A COMPLETELY Different View of the McCain Affair

Last night was cold and sort of snowy, so I was in one of my favourite positions - curled in a ball, under a comforter, near the dog, on the sofa, asleep. And then the phone rang, and a very excited voice told me to turn on the TV or the computer, the Times had that McCain had an affair.

In my half-asleep stage, my first thought was that John McCain didn't always seem to have enough energy for the campaign, and it would be difficult to layer an affair over that, and then, as I became more awake I realized that they were talking about EIGHT YEARS AGO.

Big deal.

An affair.

It didn't seem like a big deal.

And then it struck me -- the timing was wrong. WAY TOO WRONG.

Politico had the affair in December of 2007, and decided not to run with it. That means it's been "out there" for a minimum of 60 news cycles. This is an 8 year old story. A right wing affair. WHO CARES?

More importantly, who would put it out? This is not something that comes from the left because the timing is wrong. Of the entire original Republican field, McCain is the one the Democrats wanted to run against least. Therefore, if they were going to plant it, it would have planted 48 hours before Tsunami Tuesday. Alternately, they would wait until the general started on both sides for maximum impact. That same logic applies to a disgruntled McCain ex-crony. PERHAPS someone from the evangelical right, but for them (Haggard, Larry "Check my Stance" Craig, Foley, etc, etc, etc) other people's affairs fall under both "Let he who has not sinned….." and "It's never the crime, it's the cover-up."

But then, there it was, a quote from the McCain campaign…..

"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," said Jill Hazelbaker, the McCain campaign's communications director. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election." (Emphasis mine) http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/20/new-york-times-revisits-old-rumors-in-new-mccain-profile/

And suddenly, it all made sense.

Check the highlight -- think back -- KEATING FIVE. McCain HAS violated the public trust, he HAS done favours for special interests. The issue here is not the affair, but the favours McCain's committees potentially undertook for clients of Vicki Iseman.

So now let's revisit who would plant this at the Times. The Times is a Clinton-backing newspaper, and affairs and ethics are not the sort of thing that Camp Clinton wants to be discussing, for obvious reasons. (For those of you on this list who are still in college and don't personally remember it, Google "Monica Lewinsky" "Gennifer Flowers" and "Whitewater". Google "Vince Foster" to get a complete picture.) This isn't the sort of thing the Obama camp would do, not because they are above going negative, but because they are SO AHEAD that they wouldn't waste time on going after John McCain YET.

Mike Huckabee is unlikely, because he has his own ethics problems. There's no doubt in my mind that he's never cheated on Janet, and I say that because I've seen a picture of her, and trust me, had he cheated, he wouldn't be the man he is today. He would walk COMPLETELY differently.

The minor candidates, Kucinich and Paul, are both spending their time trying to keep their House seats (Dennis especially, as he's got competition).

The evangelical right seems unlikely to go after a corruption story….although they get 20% of my probability vote since they may have known about the affair but NOT the trust violation.

My vote goes to what can only be termed "the actual Republican right" -- that fun combination of neo-cons, tax-cutters, and anti-rights (anti-civil rights, anti-Constitutional rights, pro-torture rights, anti-intellectualism, etc.) READ: Ditto heads. This actually smells like it came from the Limbaugh/Coulter alliance. For the simple reason that they feel they cannot control McCain, he's not "right" enough, and they don't trust him.

This is going to be either an ugly campaign, or a fun campaign, depending on your sense of humour. And your stomach for YUCK.