McCain Senior Adviser Responds to Times Story

Interesting how this story, after a hiatus, surfaces now that McCain has a lock on the nomination. Is the timing worth digging in to? (Although appearing shortly before or after the GOP convention would have been worse, IMHO.)

I'm disgusted with the Times--again!

How does this crap help our country?

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

Wow.

Spoofing with underscores.

Awesome.

Brilliant.

Sucks to be on the receiving end of some bad press for a change, doesn't it WALNUTS? Get over it old man.

This sort of story, I don't put much weight in. The following sort of story infuriates me:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=the_pete_rose_of_politics#104506

"And while the system is "voluntary," McCain essentially traded away for cash his right to choose whether to participate in the system, and even his right to drop out of the presidential race, allowing the bank to force McCain "to remain an active candidate" in order to reapply for and qualify for funds. He was betting the spread (10 points) on his own primary performance! I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is a promise to perpetuate a fraud on the American taxpayers: if he no longer intended to seek the presidency, he made a legally-binding promise to pretend to remain in the race just long enough to collect public money to repay the loan...
There's a reason no one's ever done anything like this. It makes a travesty of the choice inherent in voluntary public financing, between public funds and unlimited spending. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Legal or not, it should bring to an end whatever tiny thread of credibility John McCain still has as a straight-talker or reformer of the political process."

The real question: How has Mr. Campaign Finance reform voted on telecommunications bills? We've already reached the John Solomon/Jake Tapper standard of quid pro quo, but it will be interesting to see how well McCain's votes match up with the lobbyist he may literally be in bed with.

It's not the sex. It's the corruption.

In one sense, who cares about this "affair" (although that woman sure does resemble all the rest of the women we know about in McCain's life; she sure is his type). In another, though, it's fascinating watching the McCain people attacking a prominent press corps institution. It is, after all, a 10 year display of the press corps' abysmally low standards that is almost single handedly responsible for putting him where he is. And now he's complaining about those standards! Chutzpah.

Here's my answer. If McCain wasn't in bed with this lobbyist, he was certainly in bed with her:

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 [another Iseman client].

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 [on the Paxson corporate jet, in February 1999]. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

Apparently McCain does want to take the money out of politics -- and replace it with nookie.

Wow.

Spoofing with underscores.

Awesome.

Brilliant

To hell with the lobbyist-screwing, the real story is why is McCain making his campaign "overnight" in a parking garage in Toledo?

You think the front runner could at least afford a Motel 6...

So when's Joe Klein going to do a post about how this McCain sex/corruption scandal is good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats?

"So when's Joe Klein going to do a post about how this McCain sex/corruption scandal is good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats?"

Exactly and when again are we supposed to be scared of the big, BAD McCain? He's so mean. Just wait he's going to eat the Democratic candidate for dinner. Face it people, change is coming here in this country! Like some of us have been trying to tell you for a while, there's only one person who's going to win and here's a hint, he's the only one who ain't old and walkin around with a ton of baggage.

I notice that CNN, Time and other news orgs focus on the New York Times decision making process, denials and counter-charges, ANYTHING but the substance of the story:

1) That Mr. "Principles" was selling his vote to a lobbyist even after saying he'd learned his lesson with the Keating 5.

2) That his aides were panicked about the inappropriateness of the relationship. Why is that, I wonder? And by the way, he married his second wife only a month after divorcing his first wife. For a party obsessed with marital fidelity, he's an interesting choice.

If anything, the New York Times did McCain a favor by holding this story until so late in the primary process that Romney was knocked out.

This is principally a story about HUBRIS, not about McCain having a romantic relationship or even influencing a lobbyist. See the Times headline "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risks."

John McCain seems to share with George Bush such a strong belief in his own character that anything he does must be right because he's an honorable person and wouldn't do something ethically wrong.

This is arguably the trouble that McCain got into in the Keating 5 scandal. It was okay for him to intervene as he did for a constituent because of course he would never do anything unethical.

There's an important difference between impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, but McCain's occasional lack of concern about the appearance of impropriety gets him in trouble.

(The admirable quality in a private citizen of sticking with friends who have serious flaws, for example, can cause legitimate concerns when an elected official continues such a relationship).

So the question is, what risk does this possibly inflated sense of himself pose for us as a country.

Whether this will be the focus as the story goes forward, or whether the story will be about the unproven suggestions of a romantic relationship and catering to a lobbyist could well account for the turmoil in the Times newsroom.

I guess McCain truly is a maverick...conventional wisdom holds that sex scandals are Democratic and money scandals are Republican.

Amazing -- even when the media does examine McCain's record with skepticism, it's all about how that proves the media is bad. McCain can't lose for winning.

Well, if we get into a situation where the news coverage IS the story, it might help further open the dialog on who does what to whom within the beltway press corps.

And of course the NYT has always seemed at the center of both extremes - think Judith Miller on one hand and the NSA/CIA revelations on the other.

I don't see how McCain doing favors for a lobbyis friend isn't a big story, given his public statements about lobbying Whether or not he's having an affair with her is somewhat beside the point.

THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS YAWNING...

Your heart's not in this one either, QH.

Um, Salter called you back to make sure you deleted the part about how McCain denied the affair?

I've noticed they really don't seem to be denying that part of the allegations.

Wow - I knew we might be getting another Bill Clinton in the White House, I just didn't know it would be John McCain!

Amazing -- even when the media does examine McCain's record with skepticism, it's all about how that proves the media is bad.

TomT has it.

He could have written 1,000 inappropriate letters on behalf of this chick (and signed a deceptive loan agreement designed to get out from under the requirements of the campaign finance law he enacted, and flip-flopped on torture and tax cuts), but unless there's a hint of sex, why would it be treated as any kind of story?

David Letterman may have to revise his joke catalog on Senator McCain.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/21/mccain-is-a-mall-walker-letterman/

This may help explain why McCain wants to give the telcos a free pass on breaking the FISA law. Of course he tried to sell it by pretending he is the only patriot in the country and the rest of us are terrorist sympathizers. McCain has to keep wrapping himself in the flag to hide what's going on under it. Ricki's company is going to need to add one other service they provide on their website.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8606.html

More racism from Jesse Jackson?

Something the Times won't EVER touch, of course.

Oh well.

1984 & 1988 HAPPENS.

"...Last month, Bill Clinton discounted an impending victory by Obama in South Carolina, by saying, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ‘84 and ‘88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.”

Some felt, however, the former president was unnecessarily bringing up race by comparing Obama to Jackson. A Washington Post reporter called Bill Clinton’s comments a “sour note” and an ABC reporter compared it to “race-baiting.”

Jackson told me, however, he was not offended by the remarks, though he recognized that some were.

“To many people that was hurtful,” Jackson said, “but I did not read it that way.” Jackson said race should not be off the table in political discussion as long as it is done properly.

“I think we must distinguish between race-baiting, which is unacceptable, and the need to address race as a moral dilemma, which has haunted the nation since its very beginning,” Jackson said.

I asked Jackson if he thought it was fair for Obama to use the argument that a vote for him as an African-American can make people feel better about themselves and about the nation and send a good signal to the rest of the world.

“Racial justice is the key for the salvation of the nation and that is fair game to discuss; it is a fair message,” Jackson said. “Blacks reaching out is not new; white receptivity is new. Barack is reaching out.”

Jackson also said that the work that he and others involved in the civil rights movement did in decades past has helped make the current political climate possible.

“I just take some delight in the fact that we knocked down barriers, and now Barack and Hillary are open-field runners,” Jackson said. “A healthier, more secure, more mature America is emerging from race and gender shock...”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8606.html

///

Has Jesse EVER been to Gettysburg? Antietam? Ansersonville? Vicksburg?

Maybe Michelle Obama has an extra copy of THE KILLER ANGELS to lend out?

Allah only knows they both need the history lessons.

The paper of record has done everything within its power to kill this story, then is forced to print it only after it is about to be revealed what lengths they would go to to protect McCain, THEN gets accused of purposely trying to destroy McCain for going to such efforts to prtect him.

I don't care if McCain had an affair or not. What does make me angry is that I'm sure reporters would have let this story alone if not for lobbyist angle and not criticized McCain for his personal behavior, unlike the way they treated Clinton.

The MSM pursued every tiny hint of any scandal re the Clintons in the 90s, spurred on by the rightwingers. The allegations became the story and eventually we learned there was no story at all.

If possible, the press will do everything in it's power to see this news has short legs.

Look, I think it is clear we don't have all the details here.

Anybody know what Ken Starr is up to these days?

QH

Pat Buchanan told Joe Scarborough that White guys wouldn't vote for Obama. Buchanan made the statementon Morning Joe. Scarborough recited the event in Buchanan's presence during the Wisconsin that White guys wouldn't vote for ObamaPrimary coverage on MSNBC.
During the 2008 Primary season the lack of White male voters supporting Obama has been noted. The observation that in Wisconsin the increased percentage of White males voting for Obama was seen as a breakthrough. Rev Jackson was not making a racist statement.
On the other hand your use of "Nappy Holiday" and "Mammy" as a name for Michelle Obama is racist.
Your true colors really shone through when you posted your uncaring commentary in response to Karen Tumulty's memorial tribute to her friend and mentor.

Oh, and Michelle Obama clarified her remarks.

Why does the story of McCain giving the CIA a free pass to TORTURE people get no traction, but a story about how he might have maybe had an affair get national press coverage? WTF is wrong with us?

And why would he cheat on his insanely hot wife? That lady is smoking for her age, or half her age.

K

Kempesh, I agree.

That should have been big news but the press is very invested in their version of "Maverick John" and will ignore a lot of stuff to keep up the illusion.

I have to hand it to Obama; he plays the media as good as McCain does. By saying some flattering stuff about David Brooks Obama got Brooks to write a column that ended by complimenting Obama.

The lesson any young politician needs to learn is to suck up to the press. They'll cover your butt and look only on the bright side for you.

Meh. An alleged affair, and the questions surrounding that aspect of this story are just red herrings...the real meat is whether or not this is a repeat of the Keating 5 for McCain...

The Times should have run the story when they reported it. Good on TNR for bringing the pressure. Ana, you've got to be more skeptical when you print Salter's nonsense here. The Times has no obligation to tell the McCain campaign anything about the whens and wheres that those conversations took place. Doing so would only serve to:

1) Out anonymous sources.

2) Allow Salter to manipulate McCain's schedule in order to create a false denial.

I find the timing so interesting. Someone on MSNBC last night (may have been Chuck Todd) said, no big deal, I knew about it at Christmas time. So, if the story was factual and appropriately vetted, why not publish it before the New Hampshire primary?

The NYT seems to do a lot of holding stories until threatened that someone else is going to publish, then suddenly rush them into print.

As others have said, McCain gets a pass on important stuff like his votes on torture, etc. and he is continually fluffed by the press. Maybe someone will use this at least to emphasize the part of the story others have highlighted, the votes for her telecom clients.

And, what has happened to the comments section? We are back to that early mode of names appearing twice and it seems possible to take someone else's name -- I thought registration stopped that really annoying thing which was very distructive to the commentary.

No staffer had the authority to ban a person from the office or instruct staff to keep their distance from someone but one. Me, and I never did nor did I have any reason to.

Very artfully worded. So we can assume that some staffer(s) acted beyond the range of their authority?

Regarding to the two blind sources who claim to have confronted McCain about this, let them provide dates, times and places these conversations occured.

So that Salter can track down who leaked to the Times and fire their asses.

Question:
If there weren't the slightest hint of sex involved, would the Times have covered any of this?

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

mrd0000:

This, even as I just sparred with that idjit on a later blog where he dropped yet another such racist "nugget"?

Why am I NOT surprised...

Hello, Ana, commenters-

Open question for AMC and anyone else who wants to comment:

Has the last 24 hours been more favorable to McCain or the NYT? (Posting at 7:15 PM Thursday 2.21.2008)... And what does the next 24 hours yield on that front?