NYT: McCain may have behaved unethically and cheated on his wife, but we’re not sure; Update: Pressured by the New Republic? Update: McCain responds; Update: Carl Cameron video added; Update: TNR confirms? Update: WaPo piles on
posted at 8:29 pm on February 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record.
The media halo’s gone, Maverick. Nothing personal. Just business.
Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”…
In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others…
[McCain advisor John] Weaver added that the brief conversation [he had with Iseman] was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate…
Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries…
In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.
Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman.
The juicy stuff’s at the end, including instances of McCain acting against the interest of Iseman’s clients. Exit question: Is this really the tack the left’s going to take against the guy who co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and about whose “sense of honor” Russ Feingold testifies to in this very piece? That he’s unethical?
Update: Remember this? This story’s evidently been in the works for two months, and if you believe Drudge’s teaser from back then, it was initially going to accuse McCain of having let Iseman write parts of his telecom bills. How thin must that angle have been if it didn’t make the cut for an article this thin on other details?
Update: Among the various ways to get the base to rally behind Maverick, a New York Times hit piece surely must be one of the most efficient.
Update: Not only is Hannity & Colmes running with this, they’re showing photos of Iseman. Carl Cameron’s on and is saying he talked to McCain’s advisors when Drudge first scooped this in December, and that apparently TNR was threatening to run a story about the Times burying the article unless they published. I’ll cut the video; stand by.
Update: Team McCain answers:
“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.”
Update: As promised, here’s the video of Cameron claiming via McCain’s campaign that TNR pressured the Times into running with it.
Link: sevenload.com
Update: Here’s video of Bob Bennett ripping the Times to shreds.
Update: TNR says it’ll have something to say tomorrow.
Update: WaPo’s more careful about not suggesting any sexual shenanigans but they don’t have any more on the ethical angle than the Times has:
Three telecom lobbyists and a former McCain aide, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Iseman spoke up regularly at meetings of telecom lobbyists in Washington, extolling her connections to McCain and his office. She would regularly volunteer at those meetings to be the point person for the telecom industry in dealing with McCain’s office.
Concern about Iseman’s presence around McCain at one point led to her being banned from his Senate office, according to sources close to McCain.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
From my perspective, McCain’s gonna start hemorrhaging squishy independent voters as the media starts bombarding him with bad press. He’s gonna need disgruntled conservatives to replace them, said conservatives may as well make him sweat a while and see if we can get some concessions from ol’ JMac.
doubleplusundead on February 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Here is McCain’s response that AP quoted above:
Never? Never ever?
Weight of Glory on February 20, 2008 at 9:43 PM
For a second I was like WTF? How can the discredited TNR cow the NYT? Then I realized that from the leftist perspective, TNR isn’t discredited, it just got caught in a small lie.
doubleplusundead on February 20, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Notice the lack of denial of an affair?
LevStrauss on February 20, 2008 at 9:46 PM
The attacks will backfire and rally support for the Sen. This is a cheap shot and fired way to early too count.
TroubledMonkey on February 20, 2008 at 9:47 PM
There are no small lies at TNR only Beauchamp sized “truth”
William Amos on February 20, 2008 at 9:48 PM
This will be a huge SITYS on Rush tomorrow concerning his prediction the media would turn on McCain. (Even us laymen could’ve guessed it would happen. Just surprised it happened so early).
This could be a nefarious plot by the Clintons to get Obama off the front pages.
or
It could be a nefarious plot by the Obama campaign to get Michelle Obama off the front page.
SouthernGent on February 20, 2008 at 9:50 PM
For most of the far Left, it isn’t even a small lie. It’s fake but accurate.
amerpundit on February 20, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Live by the sword….die by the sword ..
redrock on February 20, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Exactamundo. I don’t believe a single word the NYT reports as “news.” If they put on their front page the sun will come up in the east tomorrow I’d look for confirmation.
Dudley Smith on February 20, 2008 at 9:50 PM
not a pickup, a Limo….and their is also Crack Cocaine involved for him, regular cocaine for his partner. gotta get your facts straight if we are going to do this…see youtube clip.
jp on February 20, 2008 at 9:51 PM
But McCain isn’t even giving the “straight talk” here. I was a Paul supporter and I was able to tell when he was lying about his newsletters because of the language in his nondenial. Same language that we have here with McCain, just a smear, just politics, just ancient history. The guy isn’t even shooting straight with his supporters and they are going to look rather foolish for doing so, when we hear the rest of the story. I said that for Paul, I’ll say it for McCain.
It may seem as a cheap shot that was fired too early, looking ahead I see it as the first bullet.
LevStrauss on February 20, 2008 at 9:53 PM
I disagree. This is only the beginning, media works like Chinese water torture on a mass scale, a steady bombardment on the senses for months on end, and it’ll work. They destroyed Bush, they’ll crush McCain. McCain’s relied on the media to get where he is, they built him, they know how to destroy him.
doubleplusundead on February 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM
No. Pickup truck is much more damning ecspecially to Libs. I like the crack pipe idea, but that actually happened, didn’t it?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Rick Perry for VP? Anyone?
SouthernGent on February 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM
McCain admits he’s guilty, he’s a fraud,. McCain resigns NOW for the good of the party and the country. We pick a REAL CONSERVATIVE who isn’t a used-car salesman with a Bible. Republicans win the election.
I like that better. McCain is damaged goods. McCain IS TOO OLD. He CAN NOT win.
stenwin77 on February 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Hey Mitt just suspended his campaign right?
lol
terryannonline on February 20, 2008 at 9:57 PM
This will never stick. Have you seen this chic? She fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Cyndi McCain is probably 60. I’m 35 and would love to, ya know. uummm
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 20, 2008 at 9:58 PM
It’s probably worth noting that Obama’s people have dropped a lurid sex story on his opponent in virtually every campaign he’s ever run in. He owes his Senate seat, in fact, to a particularly nasty sex story. Even the lefty sites are talking of that tonight.
Rational Thought on February 20, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Bob Bennett was just on Fox and lambasted the NYT, saying he investigated McCain for the Senate Ethics Committee. He found him to be ethical.
Say he did admit to guilt and “resigned”? Who are you going to nominate that’s a “real conservative” and can win?
They also attempted to destroy Bush in 2000 and 2004. CBS’ top anchorman lobbed false accusations against him on the nightly news, as you know.
amerpundit on February 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Geeesh I’d hate to read that. Republican couple, hazmat suits, prayer beads….gads what horrible people we are.
Limerick on February 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM
?
doubleplusundead on February 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM
So, women are not allowed to be professionals without being labeled as whores.
Chakra Hammer on February 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM
strategy:
1) Obtain “story” (actually rumors & innuendos) about McCain, but hide it
2) endorse McCain
3) publish story when he’s the nominee
jgapinoy on February 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM
New rule: 5 years as a POW = UNLIMITED GUILT FREE AFFAIRS
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 20, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Difference: Bush never relied on the MSM to build himself up. McCain has.
doubleplusundead on February 20, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I have a female Doctor and a female Dentist, wonder if allegations will come out.
>:}
Chakra Hammer on February 20, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Sounds reasonable. Enlightened even.
Rational Thought on February 20, 2008 at 10:04 PM
You, MY FRIEND are disgusting.
stenwin77 on February 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I think this whole thing is pretty stupid. The Dems are in disarray. They see Republicans beginning to join the McCain camp and the infighting slowing down some, so they pull a fake rabbit out of a fake hat to restart the turmoil. It gives Huck a chance to go for his goal (whatever the heck it is). I’m not playing.
Connie on February 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM
But one way to rally the base, is to piss them off with the NYT launching an empty attack against the party’s nominee.
amerpundit on February 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM
What if it’s true? To my knowledge, he hasn’t denied it.
stenwin77 on February 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM
I’ve been brought into Johnny Mac’s camp kicking and screaming…but yeah…as soon as I saw ‘NYT’ I got my dander up.
Limerick on February 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Not likely…John McShamnesty is an adulterer and unethical…we already knew that…first wife and Keating 5. I would be shocked if an old dog was up to old tricks!
jwp1964 on February 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM
The denial is “guilding the lilly”. Too much, too broad, too final. “Never?
After 24 years in public service all the NYT’s will have to do is find a glaring instance or two, or three, or….. He will be discredited because of his arrogant denial and never denied the affair.
SITYS. The NYTs sat on this, gave us a grenade and is now pulling the pin. We were stupid enough to run with it and have a bunch of half-hearts cancel each other out, all the while he gets glowing press. We were the suckers to believe it. A perfect propping up of a straw man and then light a match. He will never make it to the convention.
Starlink on February 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Wow, didn’t see this coming. I mean the guy was only known as a “ladies man”, admitted to cheating on his first wife and says it was due to him “wanting to be 25 again”! But that is old news because we all know that him wanting to be 25 again was an acceptable excuse. I suppose this will turn out to be him wanting to be 45 again!
But hey Mitt said he did not want to go back to Reagan/Bush (tax raises and amnesty), is not publicly in support of a Pro-Choice position anymore and has other words taken out of context like he saw his dad march with MLK. I mean his dad only walked out of the GOP convention with Goldwater over civil rights issues – We don’t want the press to find out about that one, it might make Mitt the next messiah. Better to stick with the adulterous McAmnesty who wants to sell us out to Mexico, fight global warming by jacking up my enegry costs, close Gitmo and refuses to sign a no tax pledge.
What the hell were we thinking selecting the Mormon who has been married to his same wife since high school and stayed married to her through her medical problems. I mean this guy doesn’t drink or smoke either. Better to have the Maverick who dumps his crippled wife so he be 25 again!
Poptech on February 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Maybe Cyndi is such a w(b)itch, … well you know. The guy is 72, you know.
stenwin77 on February 20, 2008 at 10:19 PM
…..and they are laughing their butts off tonight at the NYTs. Those stupid Republicans.
Starlink on February 20, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Dan Rather and Olbermann are probably having a beer together feeling giddy.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Those horny old Senators again!
So does this relate to him tapping his feet in the Ladies room stalls?
TexasJew on February 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Except there’s still a Christian leader in the race.
Connie on February 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM
The New York Times, the same paper that uncovered confidential terrorist surveillance programs, has been sitting on this for months. And when it decides to print, the best it can come up with is unsourced second-hand rumors of something that may or may not have happened.
I’m placing money on it not being true.
amerpundit on February 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Yeah…No.
amerpundit on February 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Excellent ! My sentiments exactly.
I’d be shocked if it WASN’T true ! Love to hear Freddie Barnes and Billy Kristol if this turns out to be true. (Well, it was OK for Clinton…)
stenwin77 on February 20, 2008 at 10:24 PM
I’ll give you that the NYT is evil and doesn’t have a good record but McCain’s history makes me think this IS true. If it is, he owes the party and the country an immediate withdrawal from the race.
stenwin77 on February 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM
lol!
Connie on February 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM
It doesn’t have to be true, just reported.
That’s the magic of the media.
The lie is more effective that the retraction.
And that’s the point.
Throw the mud, then apologize.
All people will remember is the mud.
profitsbeard on February 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Oh yes. Because we all remember how their drooling, slavering endorsement hurt him, don’t we?
Keep dreaming. He’s toast.
Misha I on February 20, 2008 at 10:30 PM
If it didn’t happen, why did he not deny it?
Will somebody who thinks these accusations are a lie please answer that question?
LevStrauss on February 20, 2008 at 10:33 PM
I don’t think he has a chance of winning in Nov. to begin with.
terryannonline on February 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
What EXACTLY is McCain being kinda, sorta accused of by the World’s Most Biased Newspaper of Record?
What piece of legislation is he being alleged to have favored because of this lobbyist?
What public trust is this lobbyist supposed to have forced McCain to compromise?
Is he simply being accused of dallying with a female lobbyist eight years ago?
Is this just a case of the Slimes rehashing some meager scraps that dont amount to a hill of beans but hoping that enough of the scraps add up to the HINT of scandal?
Personally, I think this is just another TYPICAL media smear of a prominent Republican as that Republican gets ready to face off with a liberal Democrat in a national election.
And personally I think it STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.
Always Right on February 20, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I actually physically felt my begrudging McCain support solidifying due to my intense loathing of the NYT. Good job, Grey Lady!
joewm315 on February 20, 2008 at 10:50 PM
McShamnesty’s Buddy’s in the MSM are just gettin’ started.
jwp1964 on February 20, 2008 at 10:50 PM
This is funny. You guys are just like the Paulites that denied the newsletter story, blame the media, don’t pay any attention to the fact that his denial was not a denial. They just bought everything that Lew Rockwell said. Whose your Lew Rockwell?
LevStrauss on February 20, 2008 at 10:55 PM
How can the NYT be more disreputable than it already is? Not surprised in the least. MSM manipulation of our elections goes on, and the Republican boobs consented to those stupid televised debates.
McCain is Bush III. He’ll screw the base with joy, and without the peculiar Bush charm. Bush I endorses; he still has no clue why he got booted, or doesn’t care. The kiss of death that didn’t kill — another stick in the eye from the dynasts.
Nothing McCain says will change my mind about his character and record, but a lot of things can happen before November. Still planning for now on withholding my vote, and denying the slimy dynasts any more support.
If Hillary is that obvious, even to liberals, then that’s pretty bad.
What a creepy website HotAir linked today. myobama, “powered by hope.” If he gets in, some surviving madman will write The Obamanomicron to strike fear into the future.
Feedie on February 20, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Well, that is a real timesaver.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 20, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Will TNR tell us why the story was so lame?
ninjapirate on February 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Lev:
The source for the Ron Paul story was the Ron Paul newsletter with Ron Paul’s name on the letterhead, forgoshsakes.
The source for this McCain story is one or two anonymous tipsters who dont go on the record and whose story cannot be corroborated by anyone ON the record.
Hopefully you can glean the difference.
Always Right on February 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Yeah I know the difference, but I have been stressing the similarity. If it didn’t happen, why not deny it? The question still stands. Politicians in these statements are not just throwing words together for the hell of it, they are prepared for a reason.
LevStrauss on February 20, 2008 at 11:11 PM
John McCain is unethical.
He was unethical with his first wife. He was unethical with the Keating Five mess.
Men who are unethical in one area of their lives are unethical in others. A man who cheats on his first wife will cheat on his second wife.
Why this story shocks anybody is shocking to me.
THIS is why the Dems wanted McCain to be the Republcan Nominee — it is going to be a very rough 8 months.
EJDolbow on February 20, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Sounds like a Rovian plot to me, as this could be the sort of thing that will get conservatives to rally around Johnny Mac. Oh yeah, one other thing, didn’t the Time just endorse McCain? Did they endorse McCain knowing they had this in their back pocket? As they say, Eenteresting.
franklinstein on February 20, 2008 at 11:21 PM
I don’t think McCain has any idea what is heading his way. All of that “reaching across the aisle” made him think he had friends on “that” side.
He has been suckered.
Talon on February 20, 2008 at 11:29 PM
If true, it would pretty much be a badge of honor amongst his center->left supporters.
True or false, it won’t make any difference to the people like me who despise him already for his political treachery.
If true, it might make a few of his ‘hold your nose’ voters to step up to donning gas masks and pop a couple of thorazines prior to voting, but it won’t stop them.
So the way I see it he will probably have a net gain of a few votes overall if he did cheat.
But hey; He was a POW and is a ‘Maverick US Senator’. He has earned at least two free passes to cheat; He used the first one when he cheated on first wife Carol with Miss Cindy; If he cheated only once more, he is in the clear.
And as to Cindy McCain being a ‘babe’…. Twenty years ago that was close to true. The last couple of days I’ve been struck by how unattractive a 54 year old woman can be when she is trying to look and dress like a 16 year old. YUCK.
LegendHasIt on February 20, 2008 at 11:32 PM
maybe if he pulls off the win, he’ll govern far to the right as payback.
jp on February 20, 2008 at 11:33 PM
So, the magazine responsible for the Scott Beauchamp fiasco has strong-armed the NYT into publishing a wafer-thin attack on Sen. McCain as quickly as he emerged as the presumptive GOP nominee.
Mike D. on February 20, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Me thinks the NY Times is starting to worry about obama not winning
William Amos on February 20, 2008 at 11:38 PM
The four reporters who did this hit job won’t answer phone calls or emails. The editor and Washington Bureau chief have also gone into hiding. Nice. Now, we’ll put the Times on trial for the next week. We may not have Billary to unite us, but the Times isn’t a bad second choice. Thanks libs.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM
I saw Dan Abrams and Anderson Cooper questioning the article and its authors. This must be the worst article in the history of journalism.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 20, 2008 at 11:44 PM
And we didn’t vote for Mitt why??? Because he was a flip-flopper. Oh my goodness. On what issues was he a flip-flopper. Became pro-life. Bad. Embraced gun ownershihp. Bad. What other ’sins’ did he commit that were so bad? Yeah, squeaky clean, yeah that made him look slick. Pathetic.
cjs1943 on February 20, 2008 at 11:48 PM
CK your posts are a delight to read. A clear head and intelligence are all too rare these days. Cuts through the rank hypocrisy and poison of the pseudo-cons like a knife.
Pax americana on February 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM
I’m sorry, but this whole story is some serious schadenfreude. I love seeing McCain turned on by his beloved MSM.
HYTEAndy on February 20, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I think the idea that a woman would actually have sex with Mccain might be news.
EJDolbow on February 20, 2008 at 11:57 PM
You posted earlier, but thanks for validating my thoughts.
cjs1943 on February 20, 2008 at 11:57 PM
So you’re saying that John DIDN’T act like a douchebag and cheat on his crippled wife on numerous occasions, after she had fought hard for his release from Vietnam?
Clarification needed please.
omnipotent on February 21, 2008 at 12:09 AM
If the quoted staffers really believed McCain and this woman were carrying on, I find it hard to believe that they would have handled it in the manner in which they describe. As the loyal staffers of a married US senator, you’d think they would be most concerned with keeping the whole thing quiet. The LAST thing you’d think they’d do, or that McCain would LET them do, is piss her off with some sort of staffed-out public confrontation and brush-off.
Infidoll on February 21, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Well could be a plot to make light of McCains age
“You think being 72 slowed me down ???”
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 12:15 AM
BTW anyone remember how upset the left got about allegations that Silky got some woman pregnant ?
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM
TNR & NYT two pillars on journalistic integrity.
29Victor on February 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM
A McCain story? Who cares.
bigbeas on February 21, 2008 at 12:29 AM
I don’t care. I want the country protected. McCain will do that; the Democrats won’t. I want the drunken spending curbed. McCain says he’ll try; the Democrats won’t. I want conservative Supreme Court Justices. McCain says he’ll nominate them; the Democrats won’t.
Bill Clinton sc****d women, but didn’t protect the country. Hillary will sc**w the country, but not protect it. Obama will sc**w-up the country and not protect it. So if McCain sc**ws arounds, but protects the country, it’s jake with me.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on February 21, 2008 at 12:31 AM
If he really is that regretful when it comes to that, then perhaps he should instruct his staffers not to lie about it?:
Damn near spewed all over my keyboard over that one.
Misha I on February 21, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Pork Barrel Earmarks
Clinton $340 million
Obama $91 million
McCain $0
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Exactly, it’s an old tired story that will pass.
AprilOrit on February 21, 2008 at 12:42 AM
I’m not a GOP supporter. I’m a Conservative.
Huge difference these days.
HTH, HAND.
Misha I on February 21, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Candidates’ Earmarks Worth Millions Washingtonpost.com
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 12:45 AM
This story is paper-thin and weak BUT I wonder what the Left has in store for their “October Surprise”.
omnipotent on February 21, 2008 at 12:47 AM
After learning this, my question is how many here spent 5 1/2 years being tortured to the point they cannot raise their arms above their shoulders??? I can’t imagine how he even managed to have a “relationship”. The fact it lasted as long as it did is a miracle.
According to Bob Bennett, McCain is a very honest and honorable man. And by the way, if I recall correctly, Nancy was not Ronald’s first wife. Also, I do recall reading somewhere that Reagan signed an Amnesty bill.
Claimsratt on February 21, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Also, McCain took responsibility for his failed marriage, and admitted to being wrong.
Men take responsibility when they are wrong, confess your sins ask for forgiveness and go forward.
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 12:55 AM
TNR’s “reliable source” is Scott Beauchamp.
DANEgerus on February 21, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Looks like the bump that Huckabee will be needing ;-)
As for this story, couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. I’m predicting that Obama – assuming he goes through – will carry 50 states –
LiberalsIndependents crossing over to him, and Conservatives sitting home.Hannity, Rush, Ingraham and others should just sit this out – McVain doesn’t deserve to have his water carried by Conservatives.
infidelpride on February 21, 2008 at 1:27 AM
Yeah McCain did not cheat on his crippled ex-wife who fought to get him out of Vietnam because he then got a paper work divorce after he cheated on her and paid her alimony and then admitted that the cheating was wrong because he wanted to be 25 again? Try selling that one to your wife after you do that to her.
Oh and I am a blind McCain “hater” – it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he voted against the Bush Tax Cutes which gave me my only tax relief in years, he refuses to sign a no tax pledge, he wants to jack my energy costs up with idiotic anti-global warming regulation, he wanted to give amnesty to all the illegals AFTER he “secures” the border or that he wants to close Gitmo because Europe does not like it. No it must be blind McCain hatin!
Poptech on February 21, 2008 at 1:38 AM
I’m with ya, brother, I’m with ya!
SuperCool on February 21, 2008 at 2:00 AM
Pax americana on February 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Thanks for your kind words. I’ve gotten the sense from your other posts and from your user-id that we likely share a similar set of priorities regarding the current election and political situation. If you’re like me, you may also find the fact that we’re even discussing some of these matters to be a little embarrassing.
Claimsratt on February 21, 2008 at 12:51 AM
I agree with your post, and I certainly don’t put myself in the position to pass judgment on John McCain ca. 1978 or ca. 2008. How he spent the Me Decade after his late start is interesting on a human interest level, I guess, but it has zero relevance to me. As far as I can tell, the thin and pointless innuendo reported by the NYT belongs in the same category.
CK MacLeod on February 21, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Oh, TNR will have something to say. That’ll add a lot of credibility to this story.
amkun on February 21, 2008 at 2:38 AM
Thanks for writing that. It’s truly shameless to beat on John McCain for leaving his first wife for reasons they don’t know, and couldn’t possibly fathom unless they’ve also spent 5 years in a prison camp. Yet, they still find no compunctions with slanderous speculation.
It’s very disheartening to find our own little Kos Kidz on the right.
amkun on February 21, 2008 at 2:44 AM
He admitted the reasons! He was cheating on her. What part of that do you not understand? Why do you think he married Cindi one month after the paper divorce?
I guess spending 5 months in a prison camp gives you the right to cheat on your wife when you return home! I had no idea! Must be my “Kos” background as to why I missed that one. I had no idea these were conservative principles.
Poptech on February 21, 2008 at 4:03 AM
This would not have been a problem with Mitt. I know you don’t want to hear that, but it’s true.
WasatchMan on February 21, 2008 at 4:21 AM
Remember that icky Larry Flynt was claiming to have info to take down a sitting US Senator? Could THIS be it?
Personally, I don’t care… McCain is what he is and he IS better than Barack Obama any day! I’m an original FredHead, but still. What’s the alternative? Huckabee. Dear God. And could THIS be why he has refused to quit the race?
Oink on February 21, 2008 at 5:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »