Family Values

Here's some coverage of John McCain's deplorable treatment of his first wife. Basically, she got into a horrible car accident that left her disabled, at which point he had what seems to have been several affairs with different women before embarking on a months-long courtship of his current wife. Then he divorced his first wife, and married number two -- who conveniently enough happened to have been a wealthy heiress.

Now I have ample other reasons for thinking Barack Obama would be a better President than McCain, so I'm not going to pretend that this is my key driving force. But I'll agree with Nick Beaudrot that "I'm really curious what the more explicitly family-values-oriented conservatives like Ross Douthat think of this particular story."

Comments

McCain doesn't come off looking good, but the only on-the-record quote bashing him is from Ted Sampley, a whack-job who has been trying to smear McCain as a Manchurian candidate for two decades. The fact the reporter includes him, and doesn't mention he runs a prominent anti-McCain website, really hurts the story's credibility. Pair that with the generally nice words from wife one, and I don't think McCain needs to worry about this story gaining too much traction. Too bad the reporter was lazy.

Posted by NHCt | June 9, 2008 11:09 AM

Part of the issue slowing the coverage here is that Carol Shepp McCain, being a human being, isn't particularly interested in fanning the flames in public, and apparently they're on relatively good terms. Also despite being a douchebag towards the end of their marriage he did at least include payment for her medical treatment and some assets in the settlement.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 9, 2008 11:17 AM

Here's some coverage of John McCain's deplorable treatment of his first wife.

I'm inclined to treat the first Mrs. McCain's characterization of McCain's treatment of her as substantially more credible than anyone else's, and I think most people will do the same. As she at least publicly likes him, I doubt that this is a very fruitful avenue of attack.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 9, 2008 11:18 AM

"I'm really curious what the more explicitly family-values-oriented conservatives like Ross Douthat think of this particular story."

Let us not forget, despite Ross Douthat's mild and sometimes pleasant nature, that he is first and foremost a partisan Republican. He will therefore support John McCain and suggest that we should not judge him, lest we be judged. This will not prevent him, however, from calling Obama's mainstream pro-choice position "deeply troubling."

Posted by drjimcooper | June 9, 2008 11:18 AM

so NOW presidential infidelity matters????

Posted by jamie | June 9, 2008 11:19 AM

Actually, Ross Perot, who paid Carol's medical bills while McCain was a POW, is quoted saying:

"McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory. . . . After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history."

And even Carol is quoted saying:

"My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens . . . it just does."

I believe she thinks she is defending him, but I'm not sure that constitutes much of a defense of McCain's behavior or character.

Posted by DTM | June 9, 2008 11:19 AM

I know the other side does it--and without legitimate ammunition like this--but I'd rather we not go there. McCain is a flawed human being who has done some amazing and honorable things in his life, and also some lousy things. As have we all. (Maybe our honorable stuff is not as amazing as his, and maybe our bad stuff isn't as bad as his.)

McCain can be defeated as Bob Dole was, as out of touch with today's problems. No need to destroy him personally. And I hope and expect that Obama not only will not go there, but will not let surrogates go there.

Posted by jbd | June 9, 2008 11:20 AM

Didn't Michel de Montaigne write about the glories of sex with a lame woman? I guess at modernity's pace, being married to one would be a major inconvenience. But McCain was married to her, presumably because he loved her. I guess his love, like most of his superficial notions, is pure surface. Introspection, and the emotional depths that it allows, are entirely foreign to McCain.

Posted by Robert | June 9, 2008 11:21 AM

I don't think this'll work as a major attack either. How do you know he won't just get Carol to come out and say that she loves McCain and he's treated her exceptionally well and it was a model divorce. Then the story dies and the McCain will try to work for some backlash points. Better to have it simmer as a behind-the-scenes whisper campaign.

Posted by Mike | June 9, 2008 11:29 AM

jbd,

I'd like to agree, but the problem is that in defense of certain public policies, certain people frequently articulate the overriding importance of "defending" particular models of sexuality, romantic relationships, and family arrangements from any sort of variation, while at the same time many of them are actually varying from those models in their personal lives. And so somewhat reluctantly, I think pointing out their hypocrisy on these issues is necessary, because it is an effective demonstration of how their nominal "defense" of these models is really just a rationalization.

Posted by DTM | June 9, 2008 11:31 AM

Maties, maties, can't we all jest get a long? Ain't it time to forgo the politics er personal destruction an focus on the issues that are so important to strugglin americans out there strugglin an all? So John McCain is an opportunist, so what. All politicians are opportunists, it's as much a part er the job as the interdependant coctail er alcaholism, sodemy, and vernerial disease are part er being a pirate. So let's jest take the higher path, let this one go, and focus on creatin an armada er videos with McCain samilin that weird smile and saying in that weird voice "that's not change we can believe in." It's like someone underneath the podium had a grip on his testicles. That snippet er viedo is all the American public needs to see er John McCain.

Posted by ol' one eye | June 9, 2008 11:34 AM

I'd guess that most people are perfectly capable of figuring out that someone who went through five years of torture and imprisonment might have difficulty returning to an old relationship (where she had also gone through drastic changes).

Matt's showing his youth.

Posted by Nathan | June 9, 2008 11:39 AM

DTM, if in the general election McCain tries to rile up the base by pushing an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage, because gay folks are supposedly destroying marriage, then I'll agree with you--he's opened the door, as lawyers say. I know he blurred the lines a little in the primaries, but I doubt he'll do that. http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?id=24845

By the way, the best line ever on this came from Barney Frank: "We have a 50% divorce rate in this country. How is that MY fault??!!"

Posted by jbd | June 9, 2008 11:42 AM

Obama and the DNC shouldn't use this as a prominent mode of attack against McCain. However, we shouldn't be afraid to talk about this with friends and loved ones who vote on "family values" issues. This works best as a personal-level critique.

Then again, the last president we had who actually had family values bona fides was Carter (Reagan was a divorcee and knocked up Nancy before they were married; Bush I had allegations about infedility; Clenis; Bush II's rumored knocking up a younger girl who had an abortion and anyone can look at his daughters' behavior as not exactly exemplifying the "family values" Bush supposedly supports). People only vote for "family values" in the abstract of hating gays and dildoes.

Posted by Reality Man | June 9, 2008 11:46 AM

I'd heard this before.

What I found terribly shocking was what I read in Cindy McCain's June '08 Vogue interview, where she talks about her stroke.

She said that to recover, she had to leave her family and go be alone in one of their other homes (presumably with rehab staff) because at home, she would basically not be supported in her recovery.

I genuinely felt for her. Seriously, she survived a near-fatal stroke, and, what McCain was too busy in 2004 to support her?

What was most tragic is how she spoke about it like it was normal. Like the best she could hope for after a stroke wasn't for anyone to selflessly take care of her, but to be temporarily relieved of her responsibility for taking care of everyone else. Especially, I suspect, her husband.

Posted by anonymous | June 9, 2008 11:49 AM

I agree that Obama should not use this in a frontal assault on McCain. But, there's no harm in raising it to demoralize those supporters of his who believe in family values and/or plain decency.

The issue isn't just infidelity. Its abandoning a wife BECAUSE she became disabled. If his wife had remained healthy and he had engaged in the same behavior, then people would shrug it off. Its the crassness and opportunism that will bother people, if the story manages to see the light of day.

Posted by Jim W | June 9, 2008 11:55 AM

Please don't link to stories where Ted Sampley is quoted as a reliable source. Ted Sampley is horrible liar who made a lot of money lying to people about Vietnam POWs still being held alive in cages in the 80s and 90s and he's been on a mission to destroy McCain and Kerry ever since they debunked that with their definitive report.

Ted Sampley is poison to anyone who seeks to be credible.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 9, 2008 12:01 PM

I don't know. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage is not 'till death do us part' for most people. You married someone with a certain understanding of who they are. You change, they change, you may end up getting a divorce. Yeah, it really sucks for the disabled person when their partner leaves them, but it also really sucks for the other person if their partner becomes disabled and the relationship is very dissatisfying to them. I think there are few people whose relationships could really survive those kinds of circumstances. John McCain is a cowboy and it's pretty much inconceivable he would have stayed faithful. Maybe it makes him a hypocrite and a little less than a good guy. The question in my mind is, did he abandon his kids from that marriage if he had any? And did he provide for her financially after leaving?

Posted by mpowell | June 9, 2008 12:04 PM

Its the crassness and opportunism that will bother people, if the story manages to see the light of day.

The same could have been said about BC getting blown by his intern in the oval office, but it really only bothered people who didn't like him anyway. This story will not change any minds.

Posted by mike | June 9, 2008 12:09 PM

The politics of personal destruction if I've ever heard it.

Posted by Tim K | June 9, 2008 12:12 PM

Well, perhaps Tim, but it's hard for Republicans to take the high road with this sort of thing now.

Also puts into context the ravings of some - note, some - of the HRC crowd claiming Obama's raving misogny.

"Cunt" is fine, but "sweetie" is beyond the pale.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 12:18 PM

lying to people about Vietnam POWs still being held alive in cages in the 80s and 90s

Wait a minute. Who did Chuck Norris rescue then?

Posted by jim | June 9, 2008 12:18 PM

Well, Ross Perot obviously doesn't much care for McCain, that's for sure.

Posted by John | June 9, 2008 12:40 PM

I think over the summer we are going to see that John MCain is the second coming of Bob Dole. Bob Dole got the nomination more or less by defualt. He was old. He was not a disciplined candidate. He was not a good speaker. No one was excited about his candidacy. He was a long term senator. He was a war hero (so what?). He was unpridictable in what he would say. The press had affection for him. He ran in the low part of the republicans political cycle

He actually would have been a much better president than McCain. He was smart. He knew about issues beyond war. He had the repsect of his senate collegues. McCain in substance, is really [retty similar to bush. He's a cowboy without much of a head for policy.

Posted by ol' One EYE | June 9, 2008 12:42 PM

Actually, the value of this story is that it will prevent older women and feminists that supported Clinton from switching parties and supporting McCain over Obama. This may not work on men (some will be disgusted, but others will agree with his approach), but there are quite a few women that would flip out and not be happy with this. At the least, their respect for the man will go down and if you don't respect a guy,you won't vote for him.

Posted by Mo | June 9, 2008 12:45 PM

In my nonscientific sampling of writings about Vietnam POWs who returned after a long imprisonment, every one of them got divorced. It's just not a stress that a relationship can endure, at least when easy divorce is an option. Most of these men seem to need a period of extreme selfishness as part of their recovery--when the strain is released they focus just on what they want for a year or two. That's not the basis for a good marriage. And Carol's comment that he wanted to be 25 again sounds a lot like that--it wasn't about her, it was about him. If anyone can find a study looking at the divorce rate of Vietnam POWs who were held for some time, I'd be interested.

So I tend to give McCain the benefit of the doubt. Especially, as noted above, because he and his former wife seem to get along, and his children all speak to him. He's ahead of Giuliani.

Posted by Deborah | June 9, 2008 12:46 PM

By those type of definitions, Romney was the standout candidate.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 12:51 PM

To me the issue isn't how Obama or some Dem group "uses" this. The point is that it's got to be demoralizing for the family-values wing of the Republican party, which pushed Bush over the edge in numerous swing states. I'm not a family values voter--I supported Clinton knowing full well that he was a sleazebag. But for family-values voters, pulling the lever for McCain--an even bigger sleazebag--is purest hypocrisy. And they know it.

Posted by Steve W | June 9, 2008 12:51 PM

I agree that this race looks a lot like Clinton v. Dole, and I think we'll see the same result.

Being a war hero will do very little for McCain with voters, just as it did nothing for Churchill right after WWII, or for HW against Clinton, or for Dole against Clinton, or for Kerry against Bush.

People think, "OK, he's a hero. So give him a medal. But who's going to make my life better?"

Unless something really shocking comes out about Obama, I can't picture this being too close.

Posted by jbd | June 9, 2008 1:03 PM

Deborah,

I agree with you 100% even though I'm a Democrat. McCain's divorce is between him, Carol, and God, and I think the trauma and suffering that he experienced is a seriously extenuating factor. If Carol doesn't blame him for it then neither should we.

As for the family values aspect, that McCain may have cheated on his wife doesn't make him any less reliable as an opponent of abortion or gay marriage,

Posted by Hector | June 9, 2008 1:03 PM

"Then he divorced his first wife, and married number two -- who conveniently enough happened to have been a wealthy heiress."

Is MY talking about McCain or Kerry?

I'm no fan of McCain (and won't vote for him) but can't MY find something else to bitch about?

Posted by kafka | June 9, 2008 1:23 PM

Given that Kerry didn't meet Heinz until at least a year after they were divorced, and didn't marry for another seven years, and that Kerry is wealthy in his own right (albeit as a trust-fund scumbag variant) I'm guessing he meant McCain.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 1:33 PM

It's very simple: don't attack him on this directly, but use it to attack the hypocrites when the family values cr@p comes up. Be compassionate about it, e.g. "we're all sinners", that way you don't become a hypocrite yourself while achieving your political goals, namely a more tolerant society.

Posted by novakant | June 9, 2008 1:43 PM

Or perhaps set up a 527 - Cunts for McCain.

"John McCain is the man to put America back on its feet...but not if you arent on yours"

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 9, 2008 1:49 PM

1. A serious answer to your question. Conservatives will not be bothered by this. Conservatives worry about politicians who uphold family values as principles, not in personal behavior. The reason is that they view a person who has transgressed one of their moral norms, but who promotes and lauds the moral norm anyways, very differently from a person who has not transgressed the moral norm but who also does not laud it. This is for a variety of reasons beginning with the role of morals promotion in politics, and ending with a tour de force through the christian notion of the inevitability of sin, and of forgiveness.

2. There's nothing wrong with using this against conservatives even when Clinton cheated on his wife. There is a big difference. I don't care that Clinton cheated on his wife. I also don't care that McCain screwed over his first wife. But if YOU care about moral norms that, applied honestly, would cause you to object to McCain's behavior, there's nothing wrong with me pointing out that YOU should be upset. Its a simple argument. "If you believe X, you should also believe Y. But you don't. Why is that? Do you have a good reason? Are you sure you really believe X? Or maybe you should start believing Y?"

Posted by Patrick | June 9, 2008 1:51 PM

What medical bills did Ross Perot pay for?

The 1st Mrs. McCain was married at the time to a serving officer in the US Navy. I'm sure she had health insurance through her husband.

That aside, Juan McCain is a douche and a warmonger.

Posted by del | June 9, 2008 1:52 PM

Patrick,

that's only if the sex is judged 'normal'. I doubt if McCain had gone a knock knocking in the gents he would be nominee now.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 1:54 PM

1. A serious answer to your question. Conservatives will not be bothered by this. Conservatives worry about politicians who uphold family values as principles, not in personal behavior. The reason is that they view a person who has transgressed one of their moral norms, but who promotes and lauds the moral norm anyways, very differently from a person who has not transgressed the moral norm but who also does not laud it. This is for a variety of reasons beginning with the role of morals promotion in politics, and ending with a tour de force through the christian notion of the inevitability of sin, and of forgiveness.

2. There's nothing wrong with using this against conservatives even when Clinton cheated on his wife. There is a big difference. I don't care that Clinton cheated on his wife. I also don't care that McCain screwed over his first wife. But if YOU care about moral norms that, applied honestly, would cause you to object to McCain's behavior, there's nothing wrong with me pointing out that YOU should be upset. Its a simple argument. "If you believe X, you should also believe Y. But you don't. Why is that? Do you have a good reason? Are you sure you really believe X? Or maybe you should start believing Y?"

Posted by Patrick | June 9, 2008 1:56 PM

jbd,

Fair enough. We'll see what McCain does (and what people do in his name, in circumstances where McCain could put a stop to it).

Posted by DTM | June 9, 2008 2:03 PM

What Matt said wasn't the high road.

Posted by Tim K | June 9, 2008 2:13 PM

Tim,

I know, what I said was its a bit late for Republicans to claim the high road, given it's been a cornerstone of their strategy since at least Ted Kennedy.

And especially since Bush's campaign used McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter to derail his campaign in 2000.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 2:19 PM

Well I'm not a Republican and I'm not claiming the high road, and I also remarked that McCain has been focusing on national security and the economy, not family values. My main point was that Matt's comments were uncalled for.

Posted by Tim K | June 9, 2008 2:28 PM

Ross's response is, unsurprisingly, "this is bad, but I don't really care. Go team red."

Posted by Pooh | June 9, 2008 2:30 PM

Fair enough Tim.

If your favored candidate had won the nomination, I doubt that the Republicans would have been so restrained.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 2:32 PM

James:

Welling calling her weak, naive and inexperienced wouldn't do the trick so, you're right, the RNC woud no doubt drudge up the same tired old scandals. It didn't work before and I wouldn't expect it to work this time.

Posted by Tim K | June 9, 2008 2:41 PM

James:

Well. haha, not welling.

Posted by Tim K | June 9, 2008 2:43 PM

Ross's response is, unsurprisingly, "this is bad, but I don't really care. Go team red."

Posted by Pooh | June 9, 2008 3:03 PM

I agree with you 100% even though I'm a Democrat. McCain's divorce is between him, Carol, and God, and I think the trauma and suffering that he experienced is a seriously extenuating factor. If Carol doesn't blame him for it then neither should we.

If McCain's trauma and suffering is an excuse for his actions, is it not legitimate to speculate what other effects the trauma and suffering might have had on his psyche, and whether or not those issues have been dealt with?

Posted by Rambuncle | June 9, 2008 3:27 PM

Character is important, even central, when the chips are down.

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

Gerhard Schröder was divorced 3 times, Joschka Fischer 4 times. Germany's divorce rate is quite a bit lower than that of the US, but the Germans didn't care and everybody would agree that both guys did a pretty decent job at governing. I really don't like this holier than thou hypocrisy among Democrats, it's not helping.

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

I think the issue isn't that McCain dumped his wife once she became disabled, but HOW he did it. He basically ignored her for months while he ran around, then when he found a rich woman to marry, THEN he divorced her.

If he'd have come back from Nam and promptly or shortly after divorced her after her disablement, that would have basically made him like Newt Gingrich, and while some people would consider him callous, that would have been it.

But he went way beyond that.

And then the Republicans want to talk about "family values" - while half of them are either getting gay sex in bathrooms, screwing under age kids, or cheating on their wives.

Bill Clinton could have solved his problems had he simply faced America and said, "Yes, I had an affair with an intern. That's between me and my wife. Let's move on." Instead, he had to lie about it - and then lie about it under oath.

It's the hypocrisy that gets you every time - not the crime.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 9, 2008 6:55 PM

Another interesting question is how the "rich junkie wife stealing the narcotics she's addicted to from the charity she runs & using her husband's political connections to get the DEA to drop the charges" thing plays with the hard right/family values bunch.
A lot of this anti-Michelle Obama stuff is just an effort to make it look like tit-for-tat dirty politics by the Dems when the MSM finally lets the story of Cindy's dope habit (& felonies to support it) out.
Of course, that "War On Drugs", like taxes, is just for the little people.

Posted by buford puser | June 9, 2008 7:08 PM