The Character Issue (II)

Matt writes, in response to my thoughts on McCain's divorce:

That's cogently argued. But note that it's a cogently argued brief for the view that cultural conservatives ought to deploy the marital indiscretions of liberal politicians as a political issue while ignoring the indiscretions of conservative politicians. Just note that what looks like hypocrisy from the outside can often have a perfectly coherent explanation to the believers.

I can see how it reads that way, but it wasn't exactly what I meant. If the hypocrisy Matt's describing actually worked, in the sense of moving us closer to a standard in which jilting your wife disqualified you from a political career, I suppose there might be something to be said for it. But it's pretty clear from the whole impeachment debacle that it doesn't: All conservatives did in that case was open themselves up to, well, charges of hypocrisy, leading to a denouement in which one of their own, Bob Livingston, fell on his sword while Bill Clinton got away scot-free. So no, I don't think that "cultural conservatives ought to deploy the marital indiscretions of liberal politicians as a political issue." I think that cultural conservatives ought to criticize public figures of both parties when they behave egregiously in their personal lives, and I think that - all things being equal - they ought to reward politicians who don't abandon their spouses, or dally with interns in the Oval Office, or maintain second families on the side. But all things aren't equal, politics is the art of the possible, the Nelson Rockefeller standard isn't coming back anytime soon - and so again, I don't think that McCain's deplorable conduct in the 1970s justifies voting for Obama.

I should add, just in case it isn't clear, that the reason to have a taboo against electing politicians who have ditched their wives isn't because leaving your wife makes you "morally unfit" for the Oval Office in some absolute sense; I don't think it does. (If I thought so, obviously, that would be a reason not to vote for John McCain.) It's because we want to discourage men from ditching their wives, and closing off certain very public avenues of advancement isn't a bad way to go about discouraging that sort of thing. The point is to deter misbehavior, not to protect the country from the perils of being governed by a rake.

Update: Okay, yes, "scot-free" is a little strong ...

Comments

You have a very interesting definition of "scot-free."

Posted by lowellfield | June 9, 2008 4:35 PM

It's just the standard GOP-hack definition, lowellfield.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 4:43 PM

I think that cultural conservatives ought to criticize public figures of both parties when they behave egregiously in their personal lives, and I think that - all things being equal - they ought to reward politicians who don't abandon their spouses, or dally with interns in the Oval Office, or maintain second families on the side.

How do you square this with your conclusion (if I may paraphrase) that John McCain's conduct simply isn't that huge of a deal and it certainly isn't a dealbreaker? More to the point, nowhere in your original post did you, you know, CRITICIZE John McCain for his actions! Certainly, Ross, you are a cultural conservative. Do you think John McCain's behavior was praise worthy? If not, why haven't you said so (I don't think describing his behavior in the abstract is quite the same)?

Posted by drjimcooper | June 9, 2008 4:46 PM

Plenty of wives (and husbands) want to be ditched. And what about a female politician who fled an abusive husband some time in the past? Divorce itself shouldn't be a disqualification, and it's extremely hard for outsiders to figure out what is happening inside relationships that are falling apart.

Granted, McCain's case does seem problematic. But if his former wife isn't raising a big stink, the rest of us probably shouldn't either.

Posted by M.C. | June 9, 2008 4:48 PM

As a practical matter, how do you create the deterrence without invoking the false rhetoric? Either such misbehavior makes you morally unfit or it doesn't. Perhaps the key word here is "taboo": are you suggesting that we in the chattering classes reinforce the "morally fit" line for the hoi polloi, while agreeing among ourselves that such hypocrisy is the price of leading a great nation of common folk?

Posted by Sam Penrose | June 9, 2008 4:49 PM

I think that cultural conservatives ought to criticize public figures of both parties when they behave egregiously in their personal lives, and I think that - all things being equal - they ought to reward politicians who don't abandon their spouses, or dally with interns in the Oval Office, or maintain second families on the side

This still opens social conservatives up to charges of hypocrasy, as seen with Baker, Haggert and others. I'd much prefer that issues like McCain's divorce or Clinton's affairs be as marginalized as possible when it comes to selecting public servants, focusing only on character issues that violate existing laws, such as those of Eliot Spitzer (prostitutes), Ted Stevens (corruption), Bill Jefferson (more corruption) or Ted Kennedy (likely homicide).

And yes, I know perjury's illegal, but I give Clinton a pass (on perjury, not on obstruction) because I still don't understand why a judge would allow Ken Starr to ask about a then-current affair with an intern during a Real Estate investigation.

Posted by Shinyk | June 9, 2008 4:59 PM

Let's remember too that Nelson Rockefeller died in the adulterous saddle when he was younger than McCain is now. Shouldn't this proven CHEATER be asked to pledge (at least) that he have a defibrillator on stand-by during his IMMORAL TRYSTS?

Because if McCain dies while sticking a chippy and we get stuck with a Huckabee I'm gonna be real upset.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 5:02 PM

What an exercize in mumble-mouthed hypocrist. As is customary with "cultural conservatives" (what an osymoron!)

Posted by Miande | June 9, 2008 5:23 PM

Ross,

I always thought the character issue played a role in between the two you suggest (deterrant of immoral behavior and determination of qualification for office): to give an insight into the principles of judgment that the candidate will use.

The reason that McCain's marital infidelity should be of concern (besides the fact it is clearly immoral behavior) is that it suggests that he is willing to put self-interest above doing what is right. This is exactly the trait that the public does not want its politicians to have.

Now one can be realistic and acknowledge that almost all successful politicians have this trait by the nature of the business, regardless of whether they have been so blatantly exposed or not. And you might come to the judgment that the rest of the information about McCain softens the judgment of him as an immoral agent in pursuit of pure self-interest.

In some sense, this scandal (or lack thereof) is similar to the Rev. Wright scandal for Obama. After all, few people criticize Obama on the grounds that he actually believes Wright's extremist political views. Rather, they criticize his failure to protest those views by leaving the Church or speaking out against them, a reflection that he put self-interest ahead of doing the right thing.

Ultimately, Ross, I think you are guilty of the same thing that I am. I (an Obama supporter) naturally am forgiving and dismissive of mistakes by people I support, while I am more critical of those I don't support. Most of the ugly reality about candidates that inevitably comes out, particularly in presidential elections, reflects the complexity of the human psyche. The events often can be given a wide range of interpretations -- from the favorable ones that admit that the action was wrong but ascribe it to some minor flaw in the candidate which he has either overcome or which shouldn't be a primary decision-making factor to the unforable ones that highlight the action as the signature example of why the candidate lacks the necessary principles to be entrusted with the highest office in the land.

You never once question McCain's judgment in your discussion of his marital infidelity, just as I would not have done so to Obama when the Wright scandal erupted. Instead, I would have done what you did with respect to McCain: explain the reasons why I still support Obama despite his association with Rev. Wright and why I think that the controversy should matter less than it does. Ultimately, our reactions say less about the objective evaluation of McCain and Obama, and more about the mindset and thought process of you and I and voters like us.

Posted by Mike | June 9, 2008 5:26 PM

"Scot-free" isn't "a little strong," it's total BS. He was impeached and disbarred, and the affair probably cost the Democrats the White House.

Posted by guyx | June 9, 2008 5:26 PM

"I think that cultural conservatives ought to criticize public figures of both parties when they behave egregiously in their personal lives, and I think that - all things being equal - they ought to reward politicians who don't abandon their spouses, or dally with interns in the Oval Office, or maintain second families on the side. But all things aren't equal, politics is the art of the possible, the Nelson Rockefeller standard isn't coming back anytime soon - and so again, I don't think that McCain's deplorable conduct in the 1970s justifies voting for Obama."

So would there ever be a case where you would vote for Candidate B over Candidate A, where A is a conservative wife-divorcer/abuser/whatever and B is a liberal with a clean marital record? If there is, it sounds like you're saying the following: "Among the things that would discourage me from voting for someone are (a) that person's being a liberal and (b) that person's having acted wrongly towards his or her spouse. Depending on the degree of a candidate's liberalism or the nature of another candidate's harmful marital conduct, I may decide either way." Is that an accurate characterization? And if it is, where does that leave your moralism?

Posted by fumphis | June 9, 2008 5:28 PM

it suggests that he is willing to put self-interest above doing what is right. This is exactly the trait that the public does not want its politicians to have.

Come on, now. That's an impossible standard to hold any politician to.

Your statement can be correctly applied to any sitting politician in the world. The very process by which one becomes a successful politician requires that one put "self-interest" before "what is right," whatever that is.

As an Obama supporter, after seeing his enthusiastic support for Ethanol (a fraud that benefits political allies in Illinois at the expense of just about everyone else, everywhere--as well as actually exacerbating the environmental issues it's supposed to solve) you should already know this.

Posted by shinyk | June 9, 2008 5:51 PM

Mike writes: "The reason that McCain's marital infidelity should be of concern (besides the fact it is clearly immoral behavior) is that it suggests that he is willing to put self-interest above doing what is right. This is exactly the trait that the public does not want its politicians to have."

Of course "putting self-interest above doing what is right" has been the modus operandi of the Repiglican Party all along.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 5:53 PM

A little push polling of, oh, a few million might get interesting results.

"When you found out John McCain left his first wife once she became disabled, did it make you more likely to vote for him, or less likely?"

Swift-wheelchaired.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 6:00 PM

Ross,

I think the "hypocrisy" that Matt was talking about wasn't the hypocrisy that the Republican media machine showed when it came to Bill Clinton, but your own, when you say that "yes, I think there should be a certain social disapprobation for politicians who abandon their spouses or have extra-marital affairs but as long as this isn't the prevalent view of the majority of the citizens of the United States (who continue to elect philanderers like Bill Clinton to office), I am not going to waste my time criticizing John McCain (who is a Republican, and hence someone I prefer to a Democrat, any day)". On the other hand, or so it seems to Matt, (and me and many others, I guess) the actions of Elliot Spitzer (say) are fair game. That is the hypocrisy in question, your own, and not that of the Republicans who went after Clinton.

Posted by scritic | June 9, 2008 6:04 PM

Actually, your stance is more like:

"yes, I think there should be a certain social disapprobation for politicians who abandon their spouses or have extra-marital affairs but as long as this isn't the prevalent view of the majority of the citizens of the United States (who continue to elect philanderers like Bill Clinton to office), I am not going to waste my time criticizing John McCain (who is a Republican, and hence someone I prefer to a Democrat, any day) -- and god forbid, my criticism of him may actually lead to some Americans actually leading to not voting for him. On the other hand, explicit criticism of Democrats who leave their wives and womanize is fair game, since that could lead to some voters not voting for them (but sadly, not many -- damn!)".

Posted by scritic | June 9, 2008 6:11 PM

The reason that McCain's marital infidelity should be of concern (besides the fact it is clearly immoral behavior) is that it suggests that he is willing to put self-interest above doing what is right. This is exactly the trait that the public does not want its politicians to have.

I'm no McCain lover, but I should think his behavior in the POW camp (refusing to go home early as an admiral's son) should dispel that.

In a way, though, for a social conservative this should be even more damning. McCain has demonstrated great moral strength in the face of adversity. Here he choose to hurt someone who loved him basically because he was bored. Clinton was weak in the face of his appetites. McCain, I guess, just didn't think it mattered.

The very process by which one becomes a successful politician requires that one put "self-interest" before "what is right," whatever that is.

Yeah, but in most cases, the politician can claim they're doing the "wrong" thing so they can maintain power and do good later.

McCain, though from about mid-2004 onward, seemed to be in a position to change an awful lot by his singular status as the "Good Republican" in the media's eyes. Breaking with the GOP or the Bush Administration would be a major blow to their credibility in the public eye. He could have extracted major concessions from them on issues that were really important to him--like Rumsfeld's strategy or torture. But they had things to offer him--his party's nomination. The other side was only offering VP. Progress was delayed on one of his signature issues (Iraq strategy), and halted on the other (torture), because he wanted to run for president in 2008 instead of 2012.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 9, 2008 6:30 PM

"leading to a denouement in which one of their own, Bob Livingston, fell on his sword while Bill Clinton got away scot-free"

So it was the Republicans who were most damaged by the impeachment trial & Ken Starr.

That reminds me of my Republican business partner who complains about how the US gets pushed around overseas.

I guess liberals and conservatives live in parallel universes.

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 6:31 PM

Ross, you've got a great deal of convincing to do to demonstrate that your moralism is anything other than a useful club at this point.

Or are you making the argument that moralistically calling out liberal politicians' indiscretions (or, in many cases "indiscretions," see Harold Ford) isn't an effective electoral tactic?

Basically, I'm trying to determine if you are being a hypocrite, or just willfully obtuse. Generously (I think) my money is on the latter.

Posted by Pooh | June 9, 2008 6:32 PM

tomtom writes: "I guess liberals and conservatives live in parallel universes."

Conservatives live on Bizarro World. War is peace, the economy is growing, creationism is science, Dumbya Bush is our bestest preznint ever.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 6:37 PM

James,

Perhaps a better push poll would be,

"If you learned that John McCain was so scarred, by enduring five years of torture rather than breaking, that it led to the breakup of his marriage, would you be more likely to vote for him or less?"

All in the way you phrase the question.

Really, all the conservatives have to do to win this election (and I say this as a Democrat) is repeat "FIVE YEARS OF TORTURE" often enough. Piece of cake.

Posted by Hector | June 9, 2008 6:41 PM

So if I'm not mistaken you are arguing that men would not cheat on their wives as much if they thought it might one day deal a crippling blow to their presidential aspirations.

Am I wrong?

Posted by jeebus | June 9, 2008 6:45 PM

"So if I'm not mistaken you are arguing that men would not cheat on their wives as much if they thought it might one day deal a crippling blow to their presidential aspirations.

Am I wrong?"

Jeebus,
Yes, he is actually saying that.

My head hurts.

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 6:56 PM

Hector posts: "Perhaps a better push poll would be,

"If you learned that John McCain was so scarred, by enduring five years of torture rather than breaking, that it led to the breakup of his marriage, would you be more likely to vote for him or less?"

All in the way you phrase the question.

Really, all the conservatives have to do to win this election (and I say this as a Democrat) is repeat "FIVE YEARS OF TORTURE" often enough. Piece of cake."

Not in a year when the country has been tortured by 8 YEARS OF BUSH. And McCain DID break - wile he did refuse to go home, he did radio broadcasts for the North Vietnamese that led some GIs to call him "Songbird." All of which is understandable, but if he were a Dem he'd be swiftboated himself by an endless line of paid GOP scumbags.

And by all accounts it was the scars suffered by his wife that caused the break-up.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 6:56 PM

Shouldn't private bad behavior (unless it is behavior such as drugging and drinking that affects public performance) have private consequences? If a man betrays his wife, certainly his intimates should judge and censure that behavior. There should be consequences from those who have a relationship with him/her as a private person; such as social ostracization, divorce, cutting off of friendship, warning others of the bad behavior, etc.

But if your relationship is of a non-intimate, public or professional nature, doesn't a different standard apply? In fact, doesn't there have to be a different standard? How many of us have had bosses or co-workers or used the services of professionals who may have done things in their private life of which we disapprove? Infidelity, divorce, etc. Isn't the standard, and rightly so, in public and professional relationships one of appropriate public and professional behavior? If the boss is cheating customers or employees, dealing dishonestly with the government, promoting defective products, etc., I have a moral obligation to resign, protest, press charges with the correct authority, etc. But, no matter how much I may morally disapprove of such behavior, I'm unlikely to refuse to work with him because he divorced his wife for a younger woman. My preference, of course, because we have a professional relationship, not an intimate or personal one, would be to not even know the intimate details of his life. And, any insistence on my part that I should know would be merely purient and inappropriate. (Same goes in my opinion for the public relationship between voter and politician.)

Another example; Facing delicate brain surgery most of us would be very concerned about how often the surgeon had performed the procedure, his success rate, how his peers rated his skills, etc. If the answer to those questions, about how he performs in his job, were answered in a very satisfactory manner, would anyone care how often he had been married and whether his first two wives thought kindly of him? Would we refuse to be treated by someone considered the best in their field because of his messy divorce? Of course not.

Shouldn't we hold politicians to the same standard as other people with whom our relationship is public and professional, rather than intimate and personal? Which means; we don't want to know the intimate details of your life, but we do want to know as much as we can about how you perform in your public life; those aspect of your life that will affect our well-being and that of the nation at large.

Moralizing excuses for demanding more than that, are, in reality, just excuses for indulging (and in the case of the media, profiting from) a very human, very purient, and very inappropriate, interest in other people's private lives.

Posted by esmense | June 9, 2008 7:06 PM

We know what Republicans would do. Wave McCain's signed confession. Find other veterans who would call him a coward. Endlessly call his wife a drug-addicted home wrecker. Describe the generous divorce settlement with his first wife as payoff money. Dig up and interview every single woman he cheated with. Mock his service on talk radio.

You watch. You won't see TV ads like this, because Democrats are better than that. That is why I am proud to be a Democrat. The impeachment trial, FL 2000 and swiftboat 2004 were enough to embitter the decent.

With all of the ammunition the Democrats are packing you would think Republicans would be ashamed to replay Jeremiah Wright going off for the 4000th time. You would think.

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 7:17 PM

Moe,

After I've endured five years of torture, then perhaps I'll join in criticizing McCain. Till then, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He didn't break in any meaningful or exceptionable sense.

I don't know anything about McCain's psychology but I would imagine that he felt that after suffering five years of torture and being robbed of the flower of his youth in a Hanoi prison cell, he deserved a little fun and excitement. He was wrong to give in to that desire, I'll concede. But it's a very natural desire and it's natural to see how it would flow directly out of his five years of suffering.

Posted by Hector | June 9, 2008 7:17 PM

I would add here that our purient demand for, and the increased reporting on, more and more of the intimate details of politicians lives has now almost totally eclipsed, and certainly placed in a secondary position, reporting and emphasis on actual skills, performance, achievement, record, etc.

Posted by esmense | June 9, 2008 7:21 PM

Students of politics, your lesson for today is to compare and contrast Hector's 7:17 post against the swift-boating of John Kerry.

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Tomtom,

I voted for John Kerry, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I'm not a Republican and I've never voted for one.

Posted by Hector | June 9, 2008 7:27 PM

Hector replies: "After I've endured five years of torture, then perhaps I'll join in criticizing McCain. Till then, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He didn't break in any meaningful or exceptionable sense.

I don't know anything about McCain's psychology but I would imagine that he felt that after suffering five years of torture and being robbed of the flower of his youth in a Hanoi prison cell, he deserved a little fun and excitement. He was wrong to give in to that desire, I'll concede. But it's a very natural desire and it's natural to see how it would flow directly out of his five years of suffering. "

I'm not criticizing him for his behavior in Vietnam either, Hector, but I'm pointing out that if someone with his record ran as a Dem he'd be given the John Kerry treatment. Before the Repiglican hacks were done they'd be suggesting that he did it all for Jane Fonda.

As for his "little fun and excitement," sure, I guess, whatever. He might have had that with his wife but her looks had been ruined. That makes it all okay.

'Cept for the HOMEWRECKING WHORE part...

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 7:47 PM

Hector,
Sorry I wasn't clear. Your post was outstanding for its decency, which stands in stark contrast to the way GWB silently stood aside in the thick of the swiftboating of Kerry.

Should Democrats return the low blows we have received from the right and take McCain down dirty? Are we suckers to hold to a higher standard? Is answering the most vicious attacks from the right in kind the only way to win?

McCain's infidelity is a very ripe target, which the Republicans would not hesitate to attack (imagine Limbaugh). Do we shoe them their own medicine? Are we wimps not to?

I am torn on this question. The double standard Ross perpetuates is galling and has triggered many bitter posts, mine included.

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 8:33 PM

I would add here that our purient demand for, and the increased reporting on, more and more of the intimate details of politicians lives has now almost totally eclipsed, and certainly placed in a secondary position, reporting and emphasis on actual skills, performance, achievement, record, etc.

Well right, but which side is the one pushing the prurient details? Is it the same one that is now arguing that this should be a private matter? I mean the position Ross is advocating is, as a normative matter, right. It's just not the position he has ever taken when the shoe was on the other foot.

IOKIYAR to the nth.

Posted by Pooh | June 9, 2008 9:25 PM

"We want to discourage men from ditching their wives" ?!

Bro, wake up and join the 21st century. A lot of people get married for the wrong reasons, a lot get married for the right reasons but things change, etc, etc.

Honestly, what's wrong with you? I have a radical idea: How about we try to elect the most competent leaders possible, realizing that their work is extremely important to 300 million citizens, and we ignore their private and human foibles?

Jesus, after 8 years of GWB, I'd think you'd be able to better figure things out.

Posted by mark | June 9, 2008 10:33 PM

This makes no sense. You say you won't disqualify McCain for office based on his past misconduct, meaning you'd vote for him, but you wish we were the kind of people who woulld disqualify him for that reason in order to promote marriage, etc. So, why not be the man you wish we all could be and vote for someone else? Or abstain? And then use your blog as a platform to move people in the direction you wish we'd go?

Since when did realizing that you hold a minority position give you license to adopt the beliefs and practices of the majority? "Love thy neighbor, unless you live in a society where people don't love their neighbors. Then do what is expedient, all the while talking regretfully about how you wish things were different."

Posted by Mark H. | June 10, 2008 10:06 AM

Pooh --

"Well right, but which side is the one pushing the prurient details?"

The side that not too long ago was arguing that things like this should be "a private matter."

Sure, Ross' position is hyprocritical, self-serving and indefensible. But so is the position of the Democrats who are pushing this story today, despite condemning the Republicans when they ventured into these waters for electoral advantage in the 90s, and the shoe was on the other foot.

I agreed with the Democrats in the 90s, and condemned the behavior of the Republicans. Behavior that I believe damaged the country, over turned the people's best interest in the interest of media profits and the hope of political gain, and forever undermined the nature of our political discourse.

I'm just as offended by Democrats who now believe they can gain my vote on the basis of junk like this as I was offended by Republicans who tried to profit from the same despicable methods.

All the Democrats do with this kind of ploy is demonstrate how little respect they have for me, the voters in general, and the nature of our political discourse.

Is this the "new" politics we have been promised?

Looks like the same old destructive politics to me. The Democrats, having seen exactly how these methods work against the public interest, should know better.

Posted by esmense | June 10, 2008 1:09 PM

esmense,

That's fair. Though I'm only "pushing" the story insofar as McCain is claiming the "values" mantle. The analogy I'd make is that in law, there's a lot of stuff you can't bring up until the opposing party "puts it at issue" - e.g. the "credibility" of a criminal defendant or the mental condition of a tort claimant.

Basically, I could really care less what McCain's private life is/was like so long as it is/was legal, until he starts to suggest that that private life is a reason to vote for him. At that point, I'm fully within my rights to call "bullshit", which his claim to piety self-evidently is.

Posted by Pooh | June 10, 2008 3:30 PM

esmense writes: "I'm just as offended by Democrats who now believe they can gain my vote on the basis of junk like this as I was offended by Republicans who tried to profit from the same despicable methods.

All the Democrats do with this kind of ploy is demonstrate how little respect they have for me, the voters in general, and the nature of our political discourse.

Is this the "new" politics we have been promised?

Looks like the same old destructive politics to me. The Democrats, having seen exactly how these methods work against the public interest, should know better."

This is more than a little silly. Who exactly are the "Democrats" who are using "these methods"? I haven't heard a single Democratic pol or "liberal" media figure pushing this stuff as a reason to vote against McCain. Not one. But the Repiglicans thrived on this bullshit in the 90s and against Gore and Kerry in this decade.

So you're setting up a strawman here and pretending it scares you. It shouldn't. Neither Obama or his subordinates are going to run on this crap - they don't have to, for one thing, and they're not accustomed to it like the Repiglicans are.

Now if you're talking about people making comments on blogs like this and you're assuming they're Dems, don't. I'm going to vote for Obama, but I'm not a Democrat. I just happen to think the current Repiglican Party is the worst gang of criminals and drooling morons to ever have power in this country, and they have a severe whipping coming and I'm going to enjoy it every step of the way. Is there something wrong with that?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 10, 2008 5:42 PM

"the actions of Elliot Spitzer (say) are fair game."

TR: Prostitution is actually illegal in the state of New York. Perjury is illegal too as I recall.

Ross might believe that we shouldn't even be electing adulterers, but if he does that's completely unrealistic bordering on absurd. Around 1 in 4 men are adulterers. From a Catholic perspective a person who remarried after a divorce is an adulterer. So a faithful Catholic is quite likely going to be voting for someone who is an adulterer based on his religion's standard. Even if you take out the Catholic element it's still highly probable a person will, at one time or other, vote for an adulterer for President.

McCain apparently was a jerk to his first wife. However he says he was to blame and gave her a fair settlement. She forgave him. He married his current wife 28 years ago. (His first marriage lasted 15 years) What he did was still wrong, but it's not like committing a sex-crime and it's apparently not unforgivable. That said a President or Presidential candidate's adultery should be discreet to avoid public scandal. McCain was not particularly discreet then so may not be in the future and that is a bit of a problem.

Posted by Thomas R | June 11, 2008 3:26 AM

Pooh --

I'm not a McCain supporter, but I can't agree that he has ever run as an example of "family values." He has made it quite clear that he is a flawed man -- a goof off in school, a womanizer in his youth, etc. Unlike most politicians, one very rarely sees him appear with his children; and he hasn't, so far, exploited his son's current military service. There are lots of perfectly good reasons to vote against him -- but no defensible reasons to drag his first wife out into the political spotlight.

MoelarryandJesus --

I'm a marketing and PR professional. Stories like this don't get out into the mainstream and incite discussion by accident. The Obama campaign right now is trying to bring back some of the female voters offended by events in, and the atmosphere of, the primary campaign. This story of McCain's marriage and supposed treatment of his first wife is just one of several stories (including the story about cursing out his current wife) casting McCain in a poor light in relation to women that have been popping up as part of that effort.

Frankly, as a woman, I find it offensive. If a candidate hopes to appeal to me, he should do so on the basis of issues that I believe are vital. This crap not only insults my integrity and my intelligence, it makes me wonder if the candidate's campaign isn't indulging in these tactics to avoid the real issues
and obscure the fact that his commitment to those issue that matter to me is weak or non-existent.

Posted by esmense | June 11, 2008 10:57 AM

but no defensible reasons to drag his first wife out into the political spotlight.

Until he advances his "character" as a rationale for choosing him:

"Elect me, I'm moral and upstanding!

Query: Was it moral and upstanding when you upgraded from your badly injured first wife to Ms. Blondie McHeiress '75?"

That seems fair game to me.

Posted by Pooh | June 11, 2008 8:12 PM

esmense replies: "I'm a marketing and PR professional. Stories like this don't get out into the mainstream and incite discussion by accident. The Obama campaign right now is trying to bring back some of the female voters offended by events in, and the atmosphere of, the primary campaign. This story of McCain's marriage and supposed treatment of his first wife is just one of several stories (including the story about cursing out his current wife) casting McCain in a poor light in relation to women that have been popping up as part of that effort.

Frankly, as a woman, I find it offensive. If a candidate hopes to appeal to me, he should do so on the basis of issues that I believe are vital. This crap not only insults my integrity and my intelligence, it makes me wonder if the candidate's campaign isn't indulging in these tactics to avoid the real issues
and obscure the fact that his commitment to those issue that matter to me is weak or non-existent. "

You may well be a professional, but you strike me as either an idiot or a GOP partisan, because you don't have the slightest bit of evidence that Obama's people have anything to do with this story's appearance. By the way, I knew most of this shit about McCain well before this story came out, and so did most people who spend much time paying attention to politics.

How do you know McCain didn't have his first wife speak out in order to innoculate himself against this story? Get it out there under the best light possible, with her saying she has no hard feelings and thinks he should be elected - isn't that the best scenario for a story from his point of view? A canny professional would at least consider that possibility.

And McCain is running on CHARACTER, and this is an open chapter of his life that people are free to look at. If that freaks you out maybe you should leave politics alone and spend more time doing sudoku.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 11, 2008 11:26 PM

To me it speaks well of McCain that he patched things up with his first wife. Plus it was 30 years ago.

On the other hand, there are situations that are much more problematic than this...

1. A certain politician, let's call him B.C., commits perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up his affair.

2. A certain recent presidential candidate, let's call him R.G., has his affair and dumps his wife in public before marrying his mistress.

Not all adultery is equally bad. It seems to me that there are a few aggravating and mitigating factors:

1. Did it ultimately result in divorce? Adultery is certainly somewhat mal in se to the extent it is a breach of trust, but more so when it breaks up a family as well (advantage, BC!)

2. Was the spouse mistreated beyond the adultery itself? (disadvantage, RG)

3. Is the candidate on speaking terms with the victimized spouse and/or children? (advantage McCain and BC, disadvantage, RG)

4. Was there some broader public harm, such as illegal conduct? (disadvantage, BC and Spitzer)

Posted by Woodow | June 15, 2008 2:16 AM