Zaroc Stone
2008-08-11 01:47:27 UTC
Media Salivate Over Edwards' Affair; Shrug Shoulders Over McCain's Alleged
Infidelity
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo at 4:02 PM on August 8, 2008.
"I realize that everybody gets excited about sex scandals. It's human
nature. "
I realize that everybody gets excited about sex scandals. It's human nature.
But it's important to keep in mind that John Edwards didn't even come close
to winning the nomination and this is just another sleazy tabloid story with
absolutely no serious significance other than the sickening spectacle of the
prurient slavering of the mainstream media now that they have finally found
their hook: it's because he lied to the press about his sex life. How could
he???
(Lying to the press about the anthrax killers and WMD in Iraq, well, not a
problem.)
Let's assume that the rules now say that denying an affair to the press is a
cardinal offense that merits endless bloviating about dishonesty from a
bunch of hypocritical celebrities who protect their "sources" when they lie
about torture and war. Fine. But this guy actually may very well be
president and they took his word for it:
I'm very disappointed in the New York Times piece. It's not true. And I'll
be glad to respond to any questions you might have.
QUESTION: Senator, did you ever have any meeting with any of your staffers
in which they would have intervened to ask you not to see Vicki Iseman or to
be concerned about appearances of being too close to a lobbyist?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: No meeting ever occurred?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: No staffer was ever concerned about a possible romantic
relationship?
MCCAIN: If they were, they didn't communicate that to me.
QUESTION: Did you ever have such relationship?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: Senator, can you describe your relationship with Vicki Iseman?
MCCAIN: Friends. Seen her on occasions, particularly at receptions and
fund-raisers and appearances before the committee. I have many friends in
Washington who represent various interests and those who don't, and I
consider her a friend.
QUESTION: But do you feel like, in terms of your relationship with lobbyists
in general, you were closer to her than with others?
MCCAIN: No, no.
I have many friends who represent various interests, ranging from the
firemen to the police to senior citizens to various interests, particularly
before my committee. And I had meetings with hundreds of them and various
interests. And that was my job to do, to get their input.
And, obviously, people who represent interests are fine. That's their
constitutional right. The question is is whether do they have access or
unwarranted influence. And certainly, no one ever has in my conduct of my
public life and the conduct of my legislative agenda.
QUESTION: Senator?
MCCAIN: Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Did John Weaver, who is one of your former top aides -- is quoted
on the record saying that he had a conversation with her saying -- basically
telling her to butt out.
Do you not know of that conversation? Do you know why John Weaver would go
on the record describing such a conversation?
MCCAIN: I did not and I don't know anything about it.
Many people, especially in the press, jumped to defend McCain against the
evil New York Times on that one and there has been no follow up. But
considering how everyone is excusing the flogging of this Edwards story on
the basis of the fact that he lied to the press, I'm not sure it's in the
country's best interest not to ask McCain about this again and talk to the
women herself. What if it comes out that it was true after he's president?
Why surely the press will be as honor bound to obsess over it as they were
about Clinton and now Edwards, right? It's not about the sex -- it's about
the lying, remember? (They've been saying on a loop that John Edwards was a
breath away from the presidency, after all and he got about four delegates.)
I personally don't care who any of these people are sleeping with
(especially McCain). Marriage is a very complicated institution and I don't
pass judgment on how others conduct theirs. I think this is all bullshit.
But if the media has decided that even a failed politician who has no chance
at the presidency can be subject to this kind of scrutiny, then they need to
be a little bit more vigilant about pursuing someone who is the nominee of
his party and has been very publicly linked to a specific woman by the paper
of record, not the National Enquirer. If these are the rules, then this guy
is a far more likely subject of scrutiny than Edwards.
Infidelity
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo at 4:02 PM on August 8, 2008.
"I realize that everybody gets excited about sex scandals. It's human
nature. "
I realize that everybody gets excited about sex scandals. It's human nature.
But it's important to keep in mind that John Edwards didn't even come close
to winning the nomination and this is just another sleazy tabloid story with
absolutely no serious significance other than the sickening spectacle of the
prurient slavering of the mainstream media now that they have finally found
their hook: it's because he lied to the press about his sex life. How could
he???
(Lying to the press about the anthrax killers and WMD in Iraq, well, not a
problem.)
Let's assume that the rules now say that denying an affair to the press is a
cardinal offense that merits endless bloviating about dishonesty from a
bunch of hypocritical celebrities who protect their "sources" when they lie
about torture and war. Fine. But this guy actually may very well be
president and they took his word for it:
I'm very disappointed in the New York Times piece. It's not true. And I'll
be glad to respond to any questions you might have.
QUESTION: Senator, did you ever have any meeting with any of your staffers
in which they would have intervened to ask you not to see Vicki Iseman or to
be concerned about appearances of being too close to a lobbyist?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: No meeting ever occurred?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: No staffer was ever concerned about a possible romantic
relationship?
MCCAIN: If they were, they didn't communicate that to me.
QUESTION: Did you ever have such relationship?
MCCAIN: No.
QUESTION: Senator, can you describe your relationship with Vicki Iseman?
MCCAIN: Friends. Seen her on occasions, particularly at receptions and
fund-raisers and appearances before the committee. I have many friends in
Washington who represent various interests and those who don't, and I
consider her a friend.
QUESTION: But do you feel like, in terms of your relationship with lobbyists
in general, you were closer to her than with others?
MCCAIN: No, no.
I have many friends who represent various interests, ranging from the
firemen to the police to senior citizens to various interests, particularly
before my committee. And I had meetings with hundreds of them and various
interests. And that was my job to do, to get their input.
And, obviously, people who represent interests are fine. That's their
constitutional right. The question is is whether do they have access or
unwarranted influence. And certainly, no one ever has in my conduct of my
public life and the conduct of my legislative agenda.
QUESTION: Senator?
MCCAIN: Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Did John Weaver, who is one of your former top aides -- is quoted
on the record saying that he had a conversation with her saying -- basically
telling her to butt out.
Do you not know of that conversation? Do you know why John Weaver would go
on the record describing such a conversation?
MCCAIN: I did not and I don't know anything about it.
Many people, especially in the press, jumped to defend McCain against the
evil New York Times on that one and there has been no follow up. But
considering how everyone is excusing the flogging of this Edwards story on
the basis of the fact that he lied to the press, I'm not sure it's in the
country's best interest not to ask McCain about this again and talk to the
women herself. What if it comes out that it was true after he's president?
Why surely the press will be as honor bound to obsess over it as they were
about Clinton and now Edwards, right? It's not about the sex -- it's about
the lying, remember? (They've been saying on a loop that John Edwards was a
breath away from the presidency, after all and he got about four delegates.)
I personally don't care who any of these people are sleeping with
(especially McCain). Marriage is a very complicated institution and I don't
pass judgment on how others conduct theirs. I think this is all bullshit.
But if the media has decided that even a failed politician who has no chance
at the presidency can be subject to this kind of scrutiny, then they need to
be a little bit more vigilant about pursuing someone who is the nominee of
his party and has been very publicly linked to a specific woman by the paper
of record, not the National Enquirer. If these are the rules, then this guy
is a far more likely subject of scrutiny than Edwards.