Romney, resurrected?

Mitt Romney may get back in the race if the McCain scandal blows up.

Comments

[4-7]

I think that is a fairly weak suggestion from that article. John Romney seems to say that it is "possible" his father would reenter the race if the McCain candicay falters, but was not quoted on opinining on the likelihood that the scandal shall have any purchase. I think the headline and analysis here suggests Romney is waiting in the wings with baited breath, excited for the scandal to make more purchase. I seriously doubt that.

[Joe Mama]

"the McCain scandal"?

Really?

[Brendan Loy]

Yes, Joe Mama. But I'm not referring to the thinly-sourced sex "scandal," if that's what you're objecting to. I'm referring to the McCain-blatantly-lying-about-stuff subscandal, which really does have the potential to "blow up" if more significant contradictory facts emerge.

It's always the cover-up. Always, always.

[texasyank]

The only one gonna blow up is Bill Keller.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. Your response to this issue on that prior thread had three basic tenets: 1) "McCain contradicting himself about the side-issue of whether or not he spoke with a lobbyist is a yawner," 2) Josh Marshall overstated his case, and 3) whatever McCain is, Obama is worse. Obviously, points #2 and #3 are distractions, so let's focus on point #1. I disagree. McCain blatantly and unabashedly lying about anything about which he's being specifically grilled is troubling, because if he'll do it once, who's to say he won't do it again, perhaps about something more important? Who's to say, indeed, that he isn't doing it with regard to other aspects of this very story where we are trusting his word on his categorical denials? Once you learn that somebody will lie to your face, you can never quite trust them the same way again, particularly when their whole campaign schpeel is "straight talk." And considering the number of categorical denials he's issued with regard to various aspects of this story, and the degree to which substantial factual holes have already been poked in several of them, I really don't understand how you can see this as a "yawner." It does very definitely have the potential to blow up in McCain's face. It might not. But it's hardly something to just pooh-pooh.

[Brendan Loy]

And Texasyank raises 4) "the New York Times is a biased piece of trash." Okay, granted, at least for the sake of argument. So? Just because the NY Times arguably committed all sorts of journalistic sins here doesn't mean this can't bite McCain in the ass if it's proven that he's lying. Which, to some extent, it already has been. He can't hide behind Bill Keller forever. That would be like Bill Clinton complaining "how dare Matt Drudge smear me like this" after the blue dress had already been tested.

[Brendan Loy]

P.P.S. Joe Mama: "McCain contradicting himself about the side-issue of whether or not he spoke with a lobbyist is a yawner."

Shorter Joe Mama: "He lied about something I don't care about."

Isn't that basically what the Dems said in 1998? ("He lied about sex"?) I thought we were supposed to focus on the fact that he lied, not the importance of the particular topic that the lie concerned.

Granted, McCain wasn't under oath in his press conference. But I seem to recall some Republicans being a bit angry at Clinton for "lying to the American people," too.

Blaming the New York Times is working for now. Blaming the Washington Post worked for Nixon for a while, too. But eventually, if the facts are there, the scandal will blow up; the truth will out. (And I'm not saying this is Watergate; far from it. My point is simply that blaming the messenger only works if the message isn't overly damning.)

[dcl]

Brendan, I believe your rebuttal to point number one was the central concern of the Republicans over Bill Clinton (at least those that were being intellectually honest, non hypocritical, and not insanely prudish) or at least should have been--referring again to the parenthetical. While one could argue that there is a certain difference between a guy known as "slick willy" and a man who purports himself as "Mr. Straight Talk" in regards to the persuasiveness of the argument. The ends really are the same and the importance of the point is, ultimately the same. Thus Democrats shouldn't care about this "scandal" one bit and Republicans should be irate and immediately sink his candidacy. In reality, of course, I predict heavy hypocrisy on this point from both sides.

[Brendan Loy]

I predict heavy hypocrisy on this point from both sides.

That's one prediction that will rarely be proven wrong. :)

[Mike]

Well, as neither an R nor a D, I disagree with you, Dane, that "The ends really are the same and the importance of the point is, ultimately the same." Clinton had no business being investigated under oath for whether or not he had an affair, but the fact that he lied under oath matters a lot more to me that this lie from McCain. That's not to say that McCain's lie here is unimportant, but there is a difference. One is a lie, but only a lie; the other is a lie which is also perjury. It is not necessarily intellectually dishonest to care about the distinction between the two.

[dcl]

I would suggest that a lie is a lie is a lie. Regardless of weather it amounts to perjury or not is immaterial to the ethical quality of it. The ethical question is not what do you do when everyone is looking, and can easily catch you in the lie the ethical question is what you do when no one is looking and nobody can prove you lied. Only a fool would lie in the former. A great many more people would lie in the later and is, as such, a far greater test of one's character. (And yes, I realize I called Clinton a fool -- he was, indeed a fool to lie about the affair. as Brendan has previously intoned, it's the cover up that gets you.)

[Joe Mama]

Brendan,

Yes, I was objecting to the alleged "sex scandal." But McCain lying about whether he spoke to a lobbyist is not a per se "scandal" (or "sub-quasi-pseudo-whatever-scandal") either in my view, at least not without much more. Yes, the substance of the lie matters, as the Lewinsky scandal clearly established regarding whether one is or is not fit to be POTUS. You touched on one key distinction between Clinton's lie and McCain's, i.e., that the former was under oath. If you need me to hash out some other distinctions between the Clinton and McCain, I can do that. And yes, "some Republicans" were indeed angry at Clinton for simply "lying to the American people," regardless of the substance. I, however, wasn't one of them, so to the extent you're insinuating that I'm a hypocrite, you don't know what you're talking about. I was never naive enough to assume that the President should be as pure as the driven snow and never, ever tell a lie. Thus, learning that McCain "lied to my face" in this instance hasn't really affected whether I can "trust him the same way again," as I never expected him -- or any candidate (yes, even Obama) -- to be 100% truthful to begin with.

The fact that McCain's "whole campaign schpeel is 'straight talk'" gives me more reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, not less. In the absence of evidence that this is a pattern of behavior, I'm not inclined to think that McCain is a habitual liar. This goes back to the "distraction" (not created by me) that was 2), i.e., that this one incident shows that "McCain does this all the time," which was the unsubstantiated conclusion of Marshall's piece that you linked to and apparently embraced. I haven't follow this story as closely as others, but I don't know what other "substantial factual holes" you're referring to in McCain's denials. I could of course be wrong, but to my knowledge the only "factual hole" that has been unearthed here is that McCain did in fact speak to a lobbyist when he said he didn't, and that he stuck to his guns with a lame reaffirmation of that denial. BFD.

You ask:

who's to say he won't do it again, perhaps about something more important? Who's to say, indeed, that he isn't doing it with regard to other aspects of this very story where we are trusting his word on his categorical denials?

Well, who's to say that this isn't the exception and not the rule with McCain, and that his ill-advised attempt to save face by not coming clean on what by all accounts is a trivial contradiction is nothing more than a poor decision made in the heat of a presidential campaign? I have no truck with McCain being pilloried as a lying sack if this is just the tip of the iceberg, or if there's proof he's lying about something more substantial (e.g., that he'll "keep us out of war"). But as of now, the man deserves the benefit of the doubt, and I'll still extend it to him.

[Dave]

Brendan,

With respect, I think you're missing the mark here. Even had McCain been under oath when he was responding to the NYT allegations, his "lie" about not having communicated with Mr. Paxson wouldn't have been perjury. Why? His statement had no impact on the ultimate issues of the allegations - which, as Joe Mama points out - are (at this point) baseless. His communications with Paxson in 1998 are entirely unrelated to whether or not he had an affair with Iseman, and are peripheral - at best - to the insinuation that he gave inappropriate favors to Paxson or anyone else.

Of course, we're in the court of public opinion now, and as I stated on the previous post, McCain's "dissembling denial" habit is troubling - especially to supporters like me. It's important not to conflate this, however, with the purported scandal "blowing up," an event Mr. Marshall would no doubt welcome. McCain obviously misspoke when he "denied" having spoken with Paxson; yet, the falsity of this statement neither supports the NYT allegations nor suggests the campaign is trying to cover anything up. I think that, as Joe Mama suggests, we should give him the benefit of the doubt until any further hard evidence supporting the NYT story is revealed.

McCain invites higher standards and greater scrutiny than other candidates because of the unprecedented access he grants media, and because he embraces the "Straight Talk Express" mantle. Because of this access, his message is not always as tailored as perhaps it should be, his remarks nowhere near as scripted as other candidates'. Perhaps realizing this, his campaign has tightened access in recent weeks, since McCain all but secured the nomination. I'd find it really sad if, as a result of this smear piece, his campaign became as tight and orchestrated as those of his rivals.

Now, Brendan, you've repeatedly avowed that you are still neutral in this race. Fixating on this purported "subscandal," however, suggests you've already made up your mind to support Obama. Nothing wrong with that - millions of Americans agree with you, even if I don't. If that's the case, though, I wish you'd come out and declare your support, instead of masquerading as an undecided voter.

If there's a chance, however, that you can forgive McCain's misstatements in light of his foreign policy credentials and his 50 years of service to the country, and perhaps eventually come around to support him, I wish you'd say that, too.

[Brendan Loy]

No time to respond in detail (in fact I've only skimmed these comments), but, Dave, I absolutely have not decided who to vote for in November. I lean toward Obama, but it's only that, a lean. I've very open to voting for McCain. I'm not "fixating" on this scandal/subscandal, I just think it's interesting and I'm curious to see how it will develop.

[Alasdair]

dcl - "Regardless of weather" or even regardless of Global Warming (the Cult thereof), a lie is not a lie and hasn't been a lie ... except when one encounters someone so irretrievably black-and-white in their outlook ... from the 'white lie' of "That is an interesting hat/tie/shirt !" to the polite social fiction of "Have a good day !", folk lie all the time ... (yes, I know some who only say it when they mean it, and I also know many who say it even as they *know* they are lying) ...

The intent and the circumstances of the less-than-strict-truth uttered matter significantly ... if they didn't what need would we have of lawyers and the like ?

An even more timely observation that counters your assertion that a lie is a lie is a lie, is that, in this Primary season, practising politicians are lying their heads off, on a daily basis, if one is naive enough to try to take them literally as you suggest ... pundits lie regularly when they prognosticate, when they make predictions ...

The trick is to be able to decide how much confidence to put in the utterances of a given person ... when someone on the D-list mentions Bush, that has a very high correlation with utterances of BDS ... and when I point such things out, one can have confidence that there is likely to be a consequence of yet another ad hominem attack on me, rather than a reasoned rebuttal of my words ...

(grin) And even that most recent phrasing from me may well place the D-list's anagrammatic Dean upon the horns of a dilemma ...

{Cue: Loy, the Elder, Peacemaker and Piecemaker :-|)>>> }

[David K.]

except when one encounters someone so irretrievably black-and-white in their outlook

We HAVE met that person Alasdair, its YOU. Except what is black and white isn't whats a lie and whats not a lie, whats black and white is that the Bush lovers are always right, and the people who don't like Bush are always wrong.

[Joe Mama]

Dave,

Honestly, I think we have to go beyond "misspoke" at this point and call a spade a spade -- McCain lied, plain and simple. Had he not maintained -- rather unbelievably -- that there was no contradiction in what he said, then his contradiction could've been passed off as an honest mistake. To be sure, I wouldn't expect McCain to remember every lobbyist, executive, etc. that he's met in his career, regardless of whether he testified about it under oath. And as anti-McCain partisans are now quick to point out, the guy is old as dirt ("YouTube versus feeding tube" is how the execrable Bill Maher puts an Obama-McCain election). But McCain's campaign, when faced with the contradiction, tried to pass off his prior deposition testimony as meaning somehow that his staff spoke with Paxson, not McCain himself. That purported explanation really strains McCain's deposition testimony beyond any reasonable interpretation if you look at the transcript. Again, I'm not saying this tarnishes McCain in any significant way. As I said above, I have no reason to jump to the overwrought conclusion from this story that McCain "routinely, almost constantly" lies, as Josh Marshall and others would have everyone believe. McCain's reputation up to this point warrants extending him the benefit of the doubt that this is an isolated lapse in judgment. But McCain effectively sanctioned the lie when his staffers tried to spin their way out of the contradiction. They may have felt "honor-bound" to stick to their guns given how transparent the NYTimes hit piece was on McCain, but in the end the absence of journalistic standards can't be an excuse for perpetuating a falsehood, no matter how trivial and ancillary it might be.

[Andrew]

As I said in a previous thread, McCain's weakness is the flipside of his strength: He is so intent on being categorically truthful and "talking straight", that he is liable to "overdeny" that he's contradicted his own principles. His inability to accept gray and nuance results in him making statements that are just categorically false. I do not think McCain stepped up to the mic with the intent to dissemble and spin a yarn, I think he meant to respond to the core of the accusation against his character, which he feels is false.

Allow me to illustrate. Every man on this planet can't help but turn his head(s) and stare too long at a scantilly-clad, beautiful woman. Yet many men also believe it is wrong to lust, and that they should only have eyes for the wives. A man typically resolve the conundrum one of three ways:

1. He comfortably acknowledges his fallibility and does his best to do what's right, but occasionally he does what he considers is wrong out of admitted weakness, then tries to improve his behavior.

2. He internally accepts the belief that there is no harm whatsoever in lusting after women, but for external appearances and harmony, maintains the charade that he does indeed believe that lust is harmful.

3. He is so intent and focused on adhering to his moral vision that, when he catches himself violating his own morals and starting to lust, he immediately pushes it out of his mind and denies to himself that it ever happened so he can continue marching down his moral path without distraction.

If I had to place our last two presidents and John McCain in each category, I would argue Bush is closer to 1., Clinton is closer to 2., and McCain is closer to 3. I don't believe Clinton really has any internal conflicts about lusting or sleeping around, he just tries to navigate the social and political fallout from his actions. I believe Bush believes in doing right, but doesn't pretend to be perfect, and probably doesn't try all that hard to be perfect, either. And I believe John McCain very sincerely believes in his own values, wants to adhere to and demonstrate those values, and thus when he's done questionable actions that suggest a violation of his principles, he cannot accept that fault and must reject it utterly.

I don't venture into this speculation to speak ill of any of the above men's morality, my only intent is to illustrate categories of human behavior. We could easily argue all day about why 1., 2., or 3. is the more noble and acceptable moral attitude, and those positions will largely influence how positively or negatively we perceive each of the three men I referenced. My only point is, McCain's response in this minor kerfuffle is wholly illustrative of the type of person he is, and each person can decide for himself which general moral behavior pattern they find more attractive or repulsive in the candidates, as each of the three types of moral attitudes I described above will drive different desireable and undesireable actions and patterns over a course of time.

[Joe Loy]

Thoughtfully argued, Andrew.

And, not to go all Sectarian on you or anythinglikethat But :} somehow you have cast my mind Back to a sermon I heard longlong ago in which the good Fadduh, to illustrate Our Savior's seamless unification of inspirational Rhetoric with practical Policy, reminded the congregation that "Jesus said 'Go thou, and sin no more.' But He also set up Confessionals." :}

[Mike]

Just to quibble with Andrew, I'd have to comment that there are a good ~5% of men fully capable of not turning to stare at beautiful, scantily clad women. Most of those same men will have difficulty not turning to stare too long at handsome, scantily clad men.

[Joe Loy]

Good point Mike (I'd thought of it too) (or so I irrefutably Claim :) ~ but I think your Percentage might be a little Light, there. :>

"(grin) And even that most recent phrasing from me may well place the D-list's anagrammatic Dean upon the horns of a dilemma ...

"{Cue: Loy, the Elder, Peacemaker and Piecemaker :-|)>>> } "

Alasdair, as usual you are overgrammatizing things here :}. Now me, I'm just a simple C-list Pieceworker, comrade :> and I don't know nuffin 'bout no Horns on yer twin Lemmings but Speaking of which cliffdiving little rodents ;], as for you & dcl all I can suggest is Conflict Mediation via Peacemakers at Twenty Paces. :] And in Conclusion, as regards your Cue-ing of me Up, considering the Subject I think I'll just defer the Musical part to my philosopho-bardic Homies , Gawd bless 'em. (Honest Smile :)

[Andrew]

Just to quibble with Andrew, I'd have to comment that there are a good ~5% of men fully capable of not turning to stare at beautiful, scantily clad women.

[Insert tasteless priest joke here.]

[Joe Loy]

waw haw haw! :)

[Alasdair]

Andrew - I knew that there are priests of many flavours, but I hadn't realised that they have ones with no taste whatsoever !

Joe Sine - what He meant by "Jesus said 'Go thou, and sin no more'" was that everything should be in moderation ... as in "Sin less, if you can, but at least sin no more" ... (grin) ...