Did John McCain have an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman?

Apparently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I hope we get to see the dark side of McCain. Its been said he has quite the temper.

Who cares? Does it affect his ability to do his job as President?

I just had a thought. Could it be that the leadership of the Republican Party – so disgruntled with their soon to be nominee (McCain) might be the source of the dirt given to the NYT article. Could it be that their anonymous sources have not been identified because they may come from the ranks of Buchanan, Romney, Rush, Coulter, etc. I find their recent advocacy for McCain interesting (Me thinks they do protest too much). Let’s say they get McCain to go before the national media and deny all charges only to drop the other shoe two or three days later knowing that McCain will be forced to withdraw from the race as an unacceptable nominee only to be replaced by Romney -heir apparent to the crown without ever having to go through any primaries or caucas activity. Which would explain why Romney “suspended” his campaign and Huckabee refused to withdraw because they all knew they held trump cards to his demise and they would publicly humiliate him regarding information that GOP was well aware of before last evening. Then the GOP could easily state that they put all their support in defending McCain against the liberal press and he lied to them – allowing them a free pass to dump McCain and go to their true conservative selection (Romney). Think about it. This is too neatly packaged.

@jae—I think you may have something here. This information about McCain is surely not new. Of course, he could trump the whole boondoggle by telling the truth—it’s always the lie that gets people.

I don’t think there’s any need for a conspiracy theory here. Huckabee and Romney have weak support even among Republicans, and McCain appeals to the uncommitted centrists much better than the other two do; if the Republicans tried to eliminate McCain so that they could have a controllable lap dog of an orthodox Republican candidate, they’d be handing the election to the Democrats.

In 2000, when the opposition was Gore, eliminating McCain in favor of an orthodox lap dog was the smart thing to do because Bush was a reasonably credible candidate and could play the “compassionate conservative” card. In 2004, when the best the Democrats could come up with was Kerry, keeping the orthodox lap dog in office was again the smart thing to do. But if they eliminate McCain now, they won’t get an electable lap dog.