On the McCain "Affair"

I do not know if McCain did or did not, is or is not having an affair with his campaign manager. And this post, in fact, is not about whether he is or is not but rather what the reaction of people to it SHOULD be if he is, in fact, doing it. I am not interested in defending him or attacking him as an individual. He is representative of much about American politics that needs taking exception to. I do,in fact, take a great deal of exception to people saying, "It doesn't matter". To be fair, after Clinton, it shouldn't...except it still does. Immorality is immorality and moral turpitude among public officials is a serious issue whether people want to admit it or not. No matter how much people spin it that Clinton's perjury charges were "just about sex" the fact remains it was a horrific example of leadership in this country and it was not about sex, it was about integrity.

First and foremost, his infidelity to his wife said a lot about his character. We, in theory, trust our public officials to act in a manner that is best for the country...which is really hard to do when they will not even act in a manner that is best for their family. A person lacking the integrity to honor his most intimate vows is quite unlikely to be a person of integrity in much larger things. Of course, Lewinsky was hardly his first offense in that regard...she was part of a pattern of infidelity and lack of decent morals. Adultery is a horrendous, devastating action and should be taken into account when people are voting. They should have with Clinton and they certainly should with McCain.

Just because some other President or other public official did something unjustifiable and got away with it does not give a free pass on the matter to subsequent officials. President Grant, for example, was pulled over for drunk driving. It is true, look it up. He was in office at the time, was cited multiple times due to the way he drove his wagon while intoxicated. Does that mean a President today who drove drunk should get a pass because Grant did the same thing? Rhetorical question with a vigorous negative for the answer.

And hardly the only example, just one of my favorites. Whether the candidates and/or elected officials like it or not, their "private lives" are not side-issues. The trust placed in officials means how they behave in their personal life is a quite legitimate issue when they voluntarily seek public office. The voting populace has a right...I would even argue a responsibility...to know what type of people wish to provide leadership. Bad leadership leads to disaster and intellectual laziness in not seeking to determine whether the candidate in question is a good person or a bad person is inexcusable.

That is one reason I did and do believe the Clinton impeachment was not just necessary but should have ended differently that it did. He violated his oath of office and demonstrated quite clearly the type of person he was. An embarrassment to the country. And the same thing held true for the Congressmen of whom it was then revealed had also been involved in adulterous relationships. They should have been removed from office in shame. They are not people worth honoring or respecting.

And if McCain did, in fact, have this extra-marital affair the same holds true for him. Even if he held every position I hold such a person is not the type of person I would ever vote for if these allegations are true. Moral uprightness is a sterner test than "does he agree with me on proposition x". And should be. For everyone.