It didn’t take long for Rush Limbaugh to come to McCain’s defense. No one knows like ole Rush the venom of the liberal press. When his addiction to prescription drugs was uncovered he blamed those devils who write for a living for digging into his dirty laundry.
It’s interesting how the press becomes the bad guy when conservatives get caught with their pants down. When Bill Clinton was doing his thing in the oval office the press was credited for exposing the jerk for taking special liberties with an intern. A few good leads led to the exposure of his Clinton’s secret passions: cigars, young women and hanky panky in his office.
Shame on Bill Clinton for destroying our trust in the highest office in the land. Many liberal minded would say it’s only sex, and that what happens between two consenting adults is their own business. They contend that was a matter between Bill and Hillary, and we, the meddling American public, should stay out of their bedroom. They’ll go a step further by assuming everyone does the same thing.
That’s water under the ole bridge. What McCain’s possible indiscretion exposes are the dangers that come with having all that power. The problem isn’t the sex that may have occurred between he and Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. We shouldn’t be irked that the New York Times exposed all of this eight years after John Weaver, a longtime McCain aide, met with McCain and Iseman to urge her to stay away from McCain.
People in the McCain camp felt there was a serious conflict of interest that needed to be checked. Iseman had business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served. The Times story alleges that McCain wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman’s clients.
It’s not the sex; it’s the appearance of a serious conflict of interest that is at the heart of this discussion. McCain claims a squeaky clean record, while somehow avoiding the controversy of being accused of trying to influence banking regulations on behalf of Charles Keating two decades ago. Keating was later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate Ethics Committee decided that McCain had used poor judgment but his action were not improper and warranted no penalty.
McCain claims that incident spurred his desire to change campaign finance laws in an attempt to reduce the influence of money in politics. This issue is important due to how his come to Jesus moment has validated his drive for the presidency. Sniff, sniff. I did wrong, but I have been converted and promise to preach the good news of what needs to be changed. Can we believe that now?
The day before this story leaked, McCain chided Barack Obama for reneging on his promise to accept public financing rather than using the massive war chest he’s built over the past year. Of course, Obama had no way of knowing he would raise twice as much as his republican counterpart. He knows he will need every penny he has raised to get his “We Can” message across. Obama’s flip/flop is an issue of concern when placed within the context of campaign finance.
It’s not the liberal press that calculatingly came after an innocent man. The people at the Times had to make a tough decision. Should this story be printed, or should they turn their backs on the claims of high-ranking officials in the McCain camp? The press has an obligation to bring to the public information that may influence the way they think about those we elect. This is especially pertinent when the actions are in conflict with the agenda promoted by those we vote for.
This isn’t about sex this time. It’s not about the evils of the liberal press. This time it’s about real change in government. We need to know the truth.