I would note from the outset that I supported John McCain in both the 2000 and 2004 Republican primaries. He was my choice for President, and I think this country and the world would have been a better place in this post-9/11 era had he been elected in 2000. I have always admired his fierce independence and refusal to bow to the whims of the Republican Party - ironically, I believe it was those very qualities that cost him the Republican nomination in the past two Presidential election cycles.

But more to the point. The NY Times published an article yesterday (2-19-08) that insinuated that Senator McCain may have had an improper romantic and/or political relationship with Ms. Iseman, a Washinton, D.C. lobbyist; all this was at a time when she was representing companies who had business before the Senate committees on which McCain had a seat; and that these same companies were making large contributions to his Presedential campaign. I would submit that implications of the story are far-reaching, and have been entirely mischaracterized and misunderstood by both the Right Wing (Rush Limbaugh, in particular) and the Left Wing, as well as numerous media outlets who have covered the story since early yesterday evening.

I am not defending the NY Times, nor am I suggesting that the newspaper's decisions should not come under severe scrutiny. I too have questions about how the story evolved, why the Times endorsed McCain at a time when the matter was being investigated by their reporters, and the newspapers motivations in the respect to the timing of the publication of this story.

However, this is not about the alleged romantic relationship, per se. That goes to the more base and tawdry aspect of the story. In both his press releases last night, as well as his news conference this morning, Senator McCain has emphatically denied any romantic relationship with Ms. Iseman; this denial is in contrast to the supposed claims of two anonymous and unidentifed former campaign aides who worked for McCain at the time. These aides allegedly told the Times that there was deep concern that the Senator and Ms. Iseman were romantically involved; that John McCain was confronted about this because the campaign aides were trying to protect the candidate from himself; and that Ms. Iseman was told on several occasions to stay away from McCain.

McCain has addressed all of this by denying any improper relationship with Ms. Iseman, as well as denying that he was confronted by campaign aides, and that he was never made aware that anyone in his campaign "ran interference" for the the sake of the Senator by telling Ms. Iseman to stay away from him.

The fact of the matter herein is that something is amiss.

Once again, I am not defending the Times. However, Senator McCain's long-time friend, confidante, and former top campaign advisor, John Weaver, confirmed for the NY Times, as well as for the Washington Post, that he did meet with Ms. Iseman in Union Station (Washington, D.C.) back in 2000, and told her she was not to come around the Senator anymore.

Senator McCain stated this morning that they are still very good friends.

Here are the salient questions:

Why would John Weaver feel compelled to tell Ms. Iseman she needed to stay away from the Senator?

If John Weaver and Senator McCain were that close, both personally and professionally (McCain said as much this morning), why would Weaver not convey to and/or discuss this issue with the Senator?

With all due respect to Senator McCain - and to reiterate, I have held him in the highest esteem for the past fifteen years - this is Roger Clemens v. Andy Pettitte all over again. The Senator says he never was confronted by anyone nor informed of any of these alleged "problems" that the campaign staff had with Ms. Iseman. John Weaver says he confronted Ms. Iseman in an effort to "shoe her away" from the Senator.

Giving Senator McCain the benefit of the doubt in respect to the denial of the romantic relationship, any "close" relationship with a lobbyist would certainly be of concern to people whom he had entrusted his political future to, and were charged with the responsibility of advising the candidate of the appearance of improprieties, be they romantic, political, or otherwise.

Wouldn't senior campaign aides and/or staff be obliged to consult and confer with a candidate on concerns of such import?

This story may or may not "have legs" in the days or weeks to come. Whether it actually has any impact on the election in November remains to be seen.

Nevertheless, if Senator McCain is going to run on his record of fighting "dirty" money in Washington, D.C., and championing ethics reform, this story, if true, would certainly smack of rank hipocracy. For the Senator's sake, that would be a terrible blow to his otherwise admirable reputation and they way his political career is viewed by history.

In an effort to give this story due consideration, look at the irreconcilable statements by Senator McCain and his good friend, John Weaver.

Then draw your own conclusions.

Lance M. Haley