I think we should POUNCE (0.00 / 0)

John McCain is dishonest

---

by: Fred Gooltz @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:00:10 PM UTC

There's a whole lot more beneath the surface here (0.00 / 0)

You are right to see the most important part as the connecion to the telco lobbyist, and not just any telco lobbyist.

Check out Marcy Wheeler (Emptywheel)'s posts  here and here and here.  McCain's pal lobbied for Paxson and Sinclair media, and for people at the nexus of the Rightwing media and party machine.   Plus she had a rather meteoric rise as a lobbyist, and this seems to be in part tied to McCain.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:08:36 PM UTC

Horrendous article! (4.00 / 1)

If the NYT puts an article on the front page asserting a sexual relationship between a top-tier candidate and a lobbyist, they damned well better have a blue dress. They've got nothing. Zip. Nada. It's a disgusting article that only serves to rally the base around McCain. Republican voters don't give a **** about corruption. The last seven years prove that.

The article should only have been about the lobbyist issues.

---

by: Semblance @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:13:09 PM UTC

There isn't much of a corruption angle (0.00 / 0)

The story was a sex story, but Keller was afraid to give the whole thing, so he watered it down and added a lot of weak corruptiony stuff to muddy the waters and cover their asses.  They shouldn't have published anything.

---

by: jlkenney @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:14:27 PM UTC

Actually it is mostly about corruption (4.00 / 2)

Misuse of office to do favors for a friend's (telco) clients.  Check this analysis out at Left Coaster.  You guys are missing the point here.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:37:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The coverage is actually surprising me... (0.00 / 0)

Although I guess it shouldn't have.

When I read it, it basically just thought that it didn't really accuse McCain of cheating, just said that his advisors at the time suspected it.  So, denials from both camps and it's over, right?

I guess not...  But I also think that the media coverage OF the NYT story is actually covering the "sex" more than what the actual story suggests.  The story is basically about McCain's ethical problems, and I feel like it actually does try to present it in a "too close to lobbyists" way... But the rest of the media just exploded on the "sex scandal".

I suppose it was just naive of me to think that the media would let a potential "sex scandal", even with not much more than the word of a few staffers, go.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:25:37 PM UTC

Still seems pretty weak (0.00 / 0)

Even the stuff around corporate influence, by McCain. EVERYONE does that (although again, yes, they shouldn't).

If it is standard SOP (assuming there is nothing to the sex angle) then what's the big deal?

On the other hand - the clear difference of how democrats are treated, and how Republicans are treated REALLY rankles.  Very badly.

One whole day on a couple of comments by the WIFE of a candidate.

All the "Hillary is evil!!" by Matthews and company.

It's not an even playing field.  

The big issue is maintaining the same standards for democrats and republicans - or even between candidates! - but HOW does one do that?

I have some thoughts - a weekly wiki, or online database, that would take some of the stuff from Media Matters, but give it some flair.  

Put outrageous/lying statements by pundits into a computational rating system, whereby all pundits/reporters are rated by their ACTUAL accuracy, and "objectivity" in the sense of reporting the truth of a subject (not he said/she said).

Other than this, it's a constant, enduring struggle, to push back against the corporatist Republican media, aided and abetted by the VRWC, and their funders.

---

by: JC @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:29:43 PM UTC

Sex matters (0.00 / 0)

This story wouldn't have lived past one news cycle if it weren't for the sex. The lobbyist influence stories seem to fall into the background these days (Rezko who?), as though the low-information voters think this is a matter of how you characterize how the other side plays the game.
The missing link in these stories is where the anonymous associates say this:

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

There is no clarity here what McCain was acknowledging, and what he said in the press conference is that he has done nothing wrong, contradicting what the anonymous associates said here. I think McCain gets a pass unless these associates come forward and stand by their story and clarify what McCain admitted to.

---

by: johnalive @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 00:28:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why should McCain get a pass? .. (0.00 / 0)

He cheated on his first wife with his present one.  Of course CNN and the rest would rather beat up on the NYT.

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:10:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look at this TMP article (0.00 / 0)

What Did McCain Actually Do for Iseman's Clients?

 

I'll save you the suspense - "thin gruel", as it turns out. 

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:32:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's a political consequence if Open Left ignores this story (4.00 / 1)

Whether he did anything or not, McCain showed bad judgment by putting himself in this position, so it goes in the frame of McCain's bad judgment that began in the Keating Five scandal where the Senate ethics committee first tagged him for it. So we should keep hitting him with it.

Also, all humility aside, Open Left has an existence now as part of the progressive blogosphere. Ben Smith at the Politico wrote a story about skepticism among liberal blogs.

Greg Sargent, at TPM's Horse's Mouth, writes that the Times doesn't "have the goods" and "shouldn't have gone there." Matthew Yglesias accuses the Times of "shameful" dealings in "innuendo," though he's interested in the sex-free, lobbying aspects of the story. Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft calls it "troubling" and bad for Democrats. Kevin Drum writes of the Times that "there's no way that they 'nailed' anything."

Other blogs - like MyDD, despite some passing glee; DailyKos; and, mostly, OpenLeft - are essentially ignoring the story. Carpetbagger Report seems almost alone in obsessing about it.  [UPDATE: Not totally alone: AmericaBlog has been all over it, and partisan as you'd like, as has Atrios, as has Firedoglake.]

What a great way to tamp this scandal down by saying that even the fearsome partisan liberal blog activists are turning up their noses.
It's not politically neutral for Open Left to ignore this story; and it's actually helpful to McCain and the Republicans just as it was when dandy John Kerry and his supporters/surrogates failed to pursue a number of lines of attack against George Bush.

We don't have to wallow in the scandal, get crude and nasty about it, but we should keep amplifying and advancing the story and tying it into McCain's reputation.

---

by: johnalive @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the more damning aspect is the notion that McCain's aides (4.00 / 4)

were 'protecting him from himself' as if his judgment was so not to be trusted as to make him a danger to himself. If his closest aides didn't trust him to not do something that would destroy his entire career, how can the American people trust his judgment when our safety and security are on the line?

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

---

by: Reality Bites Back @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:30:11 PM UTC

The Times played it wrong (4.00 / 3)

They should have gone with the WaPo approach, which was to focus exclusively on the lobbyist angle.  Then you let folks ask questions on their own about whether there was something more, and then later on you write an article with evidence of something more, if there is more.

---

by: barath @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:36:10 PM UTC

Some thoughts: (4.00 / 1)

So it seems to me there's really three "stories" here.

1. The "McCain might have had an affair with a lobbyist, maybe" story.

2. The "McCain may have engaged in granting improper influence, access and favors to a lobbyist" story.

3. The "For whatever reason, McCain's aides were so worried about the appearance of impropriety with this lobbyist that they played weird games to keep the two apart" story.

Story #1, personally, I don't find very interesting; and even if story #1 is true, no one will ever be able to prove it. Stories #2 and #3, on the other hand, I find extremely interesting; and since stories 2 and 3 concern things that specifically happened in public, those stories are actually empirically verifiable.

I think the NYT did themselves, and all of us, a disservice by making story #1 so central when they broke the story. For one thing, the precise way in which they did so was journalistically questionable and arguably aids the trivialization of U.S. political media. For another thing, the existence of story #1 gives McCain an out on all this-- he can change the focus from "what did McCain do?" to "how dare the media report on this?". McCain is already doing this, using the NYT's article to fundraise and whatnot. Because NYT pushed the flimsy story #1 so hard, there is a risk that it will overwhelm the much more interesting and more well-grounded stories 2 and 3.

However, in his response to all this I think McCain might have overreached and in the process maybe negated the NYT's errors in the long run. McCain's denials went beyond just denying the affair or denouncing the NYT's "gutter politics" or whatever, and actually stepped into denying the facts of stories 2 and 3-- denying he influence peddled, denying his staff was concerned about this. And these denials seem to have included things-- like the concern on the part of the staff, like specific details of the letter McCain wrote to the FEC-- which as far as I can tell were either fairly well sourced or simply fact.

This is a problem for McCain for several reasons. First off, because stories 2 and 3 concern verifiable facts, McCain might well have just put him into the . Second off, McCain might have just ensured that stories 2 and 3 will reassert themselves and drown out story 1. It's in McCain's interest to keep everyone focused on story 1-- as long as the question is McCain's denials vs the NYT's innuendo, McCain can keep on the "how dare they" narrative and away from anything provably true or meaningfully damaging. But as soon as story 2 asserts itself, that stops working. McCain can't pull the "how dare they" thing there, because McCain's closeness with lobbyists during a presidential campaign is clearly of immediate public interest. And McCain can't simply blanket deny everything about stories 2 and 3, because, um, some of the things he's already denying about stories 2 and 3 may actually be true.

And if McCain really did deny some things which are actually true, then he's in trouble. At that point the storyline shifts from "what did McCain do?" to "why did the NYT print this?" to "why did McCain claim he didn't do X, Y, Z when he did"? It seems very likely that, at the least, some of McCain's denials will lead to this whole thing being kept alive for another couple of news cycles as news orgs run around fact-checking exactly what the aides on McCain's campaign in 2000 were doing, exactly what McCain did on behalf of this lobbyist, etc. And once that information starts getting out into the open, the question of "what did McCain do?" becomes relevant-- perhaps in the sense of, okay, if he wasn't having an affair, then what WAS he doing? So far the McCain camp has evaded answering that by implying it's gutter politics even to ask the question. That might not work indefinitely. If they use that to denounce a corruption/lobbyist story, it becomes blatantly obvious that they're basically just attacking the press for doing their jobs.

I think the challenge here for progressives is going to be using this to draw focus to the ties between McCain's campaign and lobbyists; it may be possible to demonstrate that this wasn't the only lobbyist uncomfortably close to McCain's campaign, just the only one that got the innuendo of a hypothetical sex scandal attached. Meanwhile except to the extent of pointing out differences between how the media reacted to this story and how they once reacted to the tiniest rumors of things Clinton had done, I don't think it's specifically to our benefit to keep story #1 alive; anyway, it looks like the rightwingers may wind up keeping that angle alive all on their own...

---

by: mcc @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:47:27 PM UTC

Moral Values. (4.00 / 1)

   Obama has a great opportunity here.  He should start taking back "moral values" for the left-wing.  Obama should not directly mention the scandal.  He should, however, start running on his moral values.  He has impeccable character, and  has shown that he is popular among religious voters.  Perhaps he should thrown in some nice religious rhetoric.  The fusion of high morality and progressive values could make the movement unstoppable.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:49:14 PM UTC

It would be great (4.00 / 1)

if Obama would come out and say who McCain has sex with is of no interest to the rest of the country... unless it impacts the decisions that he is makes on behalf of the country.  I just hope that the Lincoln Savings and Loan stuff comes up with all of this. McCain has skeletons that should rattle louder than sex with an attractive young woman.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 00:13:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

when the movie comes out, I am sure there will be a scene (0.00 / 0)

a la "All the President's Men," will Bill Keller and his staff in a craggy meeting room, with two televisions on, one with Michele Obama and the other with Cindy McCain," and Keller, throwing a wadded up newspaper on the table and  says, "That's it, lets print it!"

---

by: eyesonthestreet @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:59:44 PM UTC

I'm a pretty staunch Democrat (0.00 / 0)

I'm horribly appalled to see the tripe the NYT published yesterday. They very well better have more than they published or they're not better than the crappy innuendo blogs I find myself on when I'm drunk and bored.

Talk about giving Limbaugh the excuse he needed to rally behind McCain...

I will openly weep my forgiveness if the NYT has more than they brought, but what they published yesterday was gossipy garbage.

z

---

by: zinfab @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:25:12 AM UTC

BS (0.00 / 0)

I don't care for McCain, or his hypocrisy, and I know he would make a lousy president but bringing this story up now after all of these years is absurd.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:46:51 AM UTC

I worry (4.00 / 1)

That this event will have the perverse impact of immunizing McCain from future discussion his lobbying connections, Keating 5 indiscretions or anything else he might have done when corruption was the norm in the Republican congresses of 94-06.

Much like impeachment became politically unfeasible since the Republicans already ruined it by abusing it.  

It's nice that for once McCain's past is getting some attention, but if all it brings is sympathy for poor John McCain being picked on by the liberal media with unfounded sex stories, instead of his actual questionable ethical practices as a Senator, then we'll be worse off trying to reraise the genuine issues here.

I still don't see why the TNR running a story "forced" the NYT to run it now.  

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:15:37 AM UTC

Rightwing spin, not truth (4.00 / 3)

The best defense to a scandal like this is to claim that it actually strengthens the candidate. We've been angry with our candidates or each other for adopting/using rightwing memes, but we have to try harder not to be so gullible for rightwing defense.

If Rove said it was smart to go after the opposition's strengths, then the inverse will also be attempted; make your own candidate's weakness his strength. Right now, this story is McCain's weakness. Don't believe what anybody else tells you.

---

by: johnalive @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:37:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

a little off the topic (0.00 / 0)

I heard on the radio that McCain is being investigated because he took a loan to fund his foundering campaign which was guaranteed by federal matching funds, which means he is now obligated to accept public financing.  If so, he is outta money for the next 6 months.  

I heard mention of this a few weeks ago, but today it was reported (I think on NPR) as active investigation.  I dont have more documenation, but if anyone has more information about it, it would be good to read.

If McCain is obligated to publically finance his campaign, this seems like a huge story.  His campaign will face a huge handicap against the Democratic money machine.  

---

by: winston smith @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:26:09 AM UTC

the story is circulating now (0.00 / 0)

link.

---

by: winston smith @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:30:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I never in my lifetime would have thought that I would... (4.00 / 2)

...ever hear these words:

"If McCain is obligated to publically finance his campaign, this seems like a huge story.  His campaign will face a huge handicap against the Democratic money machine.  "

Democratic money machine... sweet music to my ears!!!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:31:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you need to read this Adam B diary (4.00 / 1)

on John McCain and the FEC.  McCain has two problems:  One, he arguably used the public money as collateral, and two, the FEC can't approve his withdrawal since it is not functioning right now.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:53:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

As soon as I got home I checked DailyKos for the story, but I didnt see it.  Thanks for the link.

---

by: winston smith @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:00:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what an awful news day for McCain (0.00 / 0)

The moment he becomes the de facto nominee, the first big story on the guy is this.  To me, that's the real significance of this story - the degree to which is retards all momentum.

Also, I love the public financing link above, thanks for postingthat.

---

by: TValley @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:42:32 AM UTC

This isn't directed at you Chris (4.00 / 3)

but Democrats in general. I am over the whole "we are above the fray" tenor that I see here and elsewhere.

My priority is to take McCain down. Period.

If this is even remotely true- ie, the cozying up to lobbists, then this is a story that needs to be reported. It's really that simple.

We can sort out what's accurate, and what's not. but it needs to be out there. I am done reading comments such as "I am a staunch Democrat, but because I didn't feel this was perfect, we shouldn't have read it in the NY Times." Why? Because that's not the real world. This is about circumstantial, imperfect evidence, that may , because of reporting lead to more evidence.

THe appproach of the party should be to be quiet and let this play out with the GOP and Mccain. I trust that they are loud on this because they know that it won't play out well. It confirms the base's concerns.

Finally, I do appreciate the battered Democrat syndrome, but it really is getting old that people can't recognize their own bias towards being beat down.

We are all to willing to rip fellow progressives apart for the slightest perceived offense (a la Edwards) but heaven forbid that there is nothing beyond a smoking gun with McCain standing over the corpse yelling "Yes, I did it you liberal fucktards" before we are willing to go on the offensive. It's just kind of fucked up- our priorities I mean. Mines again is to beat McCain, and then sort out 'fairness' which actually sees less to do with fairness and everything to do with feeling good. As the reporters said, they asked everyone they could to ge the best story they could. Are they lying? Time will tell. but should they have reported this?

Let me ask tyou this- if this weren't the GOP nominee- do you think it would be unimportant to know this about an elected official? I don't. I would still want to know. I would still think we need to know, even if the story is still forming.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:27:16 AM UTC

Remember Charles Keating, Neil Bush and John McCain (0.00 / 0)

We should not let John McCain and the Republican noise machine drown out the truth.  This isn't the first time that "Straight-talking" John has advocated for a good "friend."  In the words of that other experienced Washington leader, Hillary Clinton, "Lobbyists are people too." (Probably, not an exact quote, but you get the gist).  

Hillary and John would have us believe that ordinary "people," like Charles Keating, who happen to contribute hundreds of thousands to politicians are just "friends."  The fact is that they spend that money because it is effective in producing results that influence decisions in Washington.

I believe if the media were really free, these kinds of connections to a verifiable historical record would be made.  I'm hoping that someone in the media or one of the campaigns will pick this up.  I'm hoping that someone will remind voters of the billions of dollars of their taxpayer money that were transfered to savings and loans that were run by "people," like Neil Bush, George Sr's son and Director of Silverado, to bail him out.  

It would be a different country if reporters would have the courage to make the connection between the Republican agenda, the Washington lobby and the effort to reduce government regulation.  The historical record is clear that the deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry leads to bad management, and worse, corruption and fraud.  That coupled with the Washinton lobby reduces the risks to the point that bad behavior is rewarded rather than punished.  There is always the possibility of a government bailout at taxpayer's expense.  Is it any wonder that lobbyists spend freely to influence politicians?

Instead the popular press decries itself as liberal and goes on protecting corruption by giving space to right-wing nonsense.

 

---

by: gl @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:48:35 AM UTC