David Frum on John McCain:
The New York Times may have just done for John McCain what he has not been able to do for himself: unite the Republican voting base behind him. The note of complaint in the Drudge headline - "Now that he's won the nomination ..." may gain an echo on talk radio and on Fox. Nothing like being attacked by the ultimate enemy - the detested liberal media!
And yet .. if the story is true, isn't it a huge and appalling problem? (Allegedly) delivering government favors to a woman one is (allegedly) sleeping with? Pretty bad, in my book.
So before we rally round - how about a reality check? Is the story true? Is it part of a pattern of behavior? These are things voters are entitled to know, and the Times was not wrong to investigate.
Meanwhile, conservatives wondering how this story got run may find their answer at the New Republic.
That's the rub, though, isn't it? Obviously, if it's true, he's in trouble. The thing is, though, we really don't have any evidence to indicate that it is true other than the word of anonymous former staffers - and even then, it's purely speculative. Moreover, not only do both parties deny an affair ever took place, (1) it's in both their interests to lie about it even if they did, and (2) it's darned near impossible to prove they're lying unless one of them breaks.
So, what we're left with is basically anonymous office gossip reported as news. In the meantime, I'm sticking with my theory that it's obviously untrue because the wife is way hotter than the (alleged) mistress.
It seems to me that the only conservative who is outraged at what McCain has done is Bay Buchanan (Mitt's campaign manager), who on CNN last night was livid that the NYT sat on the story since December. According to her, if only it had come out back then, conservatives would have had a real choice of candidates.
They weren't wrong to investigate the story, they were wrong to print the story without any real evidence. The story as published is full of allegations and insinuations but short on facts. If McCain really was handing out favors to a lobbyist with whom he was having an affair, I'd like to know that. But this story doesn't actually tell us anything.
Independent George:
You do know how McCain met his present wife(and under what circumstances), right? If you knew the whole story surrounding it, you'd know that him having an affair is a very reasonable assumption.
And what if they weren't having an affair, but she just flirted with him and had drinks with him and made him feel like that virile fighter pilot that he isn't any more, and that's why (plus the campaign contributions from her clients) he wrote the letter to the FCC. Do we feel better about Mr. Straight Talk under those circumstances?
The story does not report an allegation that an affair occurred. the NYT's has reported innuendo and speculation about whether there might have been an affair. This story belongs in the National Enquirer, not the New York Times.
what if they weren't having an affair, but she just flirted with him and had drinks with him and made him feel like that virile fighter pilot that he isn't any more, and that's why (plus the campaign contributions from her clients) he wrote the letter to the FCC. Do we feel better about Mr. Straight Talk under those circumstances?
I hadn't considered that, but now that I think of it, it does have a ring of truth to it. Obviously, this is equally impossible to prove or disprove, so it's equally speculative, but it does strike me as consistent with what we know of McCain. Young McCain was a serial womanizer; old Mccain is an egotists who basks in the adulation of others.
And yes, to answer your second question, I do actually feel slightly better about this possibility. Which is not to say I feel good about it, but a (potential) President who gives in to flattery is a lot better than one who cheats on his wife and changes policy on behalf of his mistress.
But, as noted before, everything here is speculation without any shred of supporting evidence.
There is some supporting evidence. He says they are friends, her clients made significant campaign contributions to him and he wrote the letter to the FCC.
Independent George:
As they say, once a cheater, always a cheater. He cheated on his first wife, so what stops his from cheating now(or back in 2000)?
Steven Donegal,
That really isn't evidence that supports the insinuation of an affair.
Of course, writing the letter to the FCC on behalf of a campaign contributor is a real issue that, at least, is true. For a man of McCain's history, this is the real meat of the story. However, no one focuses on that, nor will they.
All in all, this was pretty shoddy journalism. There is more evidence provided in The National Enquirer for celebrity affairs than is in this piece of "investigative" journalism. Even if I absolutely detested John McCain and his politics, I would be very embarrassed to have my name on that byline.
Sure, if it's true, it's a huge an appalling problem. And if Hillary Clinton had Vincent Foster murdered, it's a huge and appalling problem, too. It's perfectly fine for the New York Times to investigate both stories. And, if and when they ever find any actual evidence of either, they should run a story.
If she flirted with him and got her clients to contribute to his campaign, etc... and all she got for it was a letter asking the FCC to do something it should have done anyway (something Senators do often, anyway), then she got ripped off.
The story lacks evidence that he a) received any significant or unusual benefits (Senators get campaign contributions from people who want to influence them... that's normal) or b) did anything he shouldn't have done (writing a letter to the FCC that explicitly doesn't ask for a ruling in favor of one party or the other).
I assume that Senators are going to do things that I would otherwise think were corrupt. McCain seems like he's probably less corrupt than most. This story, if the worst case is true, would put him fairly solidly in the middle of the pack for Senators. It's sad, but true.
And unlike Obama and Clinton, McCain doesn't do earmarks.
Or corporate welfare.