McCain's Ethics

By Josh Sidman February 21st, 2008 - 07:44 pm PT

As usual, the mainstream media is completely missing the point as it relates to John McCain's alleged "improper" relationship with a female lobbyist. The main topic of conversation today on the campaign trail was an article in the New York Times which raised the possibility that McCain may have had a romantic relationship with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist with clients whose businesses fall under the purview of Senate committees that John McCain sits on. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if McCain was getting it on with a lobbyist. What I care about is whether the man can be taken at his word or whether he is for sale to the highest bidder like most members of Congress. And, between all of the sensationalistic nonsense that the New York Times chose to make such a big deal of, I think I found my answer.

By way of providing background, the article reprised the story of the Keating Five scandal that cost three Senators their jobs and nearly ended John McCain's career. According to the Times, during McCain's years in the House of Representatives, he became friendly with Charles Keating, Chairman of Lincoln Savings & Loan.

Among other things, McCain received large campaign donations from Keating, took free flights on Keating's private jet (a violation of ethics rules which McCain later claimed was an oversight), and vacationed with Keating in the Bahamas. In addition, the year McCain was elected to the Senate, his wife invested in an Arizona shopping mall along with Mr. Keating. (McCain claimed that there was no conflict of interest due to the fact that he and his wife had a prenuptial agreement dividing their assets.)

During the 1980's, Keating's S & L was using federally insured deposits to bet on risky real estate and other investments. McCain and other law makers used their positions to prevent federal regulators from probing the bank's investments and intervened on behalf of Keating in 1987, shortly before the bank went bust costing taxpayers $3.4 billion.

In his memoirs, McCain acknowledged his mistakes and said, "Its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important. I still wince thinking about it."

So, now fast-forward a decade, and like a reformed-alcoholic-turned-aggressive-teetotaler, John McCain has successfully redefined himself as a crusader against special interests and a champion of campaign finance reform.

And now a new suggestion has arisen about whether he might have improperly used his position to benefit clients of a lobbyist he is connected with. Obviously whether or not any allegations of an affair are true will boil down to he-said-she-said, and we'll never know the whole truth. However, there was one line in the NYT article that told me all I need to know about John McCain.

When questioned about whether he had acted improperly on behalf of the lobbyist's clients, McCain told the Times, "I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that." Um, excuse me?

Once again, my purpose in raising all of this is not to argue about whether McCain acted improperly in relation to Ms. Iseman's clients. I have no idea whether he did or not. What concerns me is that he is willing to tell a bald-faced lie to the American people.

It is demonstrably false that John McCain has "never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that." He could have said that he didn't do anything improper in these circumstances, or he could have said that he hasn't betrayed the public trust since the mid-80's, but that's not what he said.

He said, "I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that." By his own admission, that is a lie. And that tells me all I need to know.

John McCain, like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and probably the majority of elected officials in Washington, is willing to tell the American people flat-out, demonstrable lies if he thinks it will serve his purposes.

Anyone who is capable of such behavior should be immediately disqualified from the presidency. Therefore, even if I wasn't already opposed to McCain's candidacy on the basis of his support of the Iraq War, the fact that he is a confirmed liar means that he does not deserve to be President – end of story.


Toolbar


 

 

Comments

 
Posted 22/02/2008 at 1:56pm Brandon Smith

This is Obama's only hope to win - for McCain to drop out of the race.
McCain is an American hero - in a time when that word is thrown around for anyone who signs up with the military this guy is a hero even in Roman standards - even Spartan! What he has done for his country is a thousand fold the contributions of any other living member of the nation. I'm conventionally left-leaning but I've always said that I'd support McCain in a presidential run. His principles are beyond reproach. A pot-smoking long-winded, talk-much and say-nothing, unproven and disingenuous populist on the other hand...? He has performed no service worthy of the highest and most powerful office in the free world.

Posted 22/02/2008 at 3:26pm

You clearly admit that you don’t appreciate McCain’s stance on the war in Iraq, which is obviously a defensible position and fair enough. Your article, while well articulated and quite accurate, draws the most partisan and childish conclusion I’ve ever heard.

In a perfect world, representatives would be straight shooting truth tellers who treat the American people with the respect they deserve. Sadly (or perhaps justifiably), we will never see this in reality.

Obama’s ‘plan’ to bring home the troops is probably one of the most disingenuous ‘plans’ promulgated today (although others did share this vision, singling him out is unfair). And if anyone is buying what he is selling I’ve got a cool looking bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

There are very few who can match McCain’s resume. The fact that he operates in a broken system is certainly not his fault, and the standard to which you hold him is unfair. Clinton lied under oath as a sitting President and was impeached for it – a ceremonial gesture at best, and if memory serves, most liberals (me included) defended the lie and the reasons for it. Clinton should NOT have resigned, and McCain can let the American people judge him on his merits.

As a side note – I think this standard excludes every single living person today from running for the Presidency, politician or not.

Posted 22/02/2008 at 7:46pm Josh Sidman

Hi Melkor,

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm just curious what I wrote that was in any way partisan. I am not a supporter of either political party, and I certainly have never held up Bill Clinton as a model of propriety (in my opinion, he was every bit as corrupt, if not more so, than John McCain).

My entire point is that I refuse to vote for anyone who is willing to tell bald-faced lies to the American people. Bill & Hillary Clinton both fail this test, and I have never supported either of them for the presidency. Likewise, John McCain has confessed to improper ethical conduct on multiple occasions and continues to lie without compunction. He is therefore, in my opinion, entirely unsuited to be President.

I'm sorry that you're so cynical that you believe it is impossible for the American people to ever elect an honest President. That's a sad statement, and while you may be right, I am not willing to reconcile myself to such a hopeless outlook. Barack Obama has not proven himself to be a liar, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I fail to see what is childish about that.

Regards,

Josh

Posted 22/02/2008 at 7:57pm Josh Sidman

Hi Brandon,

How can you say that a man who has admitted to improperly using his position to benefit a corrupt friend who cost the taxpayers $3.4 billion is "beyond reproach"?

I'm not saying that he should never be forgiven for his past mistakes, but you undermine your own credibility when you make such an indefensible statement as to call McCain's principles "beyond reproach". He has been reproached both by the Senate Ethics Committee as well as by himself (in his memoirs).

Josh

Posted 25/02/2008 at 9:26am

Good Day Josh,

Cynical or not, the scrutiny involved in the process to elect a President tends to eliminate most rationally thinking beings from running – what’s left over can hardly be confused with the best possible candidates. Instead, you get a bunch of ego maniacs who think the truth exists for them to break or skirt. This is the reality (my opinion) – the individuals left standing after the media dissects everything they ever did for the past 40 years (including what they eat, wear, and for gods sakes, how they stand!) are quite comfortable on the periphery of the truth – if they were not, they would have never made it as far as they have.

I must apologize if my use of ‘partisan’ offended (I think you’ll be alright though). I chose that word because you clearly admit that you do not support the war in Iraq, and would never support anyone who did (sounds partisan, but this is certainly acceptable, but my mistake).

‘Childish’ I think still pertains – someone MUST drop out because they lied? Again, who would be left? I still maintain this is a childish standard; indeed, politicians have been lying to us for thousands of years (my favourite is the so called Nobel Lie in Plato’s Republic – they were lying before they even started!).

(By the way – Obama had to back off a representation he made regarding Hillary’s support of NAFTA – he claims she called it a ‘boom’ which turned out to be untrue - because he originally lied, should he drop out? I’ll answer, no he should not.)


Please Login or Register to post a comment on this article