I’m disappointed that all my right-wing friends and the entire right-wing commentariat dismiss the New York Times story on John McCain’s relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.
If McCain’s lying that there was never a meeting about Iseman in 1999, if McCain’s lying about any of these related issues, he’ll never be president and the Republicans should dump him.
What’s my bet? I bet McCain’s lying. Nobody knows how this story will play out, but my best is that it will eventually sink McCain. My prediction is that as the days go by, we’ll find increasing evidence that McCain’s lying about Iseman and doing favors for Iseman.
I’m not arguing that adultery should automatically disqualify someone from the presidency. I’m arguing that if McCain is lying here, he should be disqualified.
What’s striking about the story so far is the extent to which core McCain supporters concede that if it’s confirmed McCain is through. I don’t see why that would have to be true–I’d think he could confess, cry, and weather the storm. (If the GOPs had someone to beat McCain they’d have beaten him already.) But here’s McCainiac David Brooks:
At his press conference Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn’t just say he didn’t remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over.
That means, of course, that even if the story is true, loyal McCain supporters would be under tremendous pressure–even self-imposed pressure–to deny it. Is McCain point man Charlie Black saying anything he wouldn’t say if McCain did have the affair, and the meeting? A question to keep in mind.
**–Josh Marshall has more on McCain’s distinctly un-Clintonesque style of blanket denial. In another politician this would just be recklessness. Does McCain do it because he hasn’t been burned–i.e. the press has always given him a pass before?
