The Strange Justice of Sexual Politics

Well, Mad Mac, I guess the honeymoon is officially over, eh?

"A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity."

Irredeemable politicos, the folks that like their morning papers laced with a smattering of blogs and a shot of the mystery man have known something about this since December. Admittedly, I may have glanced over the FLASH, but I don't recall, I heard more about other candidates, anyway... At issue, it seems are two charges against Senator John McCain, Republican near-nominee for president: one, that he improperly used his pull on a Senate committee to get satisfactory rulings for a lobbyist; two, that he conducted private liaisons with the now infamous Vicki Iseman, which went well beyond regulatory issues.

Obviously, both are serious accusations, which if proven would rebrand a war hero with a (much-undeserved) reputation for Straight Talk into a reckless public servant and a husband that flagrantly fooled around despite his presidential ambitions. Some have suggested that the Times cleansed their original article, perhaps on advice of counsel, and inserted a great deal of "fluff" while removing the "meat" of the story. Mostly agreed. Yet, the always intrepid one hits closer to the real point:

"Certainly it'd be a bit rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career. That's well known, I should say, except to the electorate, who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's 'character' appeal." (italics his)

Remember that Senator George Allen, bigot from Virginia, didn't collapse in the waning moments of 2006 because of the word "macaca," he suffered a career-ending defeat because that word opened old closets to reveal skeletons most of his constituents never had considered or possibly even known. Former Senate Majority Leader and current lobbyist huckster Trent Lott did not have the civil rights background to withstand an ill-timed retroactive 1948 presidential endorsement in 2002. What this means for Mad Mac is far less clear, like more than a few articles, this "Long Run" piece (a series about the presidential candidates, most likely titled in such a way to garner Pulitzer buzz, maybe not anymore...) raises more questions than it answers.

1) Jim Rutenberg and Co. give us one name, the seemingly once-ubiquitous John Weaver, but refuse to reveal anyone else. Mr. Weaver and his boss were once quite close, yet they have drifted apart since the collapse of the Senator's early front-runner campaign in 2007. Who are these other people? Are they 2000 disillusionists with an axe to grind?

2) The Old Cranky Lady heavily implies that John McCain, at least tacitly, admitted inappropriate behavior concerning Ms. Iseman, to one or more of his former aides. Did this concern the communications business or other business?

3) Apparently the McCain camp fought tooth-and-nail to bury this story in December. Seemingly, editor Bill Keller went along with it, no? Did the report that The New Republic was about to break a major scoop on Times dissension over the piece provide the impetus for last night's launch? Why now? Did the Times--yes, a cynical view--wish to hold this story in reserve until it could do maximum damage to the Republican in August?

If you want to know what I think, look at the title of this post and remember the witticism that only three people matter at the Old Cranky Lady and Bill Keller is not one of them. John McCain, rather remarkably, has never paid a price for his prior conduct during his first marriage, which makes one grimace at best. Do we have another case of a now-powerful but once-less significant man and a woman standing in the way of his ambition? Could Senator McCain have found enough early Arizona contacts and possessed the fortune required to succeed Barry Goldwater in the US Senate without the prodigious bank account of his second wife?

One of Mr. McCain's main selling points, delivered ever so implicitly, revolves around his five-year stay at the "Hanoi Hilton" in Vietnam and the lessons he drew from his experience. Yet, he ditched Carol for something shinier and more expensive, got enamored with Charles Keating of the S-and-L industry, and, allegedly, risked a possible presidential run if not his Senate seat for a few favors for (and from?) a lobbyist thirty-one years his junior.

Verdict: Senator Obama likely does not possess the intestinal fortitude to make an issue of Mad Mac's early history of treating women shabbily, but now he needn't worry, as evidently there is a journalist with balls to spare. A journalist that wants Senator McCain's all-too-often unflinchingly cited "character" to become a substantial campaign issue. Mr. McCain appealed to liberals far and wide in his quixotic 2000 run for the roses, but most anyone fit their bill better than a president's son, and whatever camaraderie he believed he enjoyed with his "base" has now dissipated.

Evidently, John McCain no longer takes everything in the Times at "face-value." A female journalist, to my unsubstantiated speculation, clearly wants the electorate to know that one of their favorite politicians has a nasty side that includes tossing aside wedding vows for ambition and undeniable corruption. And no, her name is not Marilyn W. Thompson, the only credited female of the four writers.

The MSM (with the eager cooperation of Mad Mac), however, has spent a inordinate amount of time cultivating the "maverick" and "independent" persona of a certain US Senator, so it is unclear as to whether a certain someone's (heroic?) gambit will pay dividends in the run-up to November 4. I would also say the unequivocal nature of the candidate's response leads me to believe that she needs "to fetch her pail of water" before all is said and done, lest she come "tumbling (down) after."