McCain Tabloid Watch: I Go There So You Don't Have To

This is the first post inaugurating a new series: the John McCain tabloid watch.

Let's face it: by all indications, John McCain is a corrupt, nasty womanizer with a closet jampacked with a graveyardful of skeletons that seem poised to start tumbling out any minute. A man with a past, as it were. And perhaps with a present as well.

But can we expect to hear anything approaching the truth from McCain's swooning love-slaves in the mainstream media? Alas, I fear we cannot. Indeed, I keep waiting for them all to burst into a chorus of "Twenty Lovesick Maidens We."

But all is not lost: we do have the tabloids, after all. 

Scoff at them you may, but the tabs get the goods more often than you may think. For instance, whenever they run a story about the "last days of celebrity X," you'd better believe that celebrity X most certainly has one foot firmly implanted in the grave.

And while their breathless scoops on bed-hopping starlets and debauched rock stars may not always be precisely on the mark, they hit it often enough that they can't be dismissed out of hand.

To judge by some of the links I've received, this blog is being read by some impressively brainy and erudite folk, who are all probably way too classy to soil their beautiful minds with anything so utterly sordid as a tabloid.

Well, I for one have no shame. I have always been fascinated by all manner of gossip. I've read not only Hollywood Babylon, but also Hollywood Babylon II (which, alas, is not nearly so scabrously entertaining as its illustrious predecessor). I'm a longtime fan of Page Six and La Vida Musto. And every week while I'm buying my groceries, I never fail to check out the headlines of the supermarket tabloids.

In short, I have no fear of rushing in where self-respecting intellectuals fear to tread.

With that preface, on to this week's report.

Connie Stevens, alleged McCain paramour, back in her sultry heyday

This week, McCain is featured in a cover story in the National Examiner, one of the weekly tabloids (and btw, the Examiner does not appear to have a website). The headline: "Shocking Charge: John McCain & Connie Stevens Affair!" There's a photo of John and Connie, arm in arm and all smiles; a subhead next to a mug shot of an unidentified man reads "HE ignited scandal -- then was MURDERED!" Well, this sounds promising, I thought to myself.

Here's the story in short order: a in 1999, a "shady businessman and one-time journalist" named Ron Bianchi went to the Arizona Republic to try to hustle a story that McCain was having an affair with his "friend" and political supporter Connie Stevens. Stevens, in case you don't know, was an actress and minor sex symbol back in the day. She's two years younger than McCain.

Well, apparently the Arizona Republic didn't bite. And here's when things start to get interesting --  in the Examiner's words, "Bianchi wound up dying in a hail of gunfire the following September -- a crime that's never been solved!" Moreoever, McCain himself "was reportedly grilled by cops in Gila County, where Bianchi's body was found."

What's the backstory?  Well, "the rock-jawed politico" met Stevens at a fundraiser in 1997 and apparently they became fast "friends." She urged him to run for president, saying "If you run, I'll be there for you all the way!" (I love it when the tabloids reconstruct celebs' dialogue). After the two attended Milton Berle's 90th birthday party (!), McCain and "a few friends" went to Stevens' home afterward, although "McCain insists he slept at his hotel that night."

Stevens raised money for McCain, made speeches for him, and "introduced him to some Hollywood bigwigs." This seemed "surprising" to Stevens' friends, who claimed she had never seemed "political."

The upshot? Police investigating Bianchi's death "don't believe McCain had anything to do with" his murder. I know -- oh, rats! But "there are still questions to be answered." And, um, "No one has ever offered  any proof of an affair between McCain and Stevens."

Did John and Connie get it on? It's not implausible. In some ways she is very much his type: thin, blonde, bosomy. On the other hand, she's only two years younger than he is, and he seems prefer women young enough to be his daughter (like his wife Cindy) or grand-daughter (like his alleged mistress Vicki Iseman).

But, to my disappointment, this story, at this point anyway, is all sizzle, no steak. There are no compromising photos or letters, no taped phone conversations. And no one who is alleging the affair is willing to go on the record. Or even provide any anonymous salacious quotes or anecdotes, fer chrissakes!

That McCain's alleged paramour was once a Hollywood sex symbol adds some juice to the story, as does the fact that the man who tried to expose their relationship wound up dead under mysterious circumstances. So, okay, the Examiner gets bonus points for glamor (the Hollywood connection) and conspiracy-mongering (the mysterious death). But except for that, this story falls short.

For this series, I have devised my own rating system. Each tabloid story I examine will be rated on a scale of one to four Bat Boys, one being "pathetic -- just move along, fer gosh sakes" and four being "Oh. My. God. Is it possible to die of schadenfreude?"

Why the Bat Boy? Well, the Bat Boy, as seen here:

And here:

                                                                                                      
was one of the legendary recurring stories in the late, lamented tabloid, the Weekly World News. So that's why I've name my rating system after him, in tribute to the tabloid spirit he embodies.

In conclusion, then -- how many Bat Boys does the National Examiner story "Shocking Charge: John McCain & Connie Stevens Affair!" rate?

Alas, I can't give it more than

out of

 

Better luck next time, I hope.

UPDATES: See the updates in this series here and here.

Comments

[Joefucious]

Does any of this suprise you?