NY Times Draws McCain Ire Over Ethics Story

The headline for the above-the-fold NY Times story about presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk, doesn't quite prepare readers for the juicy insinuations waiting for them in the second paragraph. The first sentence notes that during McCain's 2000 presidential campaign advisers were worried because...

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

Um, what? The story is, on the surface, about ethics, but the hint of a possible close relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman - especially when McCain and Iseman deny any romantic relationship - makes this the kind of thing news pundits blow a gasket over. (Keith Olbermann was literally freaking out during Countdown last night while reporting about it.) And since the article appeared online last night, they've been bloviating about this for hours now.

The story, "part of a series of articles about the life and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations," has been decried by the McCain camp. McCain had previously called NY Times editor Bill Keller to complain (which is mentioned in the article - first hint that the story was being worked on was leaked to the Drudge Report last December) and his communications director Jill Hazelbaker said:

"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election. Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

With wife Cindy by his side, McCain gave a press conference this morning denying impropriety, except for the fact that he and Iseman are friends, noting he did take plane rides but they were allowed back then, etc. He said, "I'm disappointed in The New York Times piece." Here's the McCain camp rebuttal to the article.

The NY Times, which had interviewed former McCain aide John Weaver for the story, says it stands by the story. McCain adviser Charlie Black said, "We’re going to go to war with [the Times] now. We’ll see if that hurts or helps.”

The Post doesn't note the McCain drama on its front page, opting for some fun Bill and Hill Photoshop, thus making this a golden opportunity for the Daily News.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on February 21, 2008 10:12 AM

Comments [rss]

west side Michael

I don't think Psychiatrists will go out of business

in this city.

Albert Sharpton

this honky needs a taste of my black snake.

Sommelier

McCain should drop down onto his knees and give Bill Keller a blowjob for holding the story for so long. Had he run it four months ago, McCain would be on vacation with the other repugnican't wannabes, like Fred Thompson.

One thought... why do repugnican't women all look either like someone's cookie-baking grandmother or like cold, no-lipped, frigid bitches?

FrankMartin

Seems like sexism to me. If the lobbyist was a man would they be hinting at an affiar. Am I to believe that a female lobbyist needs to sleep with people to get things done? Can you say tabloid?

Another thing that makes me think their was huge debate inside the times HQ is the stories location on the cover. How is this not the main story with a photo? If you are going to make accusations about the probable Republican presidential candidatee cheating on their wife and circumventing our democracy at the same time you need the goods! Two unnamed sources is just lame verification.

FrankMartin

Seems like sexism to me. If the lobbyist was a man would they be hinting at an affiar. Am I to believe that a female lobbyist needs to sleep with people to get things done? Can you say tabloid?

Another thing that makes me think their was huge debate inside the times HQ is the stories location on the cover. How is this not the main story with a photo? If you are going to make accusations about the probable Republican presidential candidatee cheating on their wife and circumventing our democracy at the same time you need the goods! Two unnamed sources is just lame verification.

west side Michael

Gee! A middle aged man gets the hots for

a female attorney-lobbyist 20 years younger than he.

I am shocked! Devastated.

Tim N.

Something tells me this isn't the end of this, Times-wise. It will be interesting to see if the ball starts rolling here and other papers try to out the two staffers who told McCain (according to the article) to knock it off with the woman - even if he wasn't doing her, it just looked bad. The article says that McCain acknowledged that and backed off being seen with her. Today he says that conversation never happened. Let's see if these guys who said (anonymously) that they did have the conversation come forward.

Either way, McCain's in a no-win situation here. He can use this to gain support on the right, but that's not where this election is going to be won. It's going to be won among the independents and centrists, because both McCain and Obama draw so strongly from there. And the more hold McCain gets on the right, the more he loses among the center, who would have a real viable alternative in Obama.

Tim N.

Something tells me this isn't the end of this, Times-wise. It will be interesting to see if the ball starts rolling here and other papers try to out the two staffers who told McCain (according to the article) to knock it off with the woman - even if he wasn't doing her, it just looked bad. The article says that McCain acknowledged that and backed off being seen with her. Today he says that conversation never happened. Let's see if these guys who said (anonymously) that they did have the conversation come forward.

Either way, McCain's in a no-win situation here. He can use this to gain support on the right, but that's not where this election is going to be won. It's going to be won among the independents and centrists, because both McCain and Obama draw so strongly from there. And the more hold McCain gets on the right, the more he loses among the center, who would have a real viable alternative in Obama.

eyekantspel

Edit last sentence to read: If there's a stained dress or a statement by the woman involved, that would be another story.

eyekantspel

This is the only non-Muslim country in the world where anyone cares who their politicians are shtupping

The point isn't whether we care about it, the point is that the Times is clearly implying that was taking place in 1999, but doesn't have anything to back that up except the fact that some people commented that they seemed to be spending time together. If there's a stained dress that's something else or a statement by the woman involved, that would be another story.

inoyourider

Who cares?

This is the only non-Muslim country in the world where anyone cares who their politicians are shtupping.

bklynd

A front page story that was controversial even within the NY Times, that's "a bit short" on facts is a smear piece by a paper that used to hold itself to a higher standard.

See, I would not say that the story is short on facts. It has facts. Certainly, the recollections of the aides are factual, as is his record in general (as to how he voted.) Where it is short is in putting the facts together into a persuasive argument, and in that sense the article doesn't really work. If people were capable of actually reading and thinking for themselves, it would be harmless, and McCain's supporters would be smart to treat it as such instead of going ballistic.

matty

What's the story here? The "truth" here is that through hearsay john mccain may have been infactuated with another woman. So is the truth here that he's human? God forbid! But wait, we don't know if he's human or not cause the rumors are unsubstantiated!

west side Michael

Rush Limbaugh becomes entertainment editor of

the New York Times.

First assignment is to review John McCain's divorce

papers just before he went off with his "Trophy"

wife,Madame Mannequin.

Kojak

Yes, shame on the New York Times for publishing the truth (?). SHAME!

If they can back their story up with credible sources (And possibly some follow up interviews by those in the campaign on 60 Minutes), then I'll believe it.

glennQNYC

"The NYT should be ashamed of itself."

This isn't the first time, and surely wont be their last.

With tabloid journalism like this, no wonder NYT's is loosing so much money. Hopefully their prestige will be next.

Shame on you NYT.

roccosiffreddi

President Obama. Get used to repubs!!

Dirk

Perhaps this is the "miracle" that Huckabee has been praying for....

JacqueMehoff

my friends, I'm disappointed in myself for not finding some tang that didn't look like my wife.

my wife was disappointed and I'm disappointed in America.

eyekantspel

I think the piece reads like a fairly probing examination of his record on ethics, which comes up a bit short but is hardly a "smear."

A front page story that was controversial even within the NY Times, that's "a bit short" on facts is a smear piece by a paper that used to hold itself to a higher standard. If the man did something unethical with respect to the treatment of interests represented by this, or any lobbyist, give the facts. Instead we are just told that 8 years ago his friendship with a lobbyist led to some gossip about an affair; and it doesn't sound like there's any evidence that McCain was giving special treatment to the interests she represented based on their friendship.