Cliffs Notes for the NY Times' McCain Story

5) I think there's the additional line, "Is John McCain so arrogant that he doesn't care about perceptions? Does he assume that he can skirt close to the ethical line because of course he's so ethical he'll never do anything wrong?"

This isn't anywhere near as complicated as you're making it, Michael. The Times is saying that John McCain's relationship to a younger woman lobbyist was so close that members of his staff think it was likely romantic and that they moved to save the senator from himself.

Yes, the reader has to draw their own conclusion from that but the conclusion is pretty obvious -- McCain had an affair with a young woman lobbyist who he did political favors for. Let's not lose the thread here.

Agreed, that's a really weird article. The story about the story may be more interesting than the story in the story.

But there's one other aspect of the NYT article that's worth highlighting-- maybe it fits into your paragraph 2-- the implication that McCain may have been unusually solicitous of the interests of this lobbyist's clients.

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

The guy's been flip-flopping on torture and tax cuts, misrepresenting Obama's statements about fighting al Qaeda in Pakistan, and signed a loan promising to remain in the race even if he wanted to withdraw just to satisfy his lenders.

There's enough substantively troubling stuff out there. It's impossible to care about this ten-year-old maybe-affair, except for the paragraphs of the NYT story in this comment. Is there anything to that aspect of this story?

question: how can the article be "beautifully written and edited," if after reading it 3-4 times some readers still aren't sure what it means?

boehlert -- the answer is that the article is by no means as complicated as Scherer says it is. It's as if Scherer is trying to downplay the Times scoop. But the article raises the strong possibility that John the reformer McCain has done political favors for a lobbyist who he has a close and likely romantic attachment with.

Times seems to be focused on the alledged affair that John McCain had years ago. It seems only fitting then that equal time should be given to the alledged homosexual affair of Obamas. That news spread rapidly around the internet and other news media. If it true it should be reported along with McCains dirt. If its not true maybe it should be investigated so it can be put to rest.

As much as the sexula aspect provides a lot of fodder for humor. I really think that the takeway from this article should be that John McCain is in no position to lecture others, particuarly Barack Obama, about campaign finance issues.

Whether or not he had an affair, he has no remaining credibility on the money-in-politics issue, which has been central to his image of maverick, reformer who is somehow "a different type of Republican."

I think in the long run, this aspect will be far more damaging to McCain than the sex. Unless this lobbyist was best friends with Linda Tripp, chances are the sex xtuff is not going to go anywhere. But I think this is going to hurt McCain's image as a reformer among independents...but on the other hand, it might help him rally his conservative base...but I think it will mostly rally economic and national security conservatives...the social consiervatives are going to be pretty depressed about this, even if nothing is ever substantiated. They don't love McCain as it is, evidenced by Huckabee's continued appeal, because he is not an effusive southern baptist type, he has been divorced, and he has wavered on abortion and gay rights.

Mike M.: "Yes, the reader has to draw their own conclusion from that but the conclusion is pretty obvious -- McCain had an affair with a young woman lobbyist who he did political favors for. Let's not lose the thread here."

Dramatic proof!

It is truly amusing - watching the delicate dance of partisans as they attempt to smear McCain for alleged adultery without casting any shadows on the memory of the Philanderer-in-Chief.

As far as I'm concerned, if McCain cheated on his wife, he's unfit for office. If she can't trust him, I can't. However, I think we should all wait and see whether there is anything other than speculation here.

Alleged corporate lobbyist floozy relationship, Big News!!!

Hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, nonstory. The whole point of the surge unfulfilled, nonstory. Previous levels of violence to resume, nonstory.

I think Josh Marshall has the right take.

The story was actually better but all the good stuff got lawyered out of the final draft.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179402.php

Actually, Robert Sullivan, I'm more concerned with the favors he did the lobbyist than with his sex life. But if McCain's adultery disqualifies him as a candidate for you, then you don't need the NYT to tell you that you can't vote for him.

McCain repeatedly and admittedly cheated on his first wife, who he then dumped for Cindy McCain, his current younger wife and beer fortune heiress.

For those who do not know:
"Vince" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager entertainment's sake.

MSNBC is in full Save Our Hero's Reputation mode.

Also, funny how few people on TV point out this woman's ties with the telecomm industry.

Hey MS -- Matthew Yglesias is not as confused as you are.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccain_and_iseman.php

Really, the story is quite easy to understand. Not sure why it's giving you so much trouble.

Mike M. -

Thank you. That's sad. I support Obama, but until now had considered McCain to be acceptable. What is it with these politicians? Do they think they are above mundane ethics?

I guess Stuart is not interested in fair play and objective reporting. It appears that he is an Obama follower and it not OK to say anything negative about him.. But it is OK to pour dirt on McCain. I say fair is fair and the dirt should be spread equally.

RS - I don't know if it has anything to do with being a politician. Honestly, I'm only interested in seeing McCain get equal treatment from the press and in the conflict of interest angles here. I'd suggest to you that whether or not somebody has committed adultery shouldn't be your litmus test. We never know what goes on in a relationship, after all. But, you have to follow your own feelings on such matters.

You write: "But McCain also may have done favors for telecommunications companies represented by the lady lobbyist, a fact that was more or less known to the public eight years ago." That would be "less known." Most of the public, me included, view McCain has existing above the fray. There was something bad way back when, but since then he's been pure. What this story does is highlight the fact that his rhetoric and his actions don't match. He's this great reformer, yet he's been reprimanded -- whether by the Senate, the FCC, or in 2005, the media -- time and again. He rails against the influence of lobbyists, yet he's literally surrounded by them. In short, the man is a hypocrite. Beltway reporters may think Americans know all about this, but we don't. The real surprise in this article isn't McCain's morality, but his ethics. And while the affair part of the story might go away, the past it digs up could come to haunt McCain in a much bigger way. Once he's no longer a public saint, he's just W's third term.

Short me:

Thanks, Michael Scherer.
Swiftboating John McCain has no value whatsoever for me as a voter, and only serves to further damage the reputation of the Times (as if printing Dowd wasn't enough).

Before I get in on this, though, I'd just like to tell the spoofer what a genius he/she is. Great work, Einstein. Hope you're proud of yourself. What talent.

Definitive substance of NYTimes article: McCaine showed poor judgment. Appearance is everything. And speaking of appearance, did you see the picture of the lobbyist Vicki Iseman? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp Wow.

Ah, Sully the concern troll.

In fine form today, I must say.

Love that swipe at partisans. It's just you and David Broder who can get beyond all that partisan stuff.

It seems like an "alleged story" to me. He was close to this woman, but there is neither allegation nor proof of sex between them. He released all info to the FCC. Nothing else has appeared either before or since (and there have been many years since) that show a "pattern of behavior" that is reprehensible. I am sorry, but it isn't much, except that it probably can be made out to be more. I live in Arizona, and have met the Senator in his office on a number of occasions since he was first elected to the House. My own impression is that he is an honorable, ethical, and totally upstanding person. To me, he has always been driven by three things: duty, honor, country. The story behind the story seems to be that there was some heavy discussion inside the NYT whether to publish it at all. Anyway, my own evaluation of the Senator, for what it's worth, is what I have just written.

TomT: "Love that swipe at partisans. It's just you and David Broder who can get beyond all that partisan stuff."

I wouldn't go that far, but it is perfectly clear that you can't.

Sully -- if you're so nonpartisan, why do you equate an (alleged) affair with a lobbyist for whom McCain (allegedly) did favors with the Monica Lewinsky affair?

It's not that you're nonpartisan, it's that you're nonintelligent. There's a difference.

TomT: "It's not that you're nonpartisan, it's that you're nonintelligent."

From you, I'll take that as a compliment.

We could sit here exchanging witty quips all day, but I have to go, Sully.

Okay, this is just another product of the yenta beat. Sounds like something somebody heard on Curb Your Enthusiasm. Complete waste of time. I will never vote for John McCain, but I am thoroughly disgusted by this kind of story. It represents what's wrong with the current state of public discussion. If we can be distracted by this obvious and pathetic red herring, we're fools and we deserve presidents like George W. Bush.

The TIMES article may serve to remind many in America that John McCain, early in his career, was associated with the Savings and Loan scandal. As a member of the so-called Keating Five, he and four Democratic senators were reprimanded by Congress for intervening with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board on behalf of Charles Keating to have the Board ease off its investigation into the failure of Keating's S&L, the Lincoln Savings and Loan. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $1.3 million (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating. Lincoln Savings and Loan's collapse is said to have cost taxpayers $3.4 billion.

Mike, you're my hero. Every single post is amazing.

What is really pathetic is that an 8 year old incident, unsubstantiated, is NOW placed on the front page of the NYT with an implication of unethical behavior on the part of John McCain,
AND now generating this much discussion leads one
to think that this is precisely what the NYT had
in mind when publishing this.
This is clearly a political stunt on the part of the NYT, a left leaning newspaper that oversteps
its role as a "news" organization. Shame on the NYT. This is a on the order of The National Enquirer.

What is really pathetic is your inability to format text in html, Paul S.

McCain having an inappropriate relationship like Bill Clinton? And doing favor for lobbyist like Hillary? Wow. Now all we have to do is to show that McCain is also a heroin junkie like Obama then we're all set for getting the rest of the democratic votes in a landslide Republican victory.

This is clearly a political stunt on the part of the NYT, a left leaning newspaper that oversteps
its role as a "news" organization. Shame on the NYT.

That's the standard wingnut narrative. I think, though, you're missing the New Republic's role. You could flog the New Republic for leaning left. But these days, as a liberal hawk rag that's gotten plenty of punishment from the netroots, I think they'd probably appreciate some wingnut attention. So go for it.

Did Drudge link here? Jack W and Paul S seem like they came from that site.

New York Times--Drudge...what's the difference, again?

Re: stuart_zechman

It's all about the tabloidization of the American media. Instead of "all the news that's fit to print," it's anything that is guaranteed to titillate. And as that disease progresses, we can expect to see its effects take hold: more presidents who also function as village idiot in chief. If nobody can PROVE that McCain had an affair eight years ago with a lobbyist, they don't need to distract the public by bringing it up. Character assassination by stale innuendo is . . . pathetic. To the NYT I say, Show me your proof or don't waste my time.

CrabbyGoightly headline:
"The New York Times digs, finds little to besmirch McCain"
LET ME BE AMONG THE FIRST TO CONGRATULATE SEN. JOHN MCCAIN for leading such an exemplary life that the only dirt four New York Times reporters could uncover on the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is a professional relationship with a female lobbyist that some thought too close for comfort. CrabbyGolightly.com. Taking a dim view of celebrity, media and power.

Definitive substance of NYTimes article:

McCaine showed poor judgment.

Appearance is everything.

Speaking of appearance, did you see the picture of the lobbyist Vicki Iseman? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp

Wow!

Did moveon.org link here? TomT seems like he came from that sit.

For those who do not know:
"Crabby" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager entertainment's sake.

"Appearance is everything."

If appearance is everything, then appearance is all there is. And welcome to the Twilight Zone, where W Bush is president-for-life of the State of Delusion. Americans still have the right to choose (or at least elect) their president, but are clueless when it comes to identifying a keeper.

"Campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said in a statement that the newspaper had engaged in a 'smear campaign.'" WRONG. The paper ran an article guaranteed to titillate readers and grab attention. And it succeeded, did it not? What it has contributed to campaign 2008 is where it went so wrong: it drew Americans into murky waters and is keeping them there. That's exactly what Americans don't need.

Wow JT. Thanks for the link! Even if by some small chance everything the NYT says were true, it still shows that McCain has real good taste which is more than what you can say about our former president for whom a chubby intern less than half his age and a worn out cigar tube were all it took to turn the White House into a private pleasure dorm. Not to mention all of Bill's other flings-- most of whom were in desparate needs of major plastic surgeries before they could get on the camera to talk about Bill without terrifying the public in the process with their appearances. All in all, the NYT story is a definite plus for McCain's attempt to get the liberals' votes.

This is old news...the "old news" being that the New York Times is a leftist newspaper which is more interested in forming public opinion than informing the public. With the NYT, truth is in the eye of the beholder..and their biased, self-important eye is the only eye beholding. More of their trash being passed as news. I can't believe people take this newspaper seriously and that other news media report it.
margaret1115

I take that as a "yes, I did come here from Drudge", Jack W.

You might enjoy the discussion at Blogs4Brownback, btw. You can thank me later.

Perhaps our visitors are from Charleston?

Tom, Any comments on the subject or my posting?

Hummmm .... are we talking about John McCain or the quality of reporting.

There is little "news value" or fame in writing the truth. News value today is the based on the sensationalism that sells newspapers, and draws in viewers and advertisers...stretching the truth.

Forget about Cliffs Notes ... many young reporters and newswriters should re-take classes in Journalism 101 and ethics.

I would rather be quoted for my integrity than for a questionable scoop.

Inky

Any comments on the subject or my posting?

I find it interesting that you find outrage in a sex scandal more than a decade old. Yeah, that 5 year investigation that ended with the discovery of a blow job is topmost in my mind. Much more so than hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by a war launched with no plan based on false and fabricated premises.

But a decade old blowjob. The outrage.

Definitive substance of NYTimes article:

McCaine showed poor judgment.

Appearance is important according to McCaine.

McCaines words: “questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics,” and “and because they incite public distrust they need to be addressed no less directly than we would address evidence of expressly illegal corruption.”

Speaking of appearance, did you see the picture of the lobbyist Vicki Iseman?

Double Wow!

He doesn't learn. It's a bad sign. Reminds me of you know who.

McCain's been screwing Conservatives and Independents alike for years now, is it so inconceivable that he might throw a little action to a lobbyist?

JJ, Just for the record, it was more than a blow job. It is the insertion of a cigar tube by a sitting president into the "you know what" of a 24 year old fresh out of school intern. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinski for a reminder of the details. And yes, people still laugh about it and it is still entertaining after all these years. And entertainment is what this particular article about John McCain is all about for anyone who would actually formulate their political opinion or voting decision based on such baseless gossip..well, I wouldn't worry about them actually finding the polling place in Nov.

What an useless story.

New York Times = Next National Enquirer = Garbage

Obviously, I am never going to touch another NY Times paper again. I wonder why they are losing subscripters and have to layoff 100 employees....

Well some of our problems as a country have to do with people confusing entertainment with the serious business of running the country--for instance saying that the people running Abu Garaib were just engaging in some good old fashioned American entertainment. Don't be so serious folks! Can't you take a joke?

Such a fine entertainer, that Rush.

(That was responding to Jack W, by the way.)

First, I'm a Democrat and I support Barack Obama.

The N.Y. Times article about McCain was cheap -- worthy of the National Inquirer, not the "nation's newspaper." This isn't the kind of thin innuendo I want used against my own candidate, and I have no desire to see it used against someone else's.

About as bad is the fact that this garbage is just the type of thing the rightwing will use to justify its hate of anything published by The Grey Lady. Somebody seriously dropped the ball and should be fired.

For those who do not know:
"Jack W" is a troll attempting to impersonate a rational thinking human being for its own meager entertainment's sake.

JJ, You don't say. When I saw the first images coming out from Abu Garaib, I thought someone was posting pictures from my fraternity days. Of course it is shameful that a FEW of the bad apples in our military enjoy this kind of S&M stuff with the insurgents and actually get caught for it. But then again, it is relative entertainment compared to what those insurgents have done like for example cutting people heads off while they are fully conscious, kicking and screaming and videotaping it for propaganda purposes. As far as I'm concern, The Geneva Conventions applies only to human beings. John McCain definitely has more sympathy than I would care for to those animals at Gitmo or Abu Garaib.
But his heart is at the right place nevertheless.

Right. Like I said, some have trouble with the entertainment/adult behavior distinction.

But how about those "insurgents"?

Seventy to ninety percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, according to an October 2003 International Committee of the Red Cross report and sworn statements made by members of the 470th Military Intelligence Group, the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, and the 304th Military Intelligence Battalion, were arrested by mistake or had no intelligence value.

But what's the old saying? "Kill em all. Let God sort them out"?

Perfectly in line with American values.

According to Stuart there are a lot of TROLLS on this board. What exactly does that mean ???

According to Stuart there are a lot of TROLLS on this board. What exactly does that mean ???

I think stuart is using "trolls" as shorthand for people posting with a movement conservative point of view. We're not used to seeing them because usually we scare them off. I don't personally think these people are trolls, really.

The real trolls are users who spoof people's names, taunt the commenters instead of engaging them, etc. There *are* trolls like this on the site, and those are the ones who really fit the label...

Like Stuart ____________________________ himself.

Glad to see that John McCain is not denying the Paxson quid pro quo. That's been floating around tech circles for YEARS, but the media refused to oppose the McCult.

After reading all this about what the TIMES said or did not say about what they said or think they said or did not say, I think the TIMES reporters and their bosses should get out of the booth and on to the field. Just having access to a pencil and a pad of paper won't make you a journalist. AS they say in Texas your story and your story about your story are "bull". Dalex

JJ, I don't see what is the conflict here. Those insurgents look forward to die fighting us so they can go to heaven and meet the 70 virgins (clearly none of these guys are aware of the extra work it takes to BE with a virgin). Anyway, we are just arranging the meetings between them and their so-called god in rather large numbers. Once the last of them go over to the other side, everyone comes out a winner. We can go on living our happy American lives and they can go enjoy their islamic afterlife.

It helps if you read my comment where it says "Seventy to ninety percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib... were arrested by mistake." They didn't do anything. They weren't "insurgents." (Although after how we treated them, maybe now they are.)

What kind of a "newspaper" un-spikes a BOGUS story of no merit, and after 9 YEARS?

Oh, right.

The Jayson Barnicle kind.

The really sad part?

More good trees and fast electrons had to die, to communicate this continuing spittle aimed at another war vet the paleface libs at the New York Timed don't like, don't understand, and don't know as a Life Partner.

JJ, They got free meals and maid service for posting a few compromising pictures. During Saddam's time, these people were getting their tongues and fingers chopped off while being forced to watch their families getting their brains blown off in front of them. And yes, Saddam used to keep video for that too. You people keep saying we should respect other people's culture. Well, the culture as well as the primary currency of trade in that part of the world is death, violence and cruelty. We are forced to hang out with those savages and sometime play their games because we are so darn addicted to oil. If it was up to me, I'm willing to pay $10-$15 per gallon of gas in exchange for my country to not buy another drop of anything from those middle eastern bastards. But who are the ones that can't afford high oil prices? The same so-called "little guys" whose inability to live with high oil prices is what drives our middle eastern policies for the past half century from democrats and republicans alike. Contrary to common (lack of) wisdom, a large part of Bush's policies is to keep oil cheap therefore keeping the waitresses and burger flippers of our great country off the street altogether. Of course the oil companies are the ones that benefit in the end. But whose fault is it? Most of the developed world pays 3-4 times what we pay for gas and we (especially the "little guys" from the left) are still wining all day long that gasoline is still not cheap enough. Just pathetic and hypocritical.

You people keep saying we should respect other people's culture.

Um, no, actually I'm saying we should respect other *people.* Saying we're better than Saddam--that's a pretty low freaking bar, wouldn't you say?

Speaking off the top of my head, I've worked and gone to school with Pakistanis, Egyptians, and I had an Iranian as a landlord. I can tell you from my own experience, these were good people.

We all know there are some who *aren't* good people. And we need to deal with that in a serious way. But "Kill em all, let God sort them out," and "more rubble less trouble" never worked. That's why they brought in General Petreaus, because he actually has a clue about how you do counterinsurgency. You don't "win friends and influence people" by treating them like crap, which should be common sense.

JJ, We are not treating people like crap. At least relative to how people, especially dissidents, are generally treated in the middleeast. You'll surprised what they can do to you if you are arrested even in a western (NATO)country like France or Turkey. Of course not everyone there are bastards. I was obviously referring to the people we do business with AND those who don't want their countires to do business with us for their own saddistic reasons. I think we should bite the bullet and not let them make a dime from us at all while stop polluting our environment in the process. That means for a starter paying what Europe and Japan pay for gasoline. people like me are ready for it but it is the spending-beyond-their-means with a reset mortgage American "working-class" that the LEFT likes to preach to who are not. A nurse or waitress can't afford to go to work at even $5 a gallon let alone $10+. If you don't work for an oil company, there is really nothing positive about our relationship with those Arab countries. We are the addicts doing business with the dealers.

We are not treating people like crap.

Go to Google Images and search for "abu ghraib" (I'm going to be polite and not link to them here). Then talk to me about their entertainment value. Then you can talk to me about the entertainment value of these studies showing hundreds of thousands of deaths brought about by the invasion and occupation.

Nope, no one's treating anyone like crap.

More than 2 millions deaths in the 8 years Iran Iraq war. How many millions of deaths in 2 asian wars before we defeated the soviet and communism? And what about before that? 10,000 American deaths in one battle during WWI. 9,000 deaths from D-day 1-3. And that's just in the last century. Don't you see the pattern? It is hard to imagine when you are living your easy American life sitting comfortably on your couch watching TV. Know that all the blood, guts and treasury were what it took to lead up to the point where you have the luxury to spend time whinning on the internet and driving a 15 miles/gallon SUV rather than scraping for food from the garbage dump and wondering how you will PHYSICALLY survive another day like people do in many other countries. My point is that a lot of people like to complain about our government and policies. Hey just dont' realize that they are the ones whose life style drive those policies. Unless you drive a hybrid and have solar panels up your roof etc, you ARE a contributor to whatever US foreign policies that you claim you don't like.

NYT ran perfect photos, (by W R Hearst's standards,) a glitzy gown and makeup color photo of the female lobbyist to imply "the other woman"
a "Daddy Warbucks in Tux" photo of the wealthy client to imply "influence"
then a great black and white grainy photo of McCain with huddled with his lawyers during the Keating hearings to imply "corruption."
And to top it all the contributing reporters were "Barclay and Kitty," I mean, doesn't that just sound like a tawdry affair?

Anyway, now I am so confused;
vote for Oreobama
or MadClain?

Unless you drive a hybrid and have solar panels up your roof etc, you ARE a contributor to whatever US foreign policies that you claim you don't like.

I sure am. Maybe there ought to be laws to make those things easier for everybody to acquire... Wait, isn't there something called politics that someone invented so you can pass laws?