Thursday, February 21, 2008
Not-lanta John McCain's crotch and Republican hypocrisy
Posted by Andisheh Nouraee on Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:06 PM
In an ideal world, John McCain's marital life would be of no concern to the public. Then again, in an ideal world, he wouldn't stick idiotic, hypocritical crap like this on the "issues" page of his campaign website:
Protecting MarriageThe family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
The fact that such language is part of his campaign platform makes his private life fair game for nitpickers. You can't be a protector of marriage and a lobbyist-schtupper at the same time.
Add in the fact that McCain wrote letters to government regulators on behalf of his alleged paramour's clients, plus his recent pander to the Republican Party's pro-torture wing, and my longstanding respect for him as a person of integrity has all but vanished in recent days.
Comments (19)
Showing 1-19 of 19
I agree, my respect for public officials is always damaged by anonymously sourced and vague stories from the NY Times.
like
dislikeAnonymously sourced FROM WITHIN HIS CAMPAIGN, with a key detail confirmed on the record by John Weaver. And no one is disputing he wrote letters to government regulators on behalf of her clients.
After reading the story, I gotta agree with Dale's point about the story's suspect sourcing, at least regarding the salacious details. The most scandalous (and therefore, readable) parts about his relationship with this alleged ladyfriend are anonymously sourced. They coulda just left that biznass out...there's was plenty of on-the-record goodness to imply he was/is too cozy with lobbyists. Also - to preempt a coming argunment - I get why we're just reading it now even though the subject is kinda stale - namely because he's the Republican nominee whose reputation was built on his supposed ethical sturdiness. The story becomes more newsworthy as McCain gets closer to actually becoming President. I wonder if Obama's getting a little nervous about the NYT's piece on him. You know they're working on it.
The NYT story is bad -- it's fully of innuendo and suggestions, but very little fact. But I've come to expect that from the NYT.
"from within his campaigh" - and former employees NEVER talk out of their butts about the ex-boss. Come on Andisheh, admit the NY Times published a garbage story which you referenced and move on. Even it it proves to be true, it is garbage journalism. Mr T. - McCain's possible affair is "becoming more newsworthy" as McCain gets closer to the Presidency? Didn't the left, especially the press, spend YEARS telling us a President's sex life was a private matter? The statement on his website is a sign of his homophobia, not his fidelity to his wife.
The Poynter Institute poynts out what's poyntedly not obvious:
To be fair, the story is long and includes many other examples of McCain's questionable judgment. But as the story is repeated today across the country, all that context will disappear. ... The Times' story is about McCain's contradictory nature. But leading and ending with the most salacious example of that contradiction guarantees that as the story is retold today, it will become a question of whether McCain had an affair.After reading the NYT story, I think Poynter's perspective is very insightful. There is plenty of room to criticize McCain for his contradictions. I don't think it's worth emphasizing the most vague parts of the story. Of course, the appearance of an affair probably could've been buried at the end of the story, and everyone still would've focused on that. Sigh.
Exactly what I was saying Joe...well, better stated, but that's what I was saying above. The dirty dirty could be left out and we'd still have a good story. Dale - the affair isn't the news. The news is that McCain, the self-styled ethical crusader, has surrounded himself (and created uncomfortably cozy relationships) with the lobbyists that he supposedly detests. And it becomes more newsworthy as the subject (McCain) becomes more newsworthy. It is the reason we don't read stories about Dale's or Mr. T's contradictions in the AJC...because neither of us is newsworthy. If either of us were the presumptive Republican nominee for President, you can bet they'd be digging. Anyone familar with news organizations has seen this thinking in action.
Let me clarify one thing -- I think the N.Y. Times was within their rights -- and right mind -- to run the story. I just thought, frankly, it wasn't a particularly well-done story. The McCain reaction is a little over the top, I think. I'm sure Obama's got one coming and the words "cocaine sniffing" will be in the first 6 inches...
I am frequently amused by those who scorn Republicans for defending the traditional (read: actual) definition of marriage. Sorry, Andisheh, but in this case that means you. Here's a quote from Senator Obama on marriage: "Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/ I don't think Senator Clinton supports the concept of gay marriage, either and, of course, neither did her husband who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, or whatever it was called. Since you used McCain's stance on marriage as a jumping off point for your comments, I just wanted to chime in on this topic.
I appreciate you chiming in. I don't recall praising the Democratic Party or its two leading Presidential candidates for taking an unhedged, principled stand on gay rights. Democrats are, by and large, spineless on this issue. That said, only one party (its leaders, base, and press surrogates) systematically tries to whip up anti-gay hysteria with talk about how gay marriage leads to polygamy and dog marriage. Only one party has a viable candidate for president whose web site implies that gay people are, by definition, in opposition to Western Civilization. See above. Sen. Obama is the first viable presidential candidate I can recall who has gone out of his way to say nice things about gay people, to emphasize how gay people are every much as part of the fabric of American life as straight people. Republicans cannot do that because their base and their talk-show hosts will punish them. As for Clinton, just as I don't give Sen. Clinton credit for her husbands, I don't blame her for it either. Except for the health care debacle, which was her doing.
I just read the New York Times story and kept looking for the part where McCain porks the blonde. Did they do the dog on the private jet? I'm left guessing here. It's a soft-core story with a hard-core buildup This is a story about McCain fucking a lobbyist and they can't prove he fucked her. Period. Don't give me that Poynter institute crap. That sounds like a high-minded discussion you could find on ajc.com if you could ever get past the Britney stories on the front page.
I'm surprised that no Republicans have chimed in yet to express relief that at least McCain isn't suspected of having a relationship with a man or a hooker. Silver-lining, eh?
I must say, you seem to be attributing an awful lot of ill will toward McCain for the statement on his website, but the statement itself is really a very innocuous expression in his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't see any malice whatsoever in that. He's essentially embracing the same position as Obama. I am keeping hope alive. Hope we can believe in, that is.
It may be innocuous to you, but it's not innocuous to same sex couples who are serially demonized by the Republican Party for wanting to get married. McCain isn't a religious conservative, I know. He just really, really, really wants to be President, so he's playing along with their game. That doesn't really square with his Straight Talk Express routine. Nor, for that matter, does flying around jets with lobbyists. I'm still trying to decide between hope I can believe in and a plan to get things done.
I don't accept your premise that gay people are demonized for a desire to get married. Failing to agree with their philosophy does not even come close to demonization. And just who is it that doesn't agree with their desire to be able to get married? McCain, Clinton, and Obama to name three.
WELL SAID. After all, Republicans aren't shy about making unproven innuendo about Barack Obama being either a communist sympathizer or a participant in coked-up gay sex while in the Illinois legislature. If they're willing to denounce those (among other) smears from the right wing machine, then they'll have some room to talk about the NYT. Til they do, however, all this attention to the McCain story is fine by me.
First - I am no fan of McCain. His ethical lapses go way back, at least to the Keating Five, an event that some think explains his "maverick" status as attributable to favors by the Democrats investigating that particular scandal letting McCain off the hook. His ironclad ethics and morality seem to have been left in Hanoi. What he did for his men in Hanoi was one fiothe most courageous things I have ever known, but it doesn't give a free pass for the next forty years. Mr T - If the affair is not news, why was it, rather than the verifiable ethical lapses, reported? Probably because the NY Times doesn't want McCain to be President and, as pointed out by others, the REAL story will be lost in the sex story. Exactly the same way that President Clinton's perjury and misconduct was lost in the "blue dress" story. If we are pointing out contradictions in McCains statements, whcih are numerous, isn't it fair for me to point out contradictions in the reporting of the affairs of Presidential candidates? I understand that McCain is becoming more newsworthy, I was pointing out the different standadrds applied to different politicians. Sellout - If the NY Times don't have the balls (ie ethical and moral integrity) to name (and verify) the sources for an "Obama cocaine" story, that too will be garbage journalism and Obama will be absolutely correct if he cloaks himself in moral indignation. It may also mean that Senator Clinton's opposition research team have not supplied the names to the NY Times.
JP - I will ignore for a minute that your linked story actually identified the sources by name. The stories you linked cited one Republican, known whacko Alan Keyes, and a self-proclaimed registered Democrat. The beauty of naming sources is that OTHER journalists can check out the story. Please explain how this is representative of "Republicans" and how how World Net Daily equals the New York Times? Weak. Right wing smear machine? The cocaine charges came from Senator Clinton and the gay-cocaine-sex story from a Democrat. With this well sourced example of "Republican" actions, you would fit in well at the NY Times.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Time and Place: Get off my head ASAP
I found the reaction of the kid getting surfed on to be absolutely hilarious.
-
Developers considering apartments next to Atlanta Waterworks reservoir on the Westside? 8
Firm asks city to rezone five-acre former steel supply company along Huff Road
-
First Slice 2/16/12: Facebook to the rescue
- More »
Author Archives
-
What can we learn from the 9/11 anniversary? 37
Ten years later, a TV terrorpalooza rings hollow
- More »
