McCain's account of divorce and remarriage conflicts with court docs

[chipmunk stew]

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,5924926,full.story) today:

In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.

"I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."

An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.McCain's timeline:
prior to April 1979: Separates from Carol
April 1979: Starts seeing Cindy
February 1980: Finalizes divorce from Carol
after March 1980: Marries Cindy


Public record timeline:
April 1979: Starts seeing Cindy
January 1980: Separates from Carol
February 1980: Files for divorce from Carol
March 1980: Obtains license to marry Cindy
April 1980: Finalizes divorce from Carol
May 1980: Holds private wedding ceremony

[Puppycow]

Poor Carol McCain.

Talk about getting thrown under the bus.

[Pookster]

I think his mixing up the dates has something to do with mental recession. But which Dr. Phil should we ask about this?

:duck:

[Upchurch]

Well, first, there is separation and then there is separation. What McCain and his wife consider "to be separated" may not exactly coincide with the legal definition. They may have had the same address legally, but that doesn't mean they were living in the same place.

Second, does it really matter? McCain and his ex are reportedly on good terms with one another and this was almost 30 years ago. How is this relevant?

[Puppycow]

Second, does it really matter? McCain and his ex are reportedly on good terms with one another and this was almost 30 years ago. How is this relevant?

Only for those who care about character, integrity, honor, keeping sacred vows and family values.

[Upchurch]

Only for those who care about character, integrity, honor, keeping sacred vows and family values.
If McCain had been proposing or passing morality laws and then breaking them in spirit, like certain foot-tapping doofuses, I might agree with you. (He hasn't, has he?)

This is between him and the two women involved 30 years ago.

[chipmunk stew]

Well, first, there is separation and then there is separation. What McCain and his wife consider "to be separated" may not exactly coincide with the legal definition. They may have had the same address legally, but that doesn't mean they were living in the same place.
Personal accounts from people who know them suggest that only John McCain, not Carol, considered them "separated." For instance:
Carol McCain later told friends, including Reynolds and Fitzwater, that she did not know he was seeing anyone else.
Cheating is not the same thing as being separated.

Second, does it really matter? McCain and his ex are reportedly on good terms with one another and this was almost 30 years ago. How is this relevant?
It only matters (to me) in the sense that it further erodes his self-branding as a straight talker.

[Upchurch]

Personal accounts from people who know them suggest that only John McCain, not Carol, considered them "separated." For instance:

Cheating is not the same thing as being separated.
If true, fair enough.


It only matters (to me) in the sense that it further erodes his self-branding as a straight talker.
Well, that brand has as much credibility as the GOP brand in general right now. McCain has enough legitimate credibility problems going on that this seems overly-picky.

Is it a bad thing? Sure. Would it have swung my vote? Nope.

[Pookster]

Well, that brand has as much credibility as the GOP brand in general right now. McCain has enough legitimate credibility problems going on that this seems overly-picky.

Is it a bad thing? Sure. Would it have swung my vote? Nope.

(emphasis added)


It likely won't swing many (if any) votes, but this kind of thing doesn't play well with the religious right at all. It may cause a few more of them to swing on their porch instead of voting for him on election day. This is a group that McCain needs a big turnout from like Bush had, or he's going to be in deep trouble.

[BenBurch]

If a candidate will lie about one verifiable part his past, how can we trust him to not be lying about the parts we cannot verify? The parts where he was far from the public eye?

[Meadmaker]

Forget war. Forget energy. Forget civil liberties. Who cares about taxes, spending and debt? What makes a big difference in the way I vote is whether a candidate told the truth about exactly when he started having an affair.

[Upchurch]

It likely won't swing many (if any) votes, but this kind of thing doesn't play well with the religious right at all. It may cause a few more of them to swing on their porch instead of voting for him on election day.
Okay, that is the most sensible argument as to why this is a deal at all that I've heard.

[BenBurch]

Meadmaker, its not the affair, its the LYING about the affair.

[Brainster]

Okay, that is the most sensible argument as to why this is a deal at all that I've heard.

And the minute they hear that Obama defends partial-birth abortion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html), they'll get up off the porch and vote for the divorced guy.

:D

[Brainster]

Meadmaker, its not the affair, its the LYING about the affair.

Under oath, no less. Oh, wait, wrong person!

:D

[dudalb]

Once again, if this was Obama, the very people making a big deal about this would be screaming about how it was "irrevelant" and "a distraction from the real issues".
God, this double standard is driving me crazy.

[BenBurch]

Once again, if this was Obama, the very people making a big deal about this would be screaming about how it was "irrevelant" and "a distraction from the real issues".
God, this double standard is driving me crazy.

I'd be equally unhappy were Obama lying about the same thing.

[corplinx]

Apparently, McCain's affair with Cindy began on the night he met her in April 1979 according to this timeline?

[Cleon]

Oh, yay, another


GOTCHA!

Can we get back to real issues at some point? Please?

[chipmunk stew]

Once again, if this was Obama, the very people making a big deal about this would be screaming about how it was "irrevelant" and "a distraction from the real issues".
God, this double standard is driving me crazy.
Once again, you have no basis for making such a claim.

[Darth Rotor]

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,5924926,full.story) today:
McCain's timeline:
prior to April 1979: Separates from Carol
April 1979: Starts seeing Cindy
February 1980: Finalizes divorce from Carol
after March 1980: Marries Cindy


Public record timeline:
April 1979: Starts seeing Cindy
January 1980: Separates from Carol
February 1980: Files for divorce from Carol
March 1980: Obtains license to marry Cindy
April 1980: Finalizes divorce from Carol
May 1980: Holds private wedding ceremony
Let's see:

Cheating on one's wife has what to do with qualification to be in office.

See:

WJ Clinton
JFK (various accounts)
FDR (varied and hard to substantiate accounts)

In short, for the past 28 years, has McCain cheated on cindy? I haven't cheated on my wife, though only been married 19 years, so I'd say his fidelity, as he stands today, Senator and Presidential candidate, is doing OK.

How long have you been married, stew?

DR

[dudalb]

Once again, you have no basis for making such a claim.


Once again, you have incredibly huge partisan blinders on.

[chipmunk stew]

And the minute they hear that Obama defends partial-birth abortion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html), they'll get up off the porch and vote for the divorced guy.

:D
That's strange, because Obama opposes late-term abortions, as long as there is a health exception for the mother. And he doesn't include mental distress in that exception.

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, yay, another


GOTCHA!

Can we get back to real issues at some point? Please?
To misquote you: (or RandFan, I forget who first fired the "you don't get objective input" off)

This is the politics forum, you don't get discussion of issues. :D

DR

[chipmunk stew]

Let's see:

Cheating on one's wife has what to do with qualification to be in office.

See:

WJ Clinton
JFK (various accounts)
FDR (varied and hard to substantiate accounts)

In short, for the past 28 years, has McCain cheated on cindy? I haven't cheated on my wife, though only been married 19 years, so I'd say his fidelity, as he stands today, Senator and Presidential candidate, is doing OK.

How long have you been married, stew?

DR
Is there anything I've written anywhere in this thread that suggests that I believe infidelity disqualifies someone from the presidency?

The OP is about inconsistency, not infidelity.

[chipmunk stew]

Under oath, no less. Oh, wait, wrong person!

:D
It made me dislike Clinton more, too.

[Cleon]

To misquote you: (or RandFan, I forget who first fired the "you don't get objective input" off)

This is the politics forum, you don't get discussion of issues. :D


That was me. :) RF sigged it at one point.

[chipmunk stew]

Oh, yay, another


GOTCHA!

Can we get back to real issues at some point? Please?
Start a thread.

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, its not the affair, its the LYING about the affair.
Back when a lot of people said that about Clinton, I said I should certainly hope he would lie about it. I'm not all that keen on infidelity, but it does happen and it won't stop, and depending on the circumstances of the marriage, I might even have great sympathy for the adulterer. However, above all it is a private matter and it ought to remain so. Furthermore, there are times when it is in the best interests of everyone to lie about such a matter.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument only, that Mr. McCain did indeed carry on a love affair with the future Cindy McCain while still living with the former Mrs. McCain. Who would benefit from telling the truth about this affair? Would the former Mrs. McCain benefit? No. Would the current Mrs. McCain benefit? No. It seems that in this case, everyone is better off if Senator McCain lies about it. So, John McCain, I must be somewhat disapproving of your infidelity, but I commend you for having the decency to try to cover it up.

[slingblade]

Is there anything I've written anywhere in this thread that suggests that I believe infidelity disqualifies someone from the presidency?

The OP is about inconsistency, not infidelity.


Everyone's inconsistent. Not sure just how much a candidate's inconsistencies ought to affect a person's vote. What if his inconsistencies lay in some area besides marriage and personal relationships? If he was faithful to his wife, would it tell us something meaningful? What if he were faithful to her, but lousy in business ethics? Do we disregard the marital consistency in light of the fiscal?

Does inconsistency reflect a tendency to dishonesty, poor judgment, or poor leadership in general? Is someone who's consistently consistent more reassuring, or is he too hidebound and inflexible to lead a diverse population in a diverse world?

If I have read other accounts of how inconsistent the other candidate is, as well, how do I choose? Do I have to make a chart of inconsistencies and then judge each according to my moral compass, and if my compass is askew, will I hurt or help the nation with my vote? What if my chart shows they're tied in inconsistencies? Do I flip a coin, ask a policeman, seek a sign from heaven?

Sorry, it's all just too much to think about. I need to go lie down.

[hgc]

If a candidate will lie about one verifiable part his past, how can we trust him to not be lying about the parts we cannot verify? The parts where he was far from the public eye?


Might you be referring to this?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/5434877fb76184d3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12987)

[quixotecoyote]

If a candidate will lie about one verifiable part his past, how can we trust him to not be lying about the parts we cannot verify? The parts where he was far from the public eye?

Everyone lies, it's what they lie about that's important.

[Gurdur]

Kennedy bonked anything female and still breathing while in office. Of course, McCain is no Kennedy ....


Everyone lies, it's what they lie about that's important.


Quite true.

[Pookster]

Under oath, no less. Oh, wait, wrong person!

:D

Yeah, but I think most already know he's the debil. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Meadmaker, its not the affair, its the LYING about the affair.

No, it isn't.

It's the society that frowns on extramarital affairs - but everyone's still having them.

It's not that McCain lies about this - or that Clinton lies about his affairs. It's the hypocrisy inherent in your society.

Nobody gives a flying fig if any of our politicians have affairs. Heck, in France, you can't get a cabinet post unless you have a mistress...

[Puppycow]

No, it isn't.

It's the society that frowns on extramarital affairs - but everyone's still having them.

It's not that McCain lies about this - or that Clinton lies about his affairs. It's the hypocrisy inherent in your society.

Nobody gives a flying fig if any of our politicians have affairs. Heck, in France, you can't get a cabinet post unless you have a mistress...

Is the standard the same for women as it is for men? "Mistress" of course assumes that the politician is a man.

Somehow I imagine this sort of thing would be a much bigger deal for a woman.

[CFLarsen]

Is the standard the same for women as it is for men? "Mistress" of course assumes that the politician is a man.

....not in France.... (ducks for cover)

Somehow I imagine this sort of thing would be a much bigger deal for a woman.

That is another discussion.