The Strain Between The Reagans and John McCain

Someone has finally managed to write about the less-than-enthusiastic endorsement John McCain received from Nancy Reagan earlier this year. The Los Angeles Times has a story out about how McCain's infidelity and his abandonment of his first wife put a great deal of strain on the relationship between the Reagans and McCain in the early 1980s. This is a shocking revelation, in a campaign so full of shocking revelations that I can hardly keep up:

In a written statement, she [Nancy Reagan] described McCain as "a good friend for over 30 years." But that friendship was strained in the late 1970s by McCain's decision to divorce his first wife, Carol, who was particularly close to the Reagans, and within weeks marry Cindy Hensley, the young heiress to a lucrative Arizona beer distributorship.

The Reagans rushed to help Carol, finding her a new home in Southern California with the family of Reagan aide Edwin Meese III and a series of political and White House jobs to ease her through that difficult time.

McCain, who is about to become the GOP nominee, has made several statements about how he divorced Carol and married Hensley that conflict with the public record.

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."

Now, once again--are you shocked that the official record contradicts what McCain said?

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.

Until McCain filed for divorce, the Reagans and their inner circle assumed he was happily married, and they were stunned to learn otherwise, according to several close aides.

"Everybody was upset with him," recalled Nancy Reynolds, a top aide to the former president who introduced him to McCain.

What were they upset by? The possible bigamy--which is probably questionable, but who the hell takes out a marriage license to another woman while they're still married to another woman? The womanizing? The lying? The adultery--which, correct me if I'm wrong, is something the military frowns on. Remember--McCain was on active duty until 1981.

But the Media Mancrush continues unabated.

I went to lawyers.com, because that's how I roll, and I even looked it up--when you take out a marriage license, you have to provide:

Copies of divorce decrees from any former marriages will need to be presented.

And McCain wasn't divorced yet! Does that mean anything? Probably not, but oh well.

Just consider the source

What was John “Waterworks” Boehner thinking yesterday when he called the Senate Republicans who favor a change of course in Iraq “wimps?” Someone who breaks down weeping as often as he does should never call anyone a wimp, the way I tote the board.

Boehner and the shame of Missouri, Minority Whip Roy Blunt, were getting their”Tom Delay” on and attempting to strong-arm a unified front among House Republicans, furiously rationalizing that they must set themselves apart from those rascally Senators in the upper chamber, some with the temerity to think about withdrawing their support for the resident and his spectacular war.

Representative Heather Wilson, (R-N.M.) a former United states Air Force officer, was taken aback, although she declined to comment directly in contradiction to the minority leader, but she did point out that “Senator [Richard] Lugar’s (R-Ind.) speech was one of the more thoughtful speeches [she had heard] in the Senate in a long time.” She went on to say that the opinions of their colleagues “should always be taken seriously.” (Wilson, it should be noted, while opposing the troop escalation that has only succeeded in devastating our military further, votes the party line anyway and consistently opposes measures brought to the floor by Democrats.)

A spokesman for Boehner said his comments were in no way meant to trivialize the war or the senators’ decisions. Rather, they were meant to emphasize the importance of allowing the troop surge to work and to urge GOP lawmakers to reserve their judgment on the situation until September, when Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to brief Congress fully on the progress in Iraq.

“The leader’s comments were intended to illustrate the fact that we just recently voted to give the troops our full support — including ample time for the Petraeus plan to work — and that too much is at stake for Congress to renege on its commitment now by approving what can only be described as another partisan stunt by Democrats,” Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said.

“Their bill will have no impact if passed, other than to give America’s enemies something to gloat about.”

Now far be it from me to shed any tears over the Republican party squabbling amongst themselves…Hell, pass me the popcorn, because if they are sniping at and lying about one another, that just weakens them as we head into the most contentious general election cycle in my lifetime. It’s all good news for Democrats, IM(ns)HO.