Don't you just love presidential-election-year politics?
Honestly, I just can't wait to see what the next news cycle will bring.
This week it was the New York Times story - a bombshell or hatchet job, depending on who you talk to - that said Republican John McCain was a bit too close to a blonde lobbyist back in 1999.The story points out - using anonymous sources, of course - that McCain staffers were concerned about his relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman. (It may even have been romantic, sources say with no evidence. Both McCain and Iseman deny that accusation.)
Apparently, McCain flew a few times on corporate jets of Iseman clients - a practice which was later made illegal by legislation McCain sponsored.
The sources were so concerned that they asked her to stay away from him. This was because McCain had made a name for himself in the Senate by fighting off the influence of special interests and lobbyists.
There's no evidence that McCain voted on any legislation or attempted to influence any agencies on behalf of the lobbyist or her clients.
But he did write a couple of letters to the Federal Communications Commission when this Paxon Communications outfit - which hired Iseman as their lobbyist - was trying to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. (Fair to note here that Paxon's CEO contributed to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign and that McCain was the head of the Senate commerce committee at the time.)
McCain's letters didn't ask the FCC to approve the license purchase, but he did ask that it be acted on quickly, one way or another. The proposal had been pending for two years.
That's pretty much it.
Now, time will tell if more shady details emerge, but I read the whole NYT story and it's pretty thin.
Having said all that, one must wonder why McCain - ever the champion of the war against special interests - would be hob-nobbing with a telecom lobbyist and riding on her clients' jets.
It's one of those instances where even if you didn't do anything wrong, it looks like you did.
McCain says he did nothing wrong - and he may be right - but if he could wind back the clock, do you think he would have wrote those letters and rode on those jets?
But if you think McCain has problems, how about those fun-loving crazy Democrats?
It's really kind of amusing to listen to the two camps - Barack and Hillary - argue which rules they should follow based on who benefits the most.
There are two pretty pressing issues facing the Demos heading into the Democrat National Convention in August.
First, there's the whole Superdelegate issue. This little gem allows 796 party bigshots, insiders and loyalists, to vote for either candidate, regardless of the will of voters in their district, state, or the whole country for that matter.
Seems bizarre, but it's true. It's been in the rules - duly adopted by the Democrat National Committee - since 1984, but it's never really been an issue because there hasn't been any close races.
There's a close race now.
And no matter how unfair or undemocratic that rule may seem, it is, in fact, the rule. And the Democrats have to play by their own rules.
This, of course, could help Hillary because she's got more of the Superdelegates on her side right now.
So Barack people say that the Superdelegates should vote the way their districts vote. But clearly, that's not what the rules say.
Sorry, Barack, score one for Hillary. These are your party's rules. Live with them.
Then there's the issue of delegates from Florida and Michigan not being allowed to be seated at the convention.
Before the whole primary mess started, Florida and Michigan were duly warned by the DNC that if they moved their primaries up, their delegates wouldn't be counted.
Each Democrat candidate was told of the decision and each democrat candidate agreed with the assessment - in writing - before the rules were adopted.
But now Hillary, who won Michigan and Florida, says it's not fair to bar those two states' delegates from the convention and she wants to let them in. Of course, nobody campaigned in those states and Hillary was the only candidate on the Michigan ballot, but those are just insignificant details.
Sorry, Hillary, score one for Barack. These are your party's rules. Live with them.
All this Democraziness brings me to a bold conclusion - and prediction. Sharpen your crayons, Demos, you can write me in November if I'm wrong.
Neither Hillary nor Barack will wind up with enough delegates to nail down the nomination before August and Barack will have a 100-or-so delegate lead. If that's the case, the Democrat National Convention will be a train wreck of epic proportions that will probably ruin their aspirations for the White House.
Think about it.
If neither candidate has enough delegates, Hillary will argue for breaking the rules and seating the Michigan/Florida delegates. Barack will be in the unenviable position of arguing to disenfranchise all those delegates. Of course, if he wants to win the White House in November, he needs Michigan/Florida to vote for him.
When it comes to Superdelegates, Barack will argue he is the delegate leader and the Superdelegates should vote for him because he's the candidate the voters want. Hillary will argue that she won all the big states and the Superdelegates should vote for her because she's the most viable candidate.
In both cases, the fight will be bitter and likely end up in court. In the meantime, moderate and independent voters, disillusioned by the chaos and implosion of the Democrat party, will throw up their hands and flock to John McCain.
I could be wrong. Maybe Barack will sweep Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the Superdelegates will swing his way and my little scenario will never materialize. Who knows?
Regardless, I think it's a hoot that the Democrat nomination may come down to a whacky set of self-imposed rules instead of the will of the voters.
