-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there also stuff in the article about how McCain had been badly stung by some "ethics" problem, which apparently was not really very serious but disturbed him personally and tainted his image? I am remembering vaguely reading somewhere that he felt his integrity had been impugned (by all accounts he had long been considered above reproach) and that he was as a result "on the warpath" to restore his image. If that's a correct remembering, then that sense of a need to restore his image may have made McCain a perfect target for "a treatment" by a clever Administration gunning for Pro-CODE (sponsored by Burns, a less powerful member of the Commerce Committee chaired by McCain, and someone already on McCain's bad side according to Declan). Hindsight is 20-20, but it was a perfect fit -- he's the chair of a committee so he can force a bill through; Burns is on the committee so he confronts Pro-CODE directly; according to Declan, he didn't get along with Burns anyway; he wants to reclaim his public crusader image; and he's always been strong on national security stuff. Lee At 12:26 PM -0700 6/22/97, John Young wrote:
The New York Times Magazine had a feature story on Senator McCain a week or two ago which covered in detail his personal, military and political history and his heroic struggle to meet the high standards set by his admiral father, the Navy and individual ethics.
[good comments snipped] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBM645krk2KqHYSFEtEQJkCgCfbPQQU3vSAFiewIvENmZhXoAfsl0AoOXZ Z+NMe7F1217KfikdUbG9GhO0 =8eXB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----