By Emily Geiger

Despite all of the media attention this story got yesterday, it doesn’t seem that this “romantic relationship with a lobbyist” story has legs.

Everyone is denying it, including “the other woman,” who, unlike Monica, appears to be a respected professional. The only named source in the story, John Weaver, has come up with a plausible explanation for the meeting he had with “the other woman.”

He says he had heard that she had made comments that she had sway with one of McCain’s committees, and Weaver didn’t like her insinuating that she had any power over the Senator. The source flatly denies that it had anything to do with any supposed “romantic” relationship, or any warning to end any such relationship. Further, the source said he doesn’t believe there was any such romantic relationship, and he is still a strong supporter of McCain. A re-read of Weaver’s quotes (without the sexual innuendo heaped on by the Times earlier in the story) makes his version of events seem believable.

Unless the New York Times’ other anonymous sources come out of the closet, or unless we find another “stained blue dress,” this story does smack of an attempted political homicide on the part of the Times against McCain.

And, this story has given talk radio an opportunity to mend some fences and defend McCain. You know what they say: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I bet the Times didn’t anticipate their actions could actually end up helping McCain in the long run.

By Emily Geiger

Hawkeye GOP has an interesting take on how the current RPI fiasco has really been a blow to social conservatives in the state. HGOP points out that it seems to have been the goal of our new chairman, Stewart Iverson (who is perceived as a moderate by many), to rid the party of its socially conservative staff, including Chuck Laudner and Craig Robinson. HGOP reports that, despite Iverson having promised the generally conservative Central Committee members that he would retain these experienced and qualified individuals, Iverson essentially spit in the face of the SCC by firing these two staffers a few weeks after his election to the position of chair.

I agree with HGOP that this should raise some serious red flags with social conservatives in the state. It is essential that we social conservatives watch this situation closely and let our Central Committee members know how we feel about this unsettling development.

By Emily Geiger

So, it appears Huck may have been on to something when he said he was staying in the race because anything could happen. McCain could say something stupid, or do something stupid, or, as the case may be, do someone stupid.

The New York Times is reporting that McCain had a “romantic” relationship with a lobbyist early in the 2000 presidential campaign. It’s reported that she accompanied him to fundraisers and other events. Campaign sources told the Times they had to take her aside and tell her to back off and repeatedly warn him about the potential harm she could cause his political career.

It really reminded me of Clinton (Bill, that is) reading about it. With Clinton, not only did you have a married man in a sex scandal with a much younger woman, but there were legal implications since he lied under oath about it.

Here, once again, you have the alleged sex scandal, but also potential legal implications because of the appearance that this lobbyist’s clients were helped by him.

Oh, and, note to the McCain campaign: your official statement saying, “There is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career,” doesn’t exactly scream “I’m totally innocent of these charges.” If this isn’t true, McCain needs to actually say, “I did not cheat on my wife.” (But he needs to word it in a way that doesn’t scream “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”)

Who knows how this will play out. McCain has admitted marital infidelity in the past with his first wife, and there have been similar rumors throughout his political career. Even if this story is not true (at least the sex part of it), McCain’s reputation makes the story hard to completely disregard.

All I know is, I, for one, am glad that if this blows up, we still have another legitimate, qualified Republican candidate in the race. I personally can’t deal with another womanizing philanderer in the White House. Well, let’s face it, that’s kind of a long shot right now, but I still don’t want a womanizing philanderer leading my party.

By Emily Geiger

There is one thing Nathan and I agree on, I wouldn’t have a problem banning smoking altogether. Although, then you would have people crapping their pants over the fact that we’ve invaded the privacy of their homes. Tell you what, if you agree to forego all future government benefits that would eventually require me to pay for the consequences of your filthy little habit, then you can still smoke. But just remember, you are giving up Medicare, Medicaid, and any social security disability payments that could possibly be related smoking.

Oh, and my personal tangent of the day in response to Nathan: Personal responsibility? Haven’t you heard? Nobody has any of that any more. So they surely don’t want to be held responsible for what they do to other people, which is why they don’t care if I have an asthma attack from walking through the smoking section of Village Inn to get to the non-smoking section, which is separated from the smoking section by a stupid four-foot wall that does nothing to stop the smoke from wafting over into my airspace. (End tangent).

One thing is for sure, the fact that casinos were exempted is absolutely ridiculous. If you ever wanted to know how much power the casino lobby has on our state legislature, just look at who voted against the amendment that would have included casinos in the ban.

Oh wait, that vote was taken by a “non-record roll call,” so that way, we can’t easily find out who is in the pocket of casinos. We just know that the amendment was voted down 43 – 51. But you can look and see how many casino lobbyists registered for this bill. There were approximately 24 lobbyists whose clients could easily be identified as being gambling related. There are only 50 people in the senate and 100 in the house. So, 24 lobbyists seems like an awful lot to me. But hey, I guess they did their job effectively, right?

To hell with fairness and actual concerns about health, particularly the health of casino workers. As one commenter on this blog stated, perhaps casinos should be required to provide health-care coverage for ALL of their workers to balance this out. I’m liking that idea.

I know that Ms. Geiger and I are on different sides of this issue, but legislation like this just makes me angry, and I don’t smoke. What ever happened to personal responsibility? The Iowa Smoking ban does noting but move us one step closer to being a nanny state.

Let me be very clear, if smoking is deadly to the person who smokes a cigarette and to the people around them make it illegal. All this smoking ban does is take away the rights of small business owners and protect a few favored businesses.

As a public service I will list where a person can still smoke while in Iowa.

1. Casinos
2. Private Residences
3. Hotel Rooms
4. Retail Tobacco Stores
5. Cars, Trucks, Semi Trucks, Tractors, Limos, but only as long as nonsmoking employee are not present.
6. Private and semiprivate rooms in long-term care facilities, occupied by one or more individuals, all of whom are smokers.
7. Private clubs that have no employees, but only when the public is NOT present.
8. VFW’s and similar halls.
9. The Iowa Veterans Home

If the goal of this legislation is to improve the health of Iowans, shouldn’t they just vote to make smoking illegal in the state of Iowa? Or maybe we just don’t care about the health of people like to gamble, people who work in smoke shops, and our Veterans.