So John McCain was having an affair! So says the New York Times, which has released a bombshell story on McCain’s intimate relationship with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist with the firm of Alcalde & Fay, which represents telecommunications clients.
One, I’m impressed. The old guy still has it. If anything, these revelations will help him among libido-challenged senior citizens. He’ll score a few more votes among the Viagra set.
Also, it’s revealing, if only a tad so, of the culture in Washington, DC. Did anyone think that sex is not an arrow in the lobbyists’ quiver? Iseman brings little educational background . She was trained as an elementary education teacher in a minor college. She was originally hired as a secretary. But she was known to fly on campaign flights with McCain, to the point where his staff was concerned that the relationship might be romantic.
Once elected, our senators and congressman likely have a whole array of sexual options that were not available before. Those who succumb to temptation are subject to bribery and intimidation. If the Bushies are wiretapping them, as seems highly likely (why else the frantic rush to cover up past abuses with telecom immunity?), their votes can be had on any issue. That might explain why majority Democrats have been doormats for the Bush agenda.
I’m surprised that the Times, which sat silently on a wiretapping bombshell during the 2004 presidential election, let go with this story. That in itself is a story. There’s no Republican alternative to McCain now, so benefit accrues solely to the Democrats. The mainstream media in general has been kind to Obama and Clinton (while marginalizing Edwards and the other Democratic candidates). Both of them enjoy impressive corporate backing, Clinton from the health care industry and Obama from the financial houses. These two candidates are obviously favored in the game.
That’s not a good thing. There’s great sound and fury in American political campaigns, and little substance. Liberal candidates will say anything to appeal to members of that particular base, and then, like Bill Clinton, ignore them once elected. After all, liberals have nowhere else to go, and never threaten to withhold their votes. They are like puppies. Once a candidate is elected, and financial backers are at the head of the line.
The money behind candidates is an important story that is only rarely covered by mainstream media. The Times is making a between-the-lines statement in reporting what goes on between the sheets.
Anyway, congratulations to John McCain, carrying on at once with a trophy wife and a succubus (the one that we know of, anyway). I salute him, as does AARP.
Whoa. I’m sort of stunned that you missed the story here and are praising McCain, implying he’s the “clean” candidate.
She was a telecomm lobbyist. He did favors for her clients during this time. He was rebuked by the FCC for interfering on behalf of her clients. Just like he did during the Keating Five scandal.
And now he’s trying to game the campaign finance laws he helped establish.
Sorry, friend. Maybe Clinton and Obama are raising more money, but they seem to be doing it legally. And neither have a history of trading favors for…friendship?
LikeLike
I take it for granted that favors are being traded for money. Otherwise, the people giving them money are stupid. Imagine parting with thousands of dollars, hiring pricey lobbyists and putting on lavish parties, and getting nothing in return.
That’s the way the system is designed to work.
BTW – part of this was meant to be tongue in cheek. If my wife thought I was really praising a guy for having an affair, I’d be in hot water.
LikeLike
I think we saw what happened when liberal voters withheld their votes. It’s called the 2000 election. I’m pretty sure that will not happen again, look what happened to Saint Nadir’s vote count in 2004. And now you’re saying we should forget 2008 and have 2000 all over again? Not likely. I guess Nadir did influence Democratic voters, just not the way he imagined…
P.S. A LOT of the money Obama has raised is from small online donors, and they do appear to be pretty liberal. So, according to your theory, isn’t he beholden to them? And won’t he do their bidding?
P.P.S. That little ticker about Iraqi Deaths due to US Invasion should really say “Brought to you by BushCo, with a supporting role by Nadir”.
LikeLike
Where is Obama getting his money? You don’t know.
Gore caused the defeat of Gore in 2000, by the way. The election was his to lose, and he did just that. He ran as a conservative, ran away from his base. Whiners want to blame Nader. It was Gore.
Anyway, the 2000 election was stolen, and had Gore gotten Nader’s 90,000 votes or whatever, which you seem to think you’re entitled to, the Republicans would have stolen 90,000 more. It was a coup d’état.
LikeLike