The New York Times has a shameful hit piece out on McCain that accuses him, without definitive evidence, of carrying out an extramarital affair eight years ago with a telecom lobbyist that had business before his committee. It presents a couple of questions about his conduct…essentially, whether he provided his alleged mistress any preferential treatment or disclosed a free ride on her corporate jet. But it is thin gruel.
What is significant is that the sources for this article are former McCain staffers that contacted the Times in December, before the primaries started. They clearly intended to derail his nomination not destroy the candidacy of the Republican nominee, which is what this article threatens to do now.
The McCain campaign issued a statement late tonight.
Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign issued the following statement Wednesday night:
“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.”
This statement doesn’t deny the affair, although both McCain and the lobbyist denied it to the Times reporters covering this story. Nonetheless, I think it’s a thin story. I wouldn’t have published it. Frankly, I don’t care about infidelity, and that is not even proven here. To show preferential or unethical behavior, more reporting needs to be done. The Times will take a well deserved hit for publishing this piece.
Actually, it helps McCain. McCain has conservative problems, and nothing (besides a Clinton nomination) galvanizes conservatives like an obviously biased attack from the New York Times against a Republican. Moreover, at this juncture in the race, Obama will have to say that it’s no big deal – lacking evidence of malfeasance – so that will shoo it away, and when someone brings it back up in September or October folks will be like, “Eh, we already saw that.” It also counters some of the Old Man sentiment out there.
I think this helps McCain, a lot. I’d be more than happy to be wrong, though.
I’m curious about the motivations behind this. Is this a Dem plot to weaken the Republican candidate, or GOP infighting between factions? Or just cheap sensationalism by the increasingly disreputable paper the NYT has become?
Frankly, there’s so much hard, factual dirt available on McCain’s actual embezzling junkie trophy wife that it hardly seems necessary to go after the very faint appearance of evil in this case.
Me too. Why this? Why now? Who pushed for this?
Like a large number of political slime in America, it’s not so much the slime but rather the ultimate slime-generator.
(Lisa, yesterday I happened to have reread DiEugenio’s essay on the Fourth Estate’s sliming of the two dead Kennedy brothers.)
won’t help his fund-raising from those who dislike him at the gate -ultra conservative and theocons who wrap themselves in “family values”
Hehehe.
McCain’s ethics has always been under a cloud; reaching into ancient history – the Keating 5 – S&L debacle.
This NYT article has been played worldwide especially in the financial news media.
“Please lord, let there be a stained blue dress somewhere.”
I don’t see why anyone besides a Huckophile, or perhaps a Romnoid, would be praying for a stained blue dress.
Democrats don’t need any such thing to whomp the Republicans in 2008. The only threat the Democrats face is Hillary.
Every estranged Republican voter that doesn’t make their way out to the polls just gives that much more chance of a total downticket annihilation. That’s the only reason why.
Good point.
It’s an odd article. It starts out with the sex angle and then it devolves into a history lesson. For anybody who doesn’t already know the Keating story I think it would be somewhat hard to follow.
To me the biggest question isn’t about McCain’s alleged infidelity but rather who wants this rumor to officially hit the newstands right now.
If the staffers talked to the Times in December (and how weird is it that they would go to the Times And not whatever NY paper it is that prints stuff like this but is considered a level higher than the Enquirer. The Daily News?) why is it hitting the stands now?
Although I somewhat agree with Oscar. If a smear is going to hit him, this is probably the best time. Huckabee isn’t a threat and it’s long before the convention and the GE.
I think they’re fishing (phishing?). They feel like there is something there, they really think the evidence is out there, but they don’t have it yet.
The main source for this story is John Weaver who used to be described as McCain’s Karl Rove. He left when McCain’s campaign melted down last summer. As I recall, it was ugly. But he didn’t join another campaign.
So could this just be revenge? If he tried out the story last December – maybe he thought Romney was going to win anyway. Or hoped he would.
I did not know everything about the Keating 5 scandal but the long and heavily-edited piece filled in the blanks for me.
The stuff about the alleged affair was weak, though there may be something more to come out about that – who knows. Perhaps the NYT didn’t want to get too raunchy. They don’t even publish naughty words. Don’t be surprised if it comes out in another reputable, but less restrained outlet any day now.
I have heard (on CNN, I think) that the story was leaked to the NYT in mid-November and the NYT was heavily questioning him about it around Thanksgiving. He and the lobbyist lawyered up over it, even. They had intended to run it in late December if it developed into anything really solid, which would have killed his primary run just before Iowa. They decided not to run it for whatever reason at the last minute and they shelved it.
Then just in the last couple weeks, The New Republic was going to write a feature about the controversy inside the NYT newsroom about this story. And now -guess what – the NYT runs the story, (possibly to make it look like they’re not protecting McCain as they did Bush on wiretapping before the 2004 election, who knows.)
At the end of the article where they talked about the favors he may have done for her clients (writing letters to FCC regulators pushing for them to approve certain media consolidation rules) is what really pricked up my ears. This seemed like the really disgraceful part to me. It’s unfortunate that it required such a titillating article about a naughty affair for anyone to bother reporting about any of the characters or their crimes behind what’s happened to our media ownership rules. I really didn’t know he was such a champion of this. I have really lost respect for him over that part. To think when I lived in AZ in 2004, I actually voted for his re-election because I thought he was an ethical Senator.
And with the revelations behind his high-pressure role in the deregulation of our broadcast media, there should be no more mystery behind why the big media giants have treated him so favorably in his presidential run from the get-go. So don’t expect to hear about anything but the sex bits on TV.
The article is odd because the lawyers have been through it comma by semi-colon. Apparently McStain’s lawyers had wind of this early on, and put the heat on the Times, who came out with it only because someone else was finally going to spill the beans. This article is smoke fueled by a raging fire.
The NYT and WaPo both have long and scurrilous histories of political sliming. It’s early, but someone farther east is probably awake enough to remember the examples. These two newspapers, when it comes to political hit pieces, are the Nat. Enquirer with gravitas.
That is good.
That was the first thought that crossed my mind and I even just posted something similar on my own blog.
And not in a public restroom. And she wasn’t running escort ads either.
Fuck this shit, Booman. “Shameful hit piece”, my ass.
If it was good enough for Clinton, it’s good enough for McCain. Last night I watched ABC News all but declare Obama a cult leader who’s coming for your daughter or son. Meanwhile O’Reilly’s talking about lynching the dude’s wife. And you’re worried that the New York Times is treating McCain unfairly. Boo hoo. Boo fucking hoo hoo hoo hoo. I weep tears of piss for the Bullshit Express, who voted Guilty on Clinton’s impeachment while he was sticking his dick in a woman that’s not his wife. Boo hoo hoo for Senator Straight Talk. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.
McCain not only cheated on his [second] wife, he gave his mistress preferential treatment and took a free ride on her jet where he probably joined the Mile High Club (if the old codger was able to maintain an erection). And shocker of shockers, someone’s made political hay out of it.
Is it true? Who fucking cares? McCain certainly didn’t in the 1990s, why should he be extended any special courtesy?
Hand. The. Man. His. Anvil.
Bob Dole showed the way, Viagra.
If there’s anything more behind the story than the sex let’s hope it comes out soon. Because what we have right now is a clear manipulation of the political landscape by someone. Rather than enjoy this too much, people need to figure out who’s behind it and why.
from the times:
More from Digby.
It was hilarious listening to Glenn Beck flip out this morning. For the past three weeks, it’s been nothing but scorn and bile for McCain: he’s not a conservative, conservatives should stay home this election, I’m going to kill myself if McCain’s the nominee. This morning, it’s all about the liberal new york times making a classic hit piece on the honorable John McCain, who didn’t do anything wrong, and it was legal then anyway (which made me laugh because that sounded very much like Gore’s much-ridiculed “no controlling legal authority”) and on and on and on.
Good times.
ThinkProgress catches exactly what got me interested when I read the article…
And once more comes out about McCain and Iseman each lawyering-up once the NYT started questioning about the story in November, maybe we’ll find out what kind of deal the lawyers were trying to strike with the NYT (a big Media company themselves who want to get into TV) in order to not publish it.
There appears to be ALOT more to this story than an alleged affair. Could it have had anything to do with the FCC desperately forcing the latest round of media ownership rule changes before the end of 2007, despite intense public protest? That round of deregulation involved media companies owning newspapers and TV stations in the same market.
Note that the article talks about Iseman’s big client being Bud Paxson, a fundie media mogul behind the “PAX” media network, later named “i” and now “ion” television, working with NBC Universal. He has owned many TV and radio stations and was very interested in destroying the FCC regulations relating to media ownership – for profit and to help turn our media into the mind-numbing awful disaster that it has become in the last 20 years or so.
We’re not going to hear about much more than the sex angle of this story from big media corporations. This is the REAL job of the blogosphere. I hope others dig a little deeper than it appears Booman is willing to do. Forget the sex. It’s about McCain using his position for many years as Chairman of the committee who oversees the FCC to push for deregulation of media ownership, against the interests of the public. Was there some quid pro quo going on? I think so.
This isn’t about sex at all. It’s about lobbyists, and from a campaign standpoint, it’s brilliant.
From the Republicans’ standpoint it’s too late for anyone else to catch up to McCain, so the only option at this point is for him to back off voluntarily, which he won’t do. Three weeks ago it might have affected the primaries. Now it just causes chaos.
While at the same time it opens a big door for Obama to attack McCain on lobbyist connections.
Four weeks ago it might have helped Romney. Now it’s just a tangle for the Republicans.
Great point. Forget the sex. It’s the ethics of the man:
McCain, just days ago went on a harrang that Obama had made him a pledge to accept public financing. What McCain did not want us to know is that (a) he’s low on cash and (b) he took a ban loan with a covenant to the bank that if he failed to win a primary he would apply for public finance to repay the loan.
McCain, last week voted against the bill banning waterboarding. It’s torture. The bill passed and has been sent to Bush. When the press picks him up on the issue, McCain sent a signal siding with Bush for a Veto.
Thinkprogress:
McCain wants to have it both ways
Mr. Ethics. Not.
No. You Can’t
The Times wasn’t totally in control of the timing after all. When they approached McCain in December, both he and his lobbyist-friend “lawyered up” and that’s what held the story up. But the end result is a disaster for the Republicans.
This is not the Times’ style. I would bet a lot that they have much more than this.
Maybe not their style, but they’ve done this kind of dirty work plenty.
The Times did a similar story on the Clintons’ sex life:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/nyregion/23clintons.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5090&en=9145b8396
9d6cfb4&ex=1306036800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Yeah, right. Some of us do remember The Keating Affair, as well as how he treated his wives. The filthy grasping for sex and money and power all shamefully hidden under a cloak of patriotism.
A Senator brought up for cheating
Was caught in the scandal with Keating
“I’ve never betrayed you
Even though I mis-laid you!”
His hold on reality retreating.
There is material here for several limericks. I’ll be merciful. Momentarily. ;^)
Is Iseman pronounced like Iceman? If so, I’ll not be able to resist… oh, hell:
Ms Iseman comes offering studies
To press a need for broadcasting buddies
McCain feels much bolder
With hand on her…shoulder…
And ownership rules he then muddies.
Given how the corporate media are enabling the devolvement of this country into a Police State, some historians of the future are going to probe every instance where an authoritarian politician helped them obtain power in return for favorable positioning and coverage later. Add a dollop of sexual intrigue and they’ll simply add a value for that transaction to the equation.
I have to go shower and grab a bit of sleep before going out to Pelosi’s office tomorrow. Potential limericks will survive the steam-cleaning. And the rain.
calvin usually finds himself in agreement with BooMan, but not on this issue. It’s important because it exposes Sen. “Straight-Talk” as not being so straight. The media can no longer give him a pass on that BS. There is an old saying that goes something like this, “If he cheated with you, he’ll cheat on you.” This, if true, would be cheat number two. Afterall, he dumped his disabled, older wife just like Newt. Tie that tin can to his butt as well. The general public is much more likely to understand the sex angle than the influence-peddling charge.
Add a heavy does of Keating to this. Now, we start to see why he needs public financing and why he’s kicking up the dust on that issue. It isn’t because he’s “simon pure”, but rather it’s because Obama his kicking dirt in the face, fund-raising-wise, and will continue to do so.
Don’t let the bastard try to take the high road. Rub his nose in it. With dignity and class. For example, “I’d never bring up the fact that Sen. McCain had two affairs while voting against Bill Clinton during his second one. It wouldn’t be right.”
What a clusterF things are at the NYT…
How many stories did they sit on over the last four or five years, because the story or the timing was ‘delicate?’ Yet NOW they feel compelled to push this inuendo onto the scene?
(As an aside, is this the rumored story of Senatorial infidelity that was getting everyone all hot and bothered last fall?)
I almost feel like the NYT has published this specifically because they’ve been called on the carpet over past failure to publish at the right time, but in a half-asssed way that basically boils down to “we’ll show them we won’t sit on a story, even if it makes us look like fools!”
To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, “What the hell is going on up there?!?”
The editorial management of the Times considers itself an unofficial but very important part of the unelected government of this country. Every major story they do is put through than lens. They aren’t reporting, they are manipulating the message. In many deep ways, their relation to the government is like that of the Telcoms who were assured that the President’s word was as good (actually better) than the law of the land. There is no real law for these people other than the law of self-interest.
Watching Morning Joe now. He’s spent all morning questioning NYT’s motives… never talking about what industry the clients of this lobbyist were in (telecommunications, including TV and Radio.) Hmmm. Wouldn’t it be a conflict of interest to be defending McCain without disclosing that their own parent company is or has been represented by this lobbying firm?
CNN has come to McCain’s defense as well. Again, they don’t mention what industries she represented either, or mention any specifics about what kind of favors McCain was doing (pressuring the FCC for further deregulation of TV/Radio ownership.)
Anyhoo, I just can’t wait for the next logical step – put Mcain and his Botox-Barbie wife on the couch on the Today show to explain away how much they love each other and how this never happened, or how she forgives him.
Just wait. More will come out in other publications soon. McCain should go down over this. Not the affair, but for the fact that he’s lying about never doing favors for lobbyists. This could be like DeLay/Abramoff if anyone follows up on it. If we want to fix the FCC (whose commissioners also see no conflict in receiving lavish trips paid for by the industries they regulate,) we NEED to bring this stuff to the forefront.
It’s the perfect debate for Obama to have as well. As someone whose achievements are in the ethics area and with his vision of fixing the media ownership situation. Perfect.
Very good. Measure the response in the media. So one would suspect that this story didn’t originate with the media giants. They’d just assume the actual lobbying story itself stay hidden.
You guys are thinking too hard again.
Always ask “Qui bono?”
Who benefits? Simple as that.
The GOP is reeling right now. They hate McCain and they are getting killed in the primary numbers right now. They need something to rally around, and remember how your average Republican mind works…they are the most united behind an enemy to hate not a leader to lead.
The real motive was to indignantly close ranks and unite the GOP behind John McCain, a weak-ass, easily deniable, easily spinnable hit piece like this is the perfect method. Not everybody in the GOP likes McCain. But they all hate the NY Times.
Voila! Suddenly, even the most anti-McCain Republican is behind “our candidate” because of this story.
Your liberal press in action, ladies and gentlemen. United GOP, hopelessly divided and broken Dems.
As AG would say,
Watch.
I think AG would say
“Bet on it!”
But it’s not that simple. We’ll see how it plays out. But I wouldn’t bet on any of this. There’s more to this story that has yet to come out.
You mean he’s not a doddering old fool looking back on his glory days – he’s really a vigorous and busy studmuffin?
I think it’s all about image, since the race angle isn’t gonna work.
What kind of leader does America want – a Harvard intellectual or a fighter jock with a blonde on each arm?
One more question – where’s Dick?
I’ve been saving this for the day we got distracted by the sex lives of presidential candidates.
Yeah, I’m a tinfoiler, and I hope this is my last comment on the campaign.
But wait – there’s still the subject of underpants.
So this might work to enhance his image from that of being Grover Cleveland’s lovechild? Interesting.
That legislation is some scary stuff.
Alice, no need to apologize about tin foil hats to me. I’m just trying to find the source of the McCain studmuffin radiation aimed at my noggin.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Not so much McCain’s alleged almost an affair. Or even that it was with a lobbyist. What stinks to me was how it was handled.
I was watching Tweety, waiting for Keith, when all of a sudden the screen goes blank. Then up comes the Big Red Breaking News Banner with the Ponderous Urgent Breaking News music to let you know that, this is Something Really Really Important that is, you know, Breaking Right Now. Then Keith comes on to announce that MSNBC is pre-empting Hardball with Some Breaking News. Then our hero launches into a breathless expose of The McCain Affair. The New York Times is reporting This Hour that staffers have had to Intervene to Protect Candidate McCain from Himself. This went on at the same breathless pace for about twenty minutes, complete with Reporters In the Field, and Richard Wolf on the Telelphone.
I heard Several Times about McCain and the Lobbyist being seen together at motels, at campaign events, even on a Corporate Jet. I heard that campaign insiders had Intervened to protect the Senator From Himself because they had become convinced that the Relationship had Become Romantic. The clear implication being that Something New Has Happened since our last regular news report. You know, a couple of hours ago.
I listened carefully to try to make out What Breaking New Thing had happened. I had to parse all the breathless reporting four or five times before I understood clearly that Nothing New Has Happened. In Eight Years. And the Times has been sitting on the story for months since they heard about it from Former Campaign Staffers. About something that may or may not have happened in the 2000 campaign. You know, the one that McCain lost to W. Eight Years Ago.
About the time Keith interrrupted the spiel long enough to shift gears from Breaking News Pre-empting Hardball to Now We’re Continuing the Story on Countdown, it finally soaked through the fog that I was watching a political assassination in progress. I still haven’t figured out who the assassins are, or who actually pulled the trigger.
One thing is fairly clear to me. An eight year old alleged affair is Not The Story Here.
Yeah, eight years ago.
I suspect every politician in Washington has a folder with all sorts of dirt. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover had folders on politicians. That’s why he died in office instead of being retired. Then again, Angleton allegedly had a folder on Hoover. And someone must have had a folder on him. Don’t think that “The Monkey Business” was purely an accident. There were plenty of reasons to collapse Gary Hart’s campaign, and none of them had to do with having a pretty girl sitting on Hart’s lap.
The sex is nothing. The lobbying scandal could have something, but I doubt it’s anything that hasn’t happened times one hundred over the past seven years.
Who’s been pushing this story and for what reason?
The McCains’ Billary Flowers moment.
Cindy and John are on teevee holding a presser.
What do the policies of Huckabee and the Dems have in common? Seems the elites are rigging this one to ensure that intersection of ideas is inexorably to be the policy of the next White House.
This is his “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski” moment.
He basically called The New York Times liars. He denied talking to Bill Keller, except only once briefly. But his lawyer Bill Bennett just admitted 30 minutes ago that they sat down and covered all of The Times’ questions orally and in writing in great detail. He said he did not try to dissuade The Times from running the story, when he DID do exactly that with his lawyer. Most importantly, he demands that he has never done any favors for any lobbyists. That’s utter bullshit.
Now NYT needs to respond by releasing the dirt they withheld in this article. They have no choice. The NYT is not as stupid or sloppy as some are implying.
Will it help or hurt McCain? That’s anyone’s guess.
You know who it will definitely hurt though? Hillary. Now the press at all levels will be so busy covering this story that they won’t have any time to cover her attacks she’s got planned for Obama. She’ll lose the upcoming TX & OH primaries and run out of money.
I don’t know, it’s Obama that is behind in the polls. How does he benefit from having all the focus on the Republican side?
I don’t mean to suggest Obama benefits in any way, but HIllary loses the camera time. She can’t afford that because she’s dropping fast. I don’t think Obama’s behind this story at all. It was given to the NYT in November when it didn’t even look like McCain would be the frontrunner Republican.
Bill Bennett, undercutting his client? That could mean something.
I think this hurts Clinton because we might get to relieve the whole impeachment issue again. Before her campaign went mega-negative, it was Bill’s infidelity and the thought of reliving it that kept me in opposition to her candidacy.
And McCain will be inoculated against any further scandals.