the McCain lobbyist scandal

[deep]

Well this is the part I find interesting. The story doesn't even really mention an affair, yet McCain's team were very quick to deny an affair...

WTF

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk


By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

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.

 

[BVS]

My bad, I didn't think the original article mentioned a romantic relationship but that came out later...

 

[deep]

that's ok

I think you may have been influenced by a frequent poster in this thread

i think the romance/ sex scandal is what gets all the attention

and the article played it up

with this picture and labling

'The lobbyist Vicki Iseman, whose relationship
with Mr. McCain troubled some of his aides.'

 

[Dreadsox]

couldn't the aides have been worried about two things? the appearance of this close relationship to one particular lobbyist, as well as the possibility of an affair going on between the two?

THe quotes I have provided are coming from the NYT Editors who say that they could NOT RUN THE STORY WITHOUT THE ROMANTIC PART BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THE AIDES WERE CONCERNED WITH. The article I linked you to was written by the "People's Editor" of the New York Times. He interviewed and reported that there was NO STORY to run if there was no "Romantic" innuendo, as quoted by their NEWS EDITOR.

If there was no story to run without this, then everything you say below is WRONG.

I am providing quoted from the NYT EDITORS. Not some independant source.


[Q]it's a slippery area, i agree, but i feel the general discussion has pretty much missed the issue, the NYT could have been more skillfull about this, but i think the fundamental assertion of the story is 100% correct.[/Q]


I am starting to wonder if Deep is correct about you and this issue.

NO STORY WITHOUT THE ROMANCE - NYT STAFF - implies that indeed there is NOTHING involving McCain doing ANYTHING WRONG. There is no other evidence.

YET:O)

I am also tired of being told I missed the issue. Honestly, I have provided more factual first hand information adressing the article. At every turn you say I am missing the point, or imply it. However you want to look at it. But if you reread, very few of my posts address the romantic part of the story.

 

[Bluer White]

a crippled McCain would open the the door for......

enter:

stage right? - no

stage left? - no

STAGE CENTER ?? -

Hmmm...Color me intrigued. The only guy who could match Obama dollar for dollar.

 

[Irvine511]

I agree it doesn't seem to add up, could be the paper simply wanted to print the story before another organization beat them to it.

You'd think the Times must have more concrete evidence of an affair. But then for McCain to come out and categorically deny any affair, and not hedge at all on it......if there is real evidence it will be ugly for him.

this strikes me as perceptive.

there's both no "there" there, and yet there's this weird trail of breadcrumbs ...

 

[Irvine511]

THe quotes I have provided are coming from the NYT Editors who say that they could NOT RUN THE STORY WITHOUT THE ROMANTIC PART BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THE AIDES WERE CONCERNED WITH. The article I linked you to was written by the "People's Editor" of the New York Times. He interviewed and reported that there was NO STORY to run if there was no "Romantic" innuendo, as quoted by their NEWS EDITOR.

if you're talking about *why* the NYT chose to run this story, what matters most is what Bill Keller had to say. and what he had to say is this i posted earlier in the thread.

I am also tired of being told I missed the issue. Honestly, I have provided more factual first hand information adressing the article. At every turn you say I am missing the point, or imply it. However you want to look at it. But if you reread, very few of my posts address the romantic part of the story.

what i think you are missing is that, for their to be an inappropriate relationship -- sexual or otherwise -- there needs to be *proof* that Iseman somehow benefited from said relationship to McCain. that she was able to win political favors from him that would have been impossible to have gotten had she not been so close to the Senator -- either in his bed, or not.

and, yes, that misses the point, in my respectfully presented opinion.

what matters, here, is the perception of a close relationship to the Senator -- sexual or not -- and the consternation this caused his staff in the late 1990s because if this relationship -- sexual or not -- became well-known, it would completely derail the central narrative of his political life, one that he tried so hard to rebuild after the Keating scandal.

that is the story.

is there more?

go back and read the Brooks article i posted.

does not bode well for Mr. McCain.

 

[Irvine511]

THe quotes I have provided are coming from the NYT Editors who say that they could NOT RUN THE STORY WITHOUT THE ROMANTIC PART BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THE AIDES WERE CONCERNED WITH. The article I linked you to was written by the "People's Editor" of the New York Times. He interviewed and reported that there was NO STORY to run if there was no "Romantic" innuendo, as quoted by their NEWS EDITOR.

If there was no story to run without this, then everything you say below is WRONG.

I am providing quoted from the NYT EDITORS. Not some independant source.

i want to revisit this.

i think you're misreading something. Abramson did not say that they could not have run it without the romantic innuendo. they could have. she never said "we couldn't run it without it." what she did say is that, were it to run without the innuendo, "That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed.”

i take that to mean that the story was more truthful, to those reporting, with the inclusion of the information that the aides were worried about the romantic affair. it does not mean that the story had no legs without an affair, and that the NYT thusly failed to prove that, and thus the whole article falls apart.

what that does mean is that the decision to include the innuendo -- which, in retrospect, they probably wish they hadn't, and if you'll read the Post article, it doesn't have any of that -- was probably a step too far, and it was egg on their face in that it got the conservatives to circle the wagons around McCain. a net loss for the Times.

so it's not that there was NO STORY without the innuendo. it's that they probably made a tactical error including the innuendo.

here's what the article you cited also had to say:

[q]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. [/q]

 

[Dreadsox]

If they had one shred of anything they would have removed the romantic line and run the story. The had nothing else, and without the ROMATIC angle their own people say they would not have run the story because it would not be TRUE TO THE STORY.

PERIOD - END OF STORY

They had nothing except for two disgruntled former employees who would not go on the record with anything other than concerns that there was a "romantic" relationship.

The former employee who went on the record said he made the decision to speak with her about what she was "saying around town". That his concern was NOT WITH THE SENTATOR. His concern was with HER BEHAVIOR, not his.

The Senator's letter to the FCC took no side in the deal that her firm was involved in. The FCC Chair backed McCain. Another lobbyist, Backed McCain.

It seems that this whole thing makes McCain's story - SOLID.

 

[Irvine511]

WTF

if you read closely,

you'll see that the article does not allege an affair.

it cites worry over a potential affair,

and the damage that would do to the "maverick" from Arizona.

 

[Irvine511]

If they had one shred of anything they would have removed the romantic line and run the story. The had nothing else, and without the ROMATIC angle their own people say they would not have run the story.

PERIOD - END OF STORY

then why did the Post run essentially the same story WITHOUT the innuendo?

as i did above, i think you have misread what Jill Abramson had to say.





[q]The former employee who went on the record said he made the decision to speak with her about what she was "saying around town". That his concern was NOT WITH THE SENTATOR. His concern was with HER BEHAVIOR, not his.[/q]


the concern was the *appearance* of the relationship, and the closeness of the relationship. thus, they told the candidate to say away from her, so that she'd then look like a fool if she were to run her mouth off about said relationship.




[q]The Senator's letter to the FCC took no side in the deal that her firm was involved in. The FCC Chair backed McCain. Another lobbyist, Backed McCain.[/q]

but the issue isn't the favor.

the issue is having someone who appears to be in a position to win favor.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]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. [/Q]

I will revisit this if you like.

1) The Keating Scandal refernced above -

Bill Bennet who was a Democrat involved in the prosecution of the case - very clearly recommended that MCCAIN was guilty of nothing yet the congress still reprimanded him. So the 1991 reference is WAAAAAYYYYYYY out of bounds.

2) You have been saying all along that the issue is not weather or not McCain did something wrong. Yet clearly the TIMES implies that he did. I have quoted NUMEROUS sources relative to the letter to the FCC that MCCain wrote that demonstrate he did NOTHING WRONG.

I disagree with your interpretation of the quote by the editor. I quoted her originally because you have been saying it is not about the romance....... yet clearly based on her statement, there was no story without it.

Anyway, you can interpret it your way. I eagerly await to see what position you take if the Obama story breaks once the trial starts for the people he was involved with. Since it is clear the the "implied relationships" without evidence of wrongdoing - is apparently in bounds.

 

[Irvine511]

2) You have been saying all along that the issue is not weather or not McCain did something wrong. Yet clearly the TIMES implies that he did. I have quoted NUMEROUS sources relative to the letter to the FCC that MCCain wrote that demonstrate he did NOTHING WRONG.

what were the accusations of wrongdoing made by the original article?

I disagree with your interpretation of the quote by the editor. I quoted her originally because you have been saying it is not about the romance....... yet clearly based on her statement, there was no story without it.

then we can agree to disagree.

the way i read it, they could have run without the innuendo -- as the Post quite obviously did, and that seems to me to totally negate your point that there is no story without the innuendo -- but they felt it the article was more accurate *with* the innuendo.

and that might be where they made a misjudgement.

 

[Dreadsox]

The original article spends a great deal of time on the Keating Five, and goes on to imply that the FCC letter was somehow inappropriate of McCain to write.

 

[Irvine511]

The original article spends a great deal of time on the Keating Five, and goes on to imply that the FCC letter was somehow inappropriate of McCain to write.

you might feel that McCain was exonerated, and that's legitimate, but it is not illegitimate to look at how this rather major event has played out in his political narrative, which was the intention of these series of articles titled, "The Long Run."

i can re-read the article (haven't looked at it since Friday, but i have read it several times) but it seemed to me that it was about the reaction to the possibility of impropriety that was the issue at hand.

how do you feel about the Post article?

here it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002898.html

also, of note:

[q]On Saturday, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Newsweek all said McCain's denials about the Times' article contradicted earlier statements of his that he did have contacts with two business clients of Iseman, 40.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw

[/q]

 

[Dreadsox]

This will sound like I am running out on this....but it is the last night of my vacation and I need to spend some time with my kids before it all ends.

 

[Irvine511]

This will sound like I am running out on this....but it is the last night of my vacation and I need to spend some time with my kids before it all ends.

no worries at all.

i'm out in the field for the next 7 days, so i doubt anyone will hear much of me after tonight.

i appreciate the dialogue. you've forced me to think about the article and the issues and my reaction to them.

good luck going back to school.

 

[Dreadsox]

Be well - maybe something will come up to move either of us in one direction or the other.

Peace