February 22, 2008
Mac on the NY Times Attack!
The NY Times' article about presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain's superclose relationship with a young, attractive female lobbyist (more about her here) has drawn a lot of criticism, especially from McCain himself. His campaign seized the moment to raise money for his campaign.
Campaign manager Rick Davis' fundraising letter read, "With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, The New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand." Even Rush Limbaugh, no fan of John McCain, thought the article was 'lies."
The Times has been getting worked over for running the story as well, as some don't think the story even reported anything damning. Editor Bill Keller defended the piece, saying it was in the works for a while, "On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready." However, The New Republic suggests the Times hit the publish button TNR was about to run its article about the McCain-lobbyist story, questioning its purpose and sourcing: "The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady."
The NY Times is answering readers' questions about the article in its Talk to the Newsroom section. But as a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College - and a former Repubilcan operative - John Pitney told Politico, “For conservatives, the New York Times is shorthand for everything they distrust."
|
I actually think that the timing was just perfect for McCain! He already has the nomination in the bag, and by the time the election happens, no one is going to remember this. I love how his camp is spinning it like they did it at the worst possible time--on purpose, no less. That's some smart money-grubbin'!
Just remember one of his comebacks to this, where he says, "I have plenty of friends who are lobbyists."
That says it all! He's always been in bed with lobbyists, and has a lot of nerve trying to say otherwise. But Republicans have always had that kind of nerve, and Americans have always fallen for it the way one would believe a kid who puts his hands over his eyes and say "you can't see me!"
Pretty intriguing.
Hey, I have an idea! Since McCain is so old, why not oblige him to live off his social security income. He could try financing his campaign with that!
Pretty hard to spin this any other way than junk journalism.
No evidence. Anonymous sources. Something that was held for months, and happened years ago.
NYTimes thought this controversial piece would help pole vault them out of declining interest in their paper. Their proverbial pole broke on this one, and they probably hurt themselves trying.
I make most of my friends through work; if I was a politician, I imagine I would become friends with some lobbyists, since they are around. It doesn't mean he was in bed with one (literally or figuratively).
That said, there's no question McCain and other politicians tend to try to help their friends. His involvement in the Keating Five (the other four were Democrats), indicated McCain's willingness to go to bat for his friends. Might as well bring up Bill Clinton's pardons of Marc Rich, Roger Clinton.
Hillary isn't exactly clean on this kind of stuff herself. Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, based on her brother, Tony Rodham's, involvement(allegedly receiving $107,000 in loans that were never repaid for his efforts). Also Almon Glenn Braswell and Carlos Vignali, who each paid around $200,000 to another brother, Hugh Rodham, who returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public.
Questions have been made about Obama and earmarks, although I suppose that's par for the course.
Not saying this stuff is good, just that it's pretty hard to find anyone with clean hands. McCain has been a senator for a long time; and there doesn't seem to be much to show that he's been involved in anything scandalous or improper.
I suppose I should take some strange comfort that Sen. McCain gets all of his bad ideas on his own, and not from lobbyists like many of his colleagues. My only hope is that Ron Paul runs as an independent.
It's amazing how people like "likesrudylikesbooty" and assorted right-wingers can claim that the article is based on "Anonymous sources" and there is "No evidence." Besides the fact that 95% of the article is based on undisputed events and statements made by McCain, and confirmations from Iseman, the portion discussing Iseman's relationship and its negative impact on his campaign is sourced. From the article:
"Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.
“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.” "
Weaver has confirmed the concern of the anonymous sources in the article.
In any case, the point of the article, as McCain inadvertently (I assume) confirmed yesterday, is that he's as deeply involved in lobbyists, in stark contrast to his claims and his reputation.
It would be interesting to draw the parallel to Obama's involvement with developer/campaign donor Tony Rezko. Again, no facts or evidence show that Obama had purchased his home at an advantage because of Rezko. Yet, the media ran with the story because of an unrelated indictment.
Rezko even threw huge fundraisers for Obama.
Obama does admit it was "boneheaded" to have associated with Rezko for the home purchase. Rezko was already under federal scrutiny at the time. But you can see how the press just loves to spin this stuff.
Just because some staff members recognized that the relationship could be PERCEIVED negatively, does not mean that anything improper took place. The conclusions some people are coming to based on the information available are ludicrous. That is, of course, part of the problem with the Times running the story in the first place. It gives the impression that something took place, but doesn't back it up.
I'm not a right winger, and have made comments supporting Obama as well, would be equally bothered by unsupported stories being floated as scandal for Obama or Hillary also.
There are plenty of good and relevant reasons for people to take issue with McCain as a presidential candidate. Iraq, immigration, concerns about his age, etc. Those things can and should be discussed in weighing the merits of him versus Obama (or, less likely, Hillary). The fact he was a friend with a female lobbyist in 1999 is a distraction absent facts showing he actually did something improper.
For the record, Michael Isikoff at Newsweek has McCain's sworn deposition from 2002 that contradicts his current denials:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
McCain said yesterday that he was never contacted by anyone at Paxson. Not according to him in 2002 (from Newsweek):
-------------
Abrams, for example, at one point cited the somewhat technical contents of one of his letters to the FCC and then asked the witness, "where did you get information of that sort, Senator McCain?"
McCain replied: "I was briefed by my staff."
Abrams then followed up: "Do you know were they got the information?"
"No," McCain replied. "But I would add, I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue."
"You were?"
"Yes."
Abrams then asked McCain: "Can you tell us what you said and what he said about it?"
McCain: "That he had applied to purchase this station and that he wanted to purchase it. And that there had been a numerous year delay with the FCC reaching a decision. And he wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I said, 'I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act, but I will not write a letter, I cannot write a letter asking them to approve or deny, because then that would be an interference in their activities. I think everybody is entitled to a decision. But I can't ask for a favorable disposition for you'."
Abrams a few moments later asked: "Did you speak to the company's lobbyist about these matters?"
McCain: "I don't recall if it was Mr. Paxson or the company's lobbyist or both."
Abrams: "But you did speak to him?"
McCain: "I'm sure I spoke with him, yes."
--------------
So much for taking McCain's word on anything regarding this matter.
Isikoff also highlights that Weaver is a named source for this story, contrary to claims made by McCain's ill-informed defenders.
"I'm not a right winger, and have made comments supporting Obama as well, would be equally bothered by unsupported stories being floated as scandal for Obama or Hillary also."
Unfortunately, these smear articles are business as usual. It transcends political views. I also find the Obama/Tony Rezko story to be unsubstantiated. Is the mere APPEARANCE of mingling with an influential donor enough to draw conclusions? Does it imply wrongdoing as boneheaded as it may seem?
The Times article clearly lacked conviction. Suggestions and appearances are not enough.
It is likely that McCain and Obama will be the contenders come November. Both now have their Iseman's and Rezko's. Unless there is clear evidence that proves either story, I believe both candidates would be our best chances at reforming influential politics in Washington.
eyekantspel, Sadly people do the "Where there's Smoke, theres fire" bit...
Me, I don't really care about his personal life one way or the other. This "issue" may go towards his character, but IMO, it is way down the list in terms of importance.
Take a second and actually read the Newsweek article, which is not nearly damning as the title suggests: http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
First of all, the article doesn't find an ACTUAL contradiction between McCain's 2002 testimony and what is said now, only suggests "An Apparent Contradiction."
It says:
Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign ... insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said....
But that flat claim seems [emphasis added] to be contradicted by ... McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition .... "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."
Note that McCain did NOT say that he was personally asked to send a letter to the FCC, he said he was contacted by Paxson and that Paxson complained. Completely different statements, thus the best Isikoff can do is call this an "apparent" contradiction.
Moreover, Isikoff is hardly a neutral. His writings on the Plame scandal, for the Huffington Post, etc., his bias is not exactly a secret. Let's not forget Isikoff's Newsweek 2005 article on Guantanamo Bay, in which he claimed interrogators flushed a Koran down the toilet -- which Newsweek was forced to retract when Isikoff's anonymous source was unable to remember the details. Citing Isikoff on McCain is like citing Ann Coulter on Obama.
eyekantspel,
Hahah, nice try. To bad reality is undermining your attempts to split hairs and making you look like a complete fool:
"The McCain campaign said Thursday that the senator had not met with Paxson or Iseman on the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding," the campaign said in a statement.
But Paxson said yesterday, "I remember going there to meet with him." He recalled that he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter." "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid=topnews
Keep throwing out these softballs. Keep alleging that it's some conspiracy of Leftwingers.
The more you talk, the more you bury yourself.
the article by Isikoff suggests a contradiction between what McCain said in 2002 and what his campaign recently said. That doesn't seem to be the case. That's not to say there might be a contradiction between what Paxon says and McCain says. Even still, I still get back to so what? Pretty much the reason any constituent seeks the assistance of any politician is to help advance some cause or another. Was a briefcase full of money handed over or something, because I don't see that in the story.
As for the idea that I'm throwing out softballs or burying myself, that's laughable. I'm putting my view of the story on a blog. I don't have an agenda. If someone has got the goods on McCain or any other politician, then it should be reported. It doesn't do anyone any good to have a corrupt politician in office. But this "scandal" is one of the weakest things I've seen in a while, and the more that comes out, the more it really does just seem like a smear campaign.