broadest sense. “Hello! How are you today?” “Oh, fine, thank you.” Who says “Why, I’m feeling small, insignificant and churlish, thank you.” What sort of lie qualifies one as unpresidential? Marital infidelity? McCain has already admitted to cheating on his first wife. Doing favors for someone you’re sleeping with, and then lying about it? That would meet the bold faced liar standard for me in the circumstance because it would be about the abuse of public trust and authority in a government position. I don’t believe that sort of behavior has been proven yet, although McCain did do the lobbyist’s clients some serious favors.
What do you think, Scott?
“I did not have sex with that woman.” Hmm, sounds familiar. Now where have I heard that before????
wear these to your next McCain event:
http://www.cafepress.com/got_bait