February 21, 2008--Not A Bimbo Eruption
The story in today’s NY Times about John McCain is not principally about a Bill-Clinton-like Bimbo Eruption. True, the lead paragraph suggests that it is and the media are reporting about the Times’ reporting as if it is all about his “inappropriate relationship” with a media lobbyist hotty. And McCain is ironically making it appear that 40 year-old Vicki Iseman is in fact his Paula Jones by hiring Bob Bennett as his lawyer, the same hired-gun who Clinton engaged to defend him.
The Times piece, with the very careful headline, “For McCain, Self-Confidence On Ethics Poses Its Own Risk,” easily could have more appropriately been—“McCain’s Self-Righteousness About Ethics Undermined By His Own Hypocritical Behavior”—because revealing his own ethical inconsistencies is really what is at the heart of the investigative report. (Article liked below.)
The right-wing media and pundits are right now busy attacking the NY Times, claiming that the story is a liberal smear job. These are the very same folks who until two weeks ago were attacking McCain as a pseudo-conservative. Conveniently forgetting that the Times endorsed the same McCain for the Republican nomination the week before Super Tuesday. So now they’re smearing their own preferred candidate??
Though whatever the true nature of the relationship (was is love or sex or friendship—as McCain claimed this morning) is less important than his role during the notorious savings and loan debacle (he was one of the infamous Keating Five who essentially were bag men for Keating’s bank—McCain was formally reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for his role in that sordid affair). And even more significant what he did as Senate Chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee which dealt with issues that Vicki Iseman brought to his attention—either in his office (it appears she had the run of it) or during more intimate moments.
If Senator Holier-Than-Thou inappropriately represented her clients’ interests before the FCC that counts more than anything else that might have been inappropriate.
And it appears that he did. The chairman of the FCC on a number of occasions “rebuked” McCain for his overzealous and inappropriate representations to them on Ms. Iseman’s behalf.
We also learn in the NY Times article that McCain frequently used corporate jets provided for him by Vicki Iseman’s corporate honchos, and he also accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from them.
And, somewhat tangentially but also about his situational ethics, since early this week he and his wife Cindy jumped all over Michelle Obama when she made that unfortunate comment about how “for the first time in her adult life she is proud of America,” why now wouldn’t it be fair to take as close a critical look at Cindy McCain?
We would learn that she was an investor in various Keating enterprises; and we also would discover that back in the early 1990s she became a Percoset addict and that to get her fix she stole drugs from the not-for-profit program she set up to provide medical services in developing countries. She was arrested but it was covered up because of the power and influence of McCain and her wealthy family, and it only came to light after a disgruntled employee who she fired blew the whistle on her. (Just Google her to verify what I am reporting.)
What is it that they say about throwing stones . . . ?
The Times piece, with the very careful headline, “For McCain, Self-Confidence On Ethics Poses Its Own Risk,” easily could have more appropriately been—“McCain’s Self-Righteousness About Ethics Undermined By His Own Hypocritical Behavior”—because revealing his own ethical inconsistencies is really what is at the heart of the investigative report. (Article liked below.)
The right-wing media and pundits are right now busy attacking the NY Times, claiming that the story is a liberal smear job. These are the very same folks who until two weeks ago were attacking McCain as a pseudo-conservative. Conveniently forgetting that the Times endorsed the same McCain for the Republican nomination the week before Super Tuesday. So now they’re smearing their own preferred candidate??
Though whatever the true nature of the relationship (was is love or sex or friendship—as McCain claimed this morning) is less important than his role during the notorious savings and loan debacle (he was one of the infamous Keating Five who essentially were bag men for Keating’s bank—McCain was formally reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for his role in that sordid affair). And even more significant what he did as Senate Chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee which dealt with issues that Vicki Iseman brought to his attention—either in his office (it appears she had the run of it) or during more intimate moments.
If Senator Holier-Than-Thou inappropriately represented her clients’ interests before the FCC that counts more than anything else that might have been inappropriate.
And it appears that he did. The chairman of the FCC on a number of occasions “rebuked” McCain for his overzealous and inappropriate representations to them on Ms. Iseman’s behalf.
We also learn in the NY Times article that McCain frequently used corporate jets provided for him by Vicki Iseman’s corporate honchos, and he also accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from them.
And, somewhat tangentially but also about his situational ethics, since early this week he and his wife Cindy jumped all over Michelle Obama when she made that unfortunate comment about how “for the first time in her adult life she is proud of America,” why now wouldn’t it be fair to take as close a critical look at Cindy McCain?
We would learn that she was an investor in various Keating enterprises; and we also would discover that back in the early 1990s she became a Percoset addict and that to get her fix she stole drugs from the not-for-profit program she set up to provide medical services in developing countries. She was arrested but it was covered up because of the power and influence of McCain and her wealthy family, and it only came to light after a disgruntled employee who she fired blew the whistle on her. (Just Google her to verify what I am reporting.)
What is it that they say about throwing stones . . . ?
posted by Steven Zwerling at
11:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home