McCain Scandal & Aftermath

[Pangloss]

Two weeks ago I wouldn't have thought much of anything could convince Rush Limbaugh and the far right to get behind John McCain. But this story seems to be doing exactly that. I doubt Limbaugh is outright supporting him (has anybody caught his show this week, by any chance?), but he certainly railed at the New York Times over this story.

 

McCain stood before reporters yesterday and fielded questions until they literally ran out of them. As I understand it, the general idea is that he's being accused of cheating on his wife with a lobbyist about eight years ago, and more importantly, giving inappropriate legislative favors to the lobbyist in question.

 

This is a relevent story if it's true, but there appears to be real doubt about whether it IS true, or really if there's anything to it at all. The only evidence is the anonymous testimony of two "former aids" who believed he was seeing her romantically, but never saw any actual direct sign of that (like a personal display of affection).

 

Charles Gibson on ABC News said last night that it raises legitimate questions about the New York Times' reporting methods. They headlined their story "Fit to Print?", a play on the Times' banner slogan "All the news that's fit to print". The Times apparently sat on the story since November, but actually ENDORSED McCain in January -- and since then no new facts have turned up, apparently. Talk about fuel for the partisanship fire!

 

But I've read the NYT story (which can be found here), and I have to say that for the most part it appears to be legitimate news/analysis. The retrospective of McCain's participation in the Keating Five scandal is directly relevent to the campaign -- it is entirely appropriate (arguably even necessary) to resurrect that issue and direct the public's attention to it in order that voters understand what his role was, what the resolution of that issue was, and decide for themselves if that resolution was satisfactory. McCain is the self-declared champion of ethical government. Why wouldn't we inspect that carefully?

 

And in further defense of the Times, the story portrayed McCain's side of both the historical and current issues fairly, even publishing his reaction. Still, the accusations against the Times on this issue do seem to have merit as well, and extend well beyond the province of conservative talk radio. This interesting story at the New Republic (a moderately liberal political magazine whose cover this month features an image of Obama with a HALO around his head!) treats the allegations against the Times seriously:

 

Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: 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.

 

This fascinating paragraph shows just how interesting the story BEHIND this story really is:

 

What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable.

 

Definitely worth reading.

 

Anyway, just to get the thread going, here are the three issues that I see as central to this discussion:

 

1) Is the story legitimate fodder for discussion & reporting? (I believe it is.)

 

2) Is there valid room for criticism of the New York Times on this story. (I'm not sure, but it sounds like there may be.)

 

3) Is this going to rally the right behind McCain? (I think it's having a huge impact.)

 

What do you all think?

[Mr Skeptic]

Is there any evidence that there is any truth to the story? I somehow don't trust anonymous people who claim to be former aides that have nasty things to say about a presidential candidate.

 

I've heard that Pangloss was cheating on his wife with his secretary about eight years ago, and granting her favors as well.

[Severian]

I've heard that Pangloss was cheating on his wife with his secretary about eight years ago, and granting her favors as well.

 

I wish I had a secretary.

[iNow]

He's already doing poorly with conservatives, this doesn't help. I have a personal conjecture that there's truth to the issue, and that this was released by the Huckabee camp/supporters. That's pure speculation though.

[DrDNA]

I can remember the Drudge report that announced that the NYT was sitting on this story way back in Nov. While I am certainly no fan of McCain, the NYT is a definitely trying to give favor to whomever the Dem candidate will be.

The bottom line is, McCain a sittying US Senator and US Senators are in the lobbyists' pockets. Always have been, always will be. Period. Just google Keating Five and see whose name pops up.

 

PS: I hope that when I'm a broken down, decrepit, angry 71 old man, that I can get a hot 40 yr old.

[Pangloss]

He's already doing poorly with conservatives, this doesn't help. I have a personal conjecture that there's truth to the issue, and that this was released by the Huckabee camp/supporters. That's pure speculation though.

 

You think the moral onus of cheating or the ethical onus of favoritism will outweigh the predisposition to rally behind him because of partisan hatred of the New York Times?

[D H]

Just google Keating Five and see whose name pops up.

 

From http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/corruption/history.html:

The Keating Five scandal from 1989 implicated five senators in another corruption probe. Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Donald Riegle of Michigan, John Glenn of Ohio and Alan Cranston of California, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, were accused of strong-arming federal officials to back off their investigation of Charles Keating, former chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan association. In exchange, the senators reportedly received close to $1.3 million in campaign contributions.

 

The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them.

In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had a]cted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation.

 

 

From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17137136:

The Ethics committee ultimately decided that McCain was guilty of nothing more than poor judgment in meeting with the regulators.

But the incident was a body blow to McCain, according to biographer Robert Timberg.

 

"He said, 'You know, this is the worst thing, the absolute worst thing that ever happened to me,' and I said it can't be the worst thing. I'm sort of amazed that he uses the superlative, considering what had come before that, and he said, 'No, this is worse.' That's how bad it was for him," Timberg said.

 

Probably the most lasting effect of McCain's involvement with the Keating Five is the legislation that he co-authored with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold. The McCain-Feingold law overhauled the way campaigns are funded. McCain denies that the legislation stems directly from that incident, but Timberg isn't so sure.

 

Bringing up the Keating 5 is mud that won't stick. Bringing up an 8-9 year old story with minimal corroborating evidence is mud that won't stick. What next, that McCain sent birthday wishes to a mob boss who retired in Arizona?

[DrDNA]

The point is valid. Maverick is not as squeeky clean, nor as much of a maverick as he claims to be. I am more than a little taken aback that the Keating Five incident has not recieved more press this election cycle.

 

Are you refering to Sammy the Bull?

[iNow]

You think the moral onus of cheating or the ethical onus of favoritism will outweigh the predisposition to rally behind him because of partisan hatred of the New York Times?

 

To be frank, I don't really care what the neocons choose to get upset about on any given week. Gay marriage, border fences, etc... (speaking purely in generalizations, and acknowledging the occasional outlier...) Their *important* issues change with each passing breeze, and their shallow moral outrage doesn't concern me to any great extent.

 

However, the above doesn't address your question.

 

Yes, I think most of them hate McCain enough as it is, so this will just give them fodder and reinforcement for their existing distaste (especially since the NYTimes is no longer the only news outlet running with this).

[DrDNA]

To those who believe that Maverick is actually a maverick and free from the goings on in Washington........

 

Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Hillary Clinton has raised more money from lobbyists than any other presidential candidate while Republican John McCain has more of them assisting his campaign.

 

Clinton took in $823,087 from registered lobbyists and members of their firms in 2007 and the second-biggest recipient was McCain, who took in $416,321, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group which tracks political giving. Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, doesn't take money from registered lobbyists, although he received $86,282 from employees of firms that lobby, according to the center.

 

McCain has 26 registered lobbyists as campaign advisers or fundraisers compared with 11 for Clinton and none for Obama, according to review of records compiled by Public Citizen, a Washington-based group that favors stronger disclosure laws for lobbyists.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080204/pl_bloomberg/apnpwl7xnjik

[Pangloss]

The New York Times Public Editor (ombudsman) took the paper to task today for its decision. This quote cuts to the heart of the matter:

 

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

 

Story here.

[iNow]

The heart of the matter is subjective. From your article also:

 

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

 

 

The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising “poor judgment” by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients.

 

Much of that story has been reported over the years, but it was still worth pulling together to help voters in 2008 better understand the John McCain who might be their next president.

 

I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

 

 

You and the author just read that a different way.

[Pangloss]

It's not just subjective, it's complex. I stand by what I said earlier -- the Times cannot be blanketly condemned for this story, as the far right has been doing, and I don't think that's what Clark Hoyt (the public editor) was doing either. As he says, the Times was on to a good story, and it's one that needs to be reported.

 

Just as it also needs to be reported (and has) that Obama promised to take public money and has since changed his mind, having discovered the wonders that being a front-runner can do for your coffers.

[iNow]

Just as it also needs to be reported (and has) that Obama promised to take public money and has since changed his mind, having discovered the wonders that being a front-runner can do for your coffers.

 

It is an interesting story to follow, but it has far from concluded and it's a bit premature for you to make such an assertion about his current mindset as a result of coffers:

 

 

The facts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103050.html

To understand the background, it is necessary to go back to February 2007, when the Obama campaign raised the possibility of accepting public money with the Federal Election Commission. In a letter to the FEC, lawyers for the Democratic presidential candidate asked whether the campaign could "provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option" of returning the money if an agreement were reached with other candidates on accepting public financing. The FEC ruled on March 1 that this was permissible, as long as the general-election money was kept in a separate account.

 

The Obama campaign is correct in arguing that there is nothing in the letter to the FEC that can be interpreted as a commitment to accept public financing. Obama spokesman Bill Burton told Politico.com last Feb. 28 that the senator would not necessarily commit himself to public financing if the commission approved his proposal. "It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore," Burton told Politico.

 

I agree that this is an interesting story, but it does not yet warrant the conclusion you've made, nor does it seem relevant in a thread regarding the McCain scandal... seems more of a "hey, stop talking about this McCain thing... Look!! Over there!! Obama and funding!!!"

 

 

"Phew... that'll distract them for a while until we can get our hands around this inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist thing..."

 

 

 

 

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

 

McCain's statements since the story have been unequivocal and firm, and now there are at least three seperate sources showing that several of his statements are neither true nor accurate.

 

Newsweek has a good article on the issue:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114819

 

 

The political talk shows immediately huffed about hanging such a potentially damaging story on anonymous sources. Both McCain and Iseman denied that they had a sexual relationship. McCain was unambiguous in his denunciation of the Times story. He stated he had never been warned by his campaign aides that his relationship with Iseman was somehow inappropriate, and the campaign at first insisted that he had not been contacted by the company Iseman represented—Paxson Communications—on the particular matter in question, two letters that McCain, then chairman of the Senate commerce committee, sent to the Federal Communications Commission. (Alcalde & Fay, the lobbying firm that employs Iseman, calls the Times article "completely and utterly false" and describes her as a "hardworking professional whose 18-year career has been exemplary." Iseman herself did not respond to requests for comment.)

 

In his effort to convince voters, particularly conservative ones, that he had been "smeared" by the Times, McCain may have dissembled a bit or misstated the facts.

 

NEWSWEEK has also found a legal deposition in which, contrary to a statement released by his campaign, McCain admitted that he was personally lobbied by Lowell (Bud) Paxson, the president of Paxson Communications—and possibly Paxson's lobbyist, Iseman—to act on a long-stalled bid by Paxson (now Ion Media Networks) to buy a TV station in Pittsburgh. (Paxson told The Washington Post last week that he recalled lobbying McCain about the FCC issue in a meeting in the senator's office set up by Iseman.) McCain had refused to push the FCC for or against, but he did agree to prod the slow-moving bureaucracy to decide one way or the other. With his typically blunt, almost cheery way of admitting the sinfulness of man, including his own weaknesses, he acknowledged in the deposition that his relationship with Paxson—flying on the corporate jet, taking $20,000 in campaign contributions—would "absolutely" look corrupt to the ordinary voter.

 

They seem to have overlooked sworn testimony by McCain himself in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. Lawyer Floyd Abrams, who was representing Sen. Mitch McConnell (a foe of campaign-finance restrictions), asked McCain in a deposition if Paxson had contacted him about the TV station. McCain replied: yes, he had. He agreed to write a letter prodding the FCC to decide—though he had added, "I can't ask for a favorable disposition for you." Abrams asked, "Did you speak to the company's lobbyist about these matters?" McCain said he couldn't recall "if it was Mr. Paxson or the company's lobbyist or both." The company's lobbyist was Iseman.

 

 

This story isn't dead, by any means. There might not be sex, but there is action which is counter to his personal rhetoric and implied saintliness.

[Pangloss]

Just to add a bit to the "aftermath" side of the discussion here, there's been a lot more criticism of the Times article coming from objective (or at least non-partisan/bi-partisan) sources. Howard Kurtz, the generally-recognized singular authority on media analysis, wrote the following the other day:

 

A rough consensus is emerging among journalists that the Times story was fatally flawed.

 

Ouch. This article from the Huffington Post (!) further describes the aftermath (casting the Times in a very negative light), if any are interested:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/bill-keller-im-proud-_b_88437.html

 

I think that aspect of this story has reached a bit of an end point. Ironically, if the Times did screw up here, it may have had a positive impact in bringing the discussion to light, even if it had a negative impact (this is just my perspective here, others may disagree of course) in terms of igniting the conservative base which had been reluctant to support McCain (and it remains to be seen if that will actually happen).

 

But there's another interesting aspect to this that touches on the "Times bias assumption" issue that is so prevalent amongst conservatives -- this article actually seems to demonstrate a LACK of liberal bias at the Times. Though it rather tragically suggests a lowering of standards.

 

(I don't plan on beating this Times drum any more, because I think the resulting McCain situation is a more valuable discussion, but I did want to pass that along.)

[iNow]

I was watching the political programs this weekend, and most of the folks they had on really feel that this story is far from dead.

 

The Times staff were researching this for months, making calls and digging and successfully finding dirt. They had a significant amount of information which cast McCain in a negative light, and which showed inauthenticity and inaccuracies in many of his statements. My understanding is that they published the article so early because they heard of another news source was "sniffing" around and seemed like they might beat them to the "scoop." So... they made the decision to publish what they had before it was actually in a ready state... In retrospect, that appears to have been a poor decision.

 

They really did have a lot of meat in the story though, despite the questionable assertions and references to fornication. My understanding is that this story from the Times also essentially laid the blueprint for all of the other investigative reporters to go and find out more.

 

While the "sex" part won't likely come back, the knocking off the pedestal of self-appointed Saint McCain will definitely hurt him as more facts are brought to light. Michelle Norris from NPR was on Meet the Press, and I think she summed it up best:

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/

I mean, this is a story that will live on through several news cycles, in part because of, in his explanation, he seems to have made statements that other reporters have already, you know, found to be untrue or not completely true. In The Times piece, you know, and, as you said, Hoyt did a strong--almost a strong rebuke in the paper today under the headline "What the McCain Article Did Not Say." However, what it did say has left almost a trail of bread crumbs for every other investigative reporter in, you know, in Washington and Arizona and, and every place in between, to look closely at his record. So he's pushed back strong at The Times and may have helped him within his party, you know, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." some of the conservatives who have questions about him, you know, they may have problems with John McCain, but they have much bigger problems with The New York Times, so he may have won some support there. But it's a story that will live on for weeks and maybe even months, dog him all the way through November potentially.

[Pangloss]

I agree with that. I think the Times' "error" story is more or less over, though I hope there's a lesson learned there (I think there probably was, though they're not likely to admit it openly). The story on McCain is likely to continue.

 

Whether that story is true or not, it seems to underscore what is likely to be the theme of this election -- good ol' boy network versus new blood. Both sides will have "pro" to go with the "con" there, and it's ironic that McCain will be cast as "Bush III", given how different they really are. But they're too similar on Iraq, and this establishes a secondary connection in terms of hinting corruption, pandering, favoritism, etc, which may overwhelm those differences. Whereas Obama has very little baggage. It's really hard to see how that will translate to anything less than an overwhelming Obama victory in the fall.

[DrDNA]

If McCain continues to paint himself as a maverick and above the back room dealings of Washington, but continues to accept money from lobby groups and employ professional lobbyists in key posts in his campaign (as pointed out in my post above), he will continue to get critisized.

And rightfully so.

However, I do think it is kind of funny that the same pundits that have been critisizing McCain the most, are now defending him.

It seems like a typical case of sibling rivalry/comradery....I beat the hell out of my brother 6 times a day, but he's my brother and if you touch him, I'll beat the hell out of you...... or as was stated in iNOW's post (Ms Norris): the enemy of my enemy is my friend.....

[iNow]

McCain's in the clear with the backing of GW:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163453&title=huckabees-long-goodbye

[ecoli]

If McCain continues to paint himself as a maverick and above the back room dealings of Washington, but continues to accept money from lobby groups and employ professional lobbyists in key posts in his campaign (as pointed out in my post above), he will continue to get critisized.

And rightfully so.

However, I do think it is kind of funny that the same pundits that have been critisizing McCain the most, are now defending him.

It seems like a typical case of sibling rivalry/comradery....I beat the hell out of my brother 6 times a day, but he's my brother and if you touch him, I'll beat the hell out of you...... or as was stated in iNOW's post (Ms Norris): the enemy of my enemy is my friend.....

I was hoping the GOP would split over McCain's nomination. hypocritical pundits

[Pangloss]

Well I wasn't hoping for a split, but I was hoping for a shunning of the far right. Now it looks like the far right is accepting him. Gee, THANKS New York Times. Friggin right-wing media!

[ecoli]

Well I wasn't hoping for a split, but I was hoping for a shunning of the far right. Now it looks like the far right is accepting him. Gee, THANKS New York Times. Friggin right-wing media!

nothing against the republican party by that statement either (I happen to be a member) but, at this point, I think this country needs to divide power and have stronger 3rd parties. I wouldn't mind the dems splitting either.

[ParanoiA]

nothing against the republican party by that statement either (I happen to be a member) but, at this point, I think this country needs to divide power and have stronger 3rd parties. I wouldn't mind the dems splitting either.

 

Yeah, I would absolutely love to see multiple parties. Seems silly to think of 300 million people in america, each with their own individual preferences and ideals, none of which completely match another, and out of all of the possible dynamics of thought, philosophy and principle, we force ourselves in one of TWO categories. WTF?

 

That suggests that to even classify yourself in one group or another requires massive, insane amounts of compromise, depending on exactly how you differ from the "party position". Then when you consider the compromises made in the legislative process between the parties - you may have compromised your beliefs and principles to the point there are but mere traces of them codified in the legislation produced.

 

Seems like multiple parties would provide for a more accurate representation of the party individuals. Less give and take to fit yourself in a slot. Multiple parties could also dampen the effect of towing the party line, I would think. It would almost be preferable to be a "party guy", when you have several different parties involved. I don't know how true that is, but it's interesting.