home

My View: The NYTimes Becomes The National Enquirer

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

My thoughts on the NYTimes story on John McCain (Jeralyn writes about it here) are summed up in my headline. More extensive thoughts below the fold.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard 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.

This is irresponsible, even despicable "journalism." Anonymous sources say THEY feared there was a romantic relationship 8 years ago? Suppose for a second, this is relevant, how could you possibly run this with just that? A responsible news organization would not.

But it gets worse.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship.

The two principals flatly denied the existence of a romantic relationship. No one has first hand knowledge or evidence or even can say - yes there was a romantic relationship. A responsible news organization could not possibly run this story.

What of the rest of the story? I do not know. The egregious tabloid journalism practiced by Bill Keller and the New York Times makes the rest of the article seem superfluous.

And let me make this perfectly clear, I do not care if John McCain slept with 20 women. That is between McCain, his wife and his conscience. It has nothing to do with the public. I said that about Bill Clinton. I say it now about John McCain.

During the 1990s, the tabloid press was the first stop to writing about Bill Clinton's sex life. It was "out there" was the mainstream press's excuse for writing about it. Since then, no barriers exist. And now, the Paper of Record, the New York Times, has pushed us to a new low.

There is no place lower to go. We have no responsible press anymore.

< Texas May Be Hillary's Last Chance | McCain Slams NY Times Article Linking Him to Female Lobbyist >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:41:00 PM EST
    Remember the lesson of impeachment: that killed Republicans in the northeastern suburbs for who knows how long.

    Whatever did you do to so irritate (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:34:21 PM EST
    the DKers?  I just dropped into Kos's "Whitewater" piece, but the comments got off track really quickly.  Which is worse, anyhow, you or Whitewater?

    Parent
    off topic! (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    Absolutely. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:46:06 PM EST
    But, as we learned this a.m., TL doesn't yet have a night watch person.  Don't make me read all 500 comments!

    Parent
    What is this (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    "responsible news organization" of which you speak?

    I vaguely recall there was something like that once...before Iraq...

    Just remember, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:53:31 PM EST
    McCain voted to convict Clinton at his impeachment trial.

    Karma.

    And because he is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:57:24 PM EST
    Karma for the entire Republican party.

    Parent
    And that's why the sex angle (none / 0) (#69)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:35:25 PM EST
    is relevant.

    H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

    Parent

    The phrase that comes to mind, of course, is (none / 0) (#2)
    by phat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    "it would be irresponsible of us not to speculate."

    phat

    Remember the Monica Lewinsky scandal (none / 0) (#3)
    by maritza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    started similar to this with a Newsweek article.

    I wonder if there is more to this story.

    It's none of our business though. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    Remember when the shoe is on the other foot. My boss during the Lewinsky stuff was from another country and he said "you Americans are so foolish sometimes".

    Parent
    That is true (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:13:45 PM EST
    but read Jeralyn's take on this: It isn't the sex, it's the influence. McCain had made some decisions based on a close relationship with a lobbyist. So much for Straight-talk.

    Of course, it isn't illegal, but it will expose him to a lot of crap he otherwise would not have gotten. I feel a little more hopeful for an Obama GE campaign now.

    Parent

    After reading all four pages, what is new (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    exactly? He wrote about it in his book if I'm reading the last page correctly.

    If there's anything too bad, I can't believe the Bush campaign didn't make sure this was known if the "relationship" was during the 2000 primary. Maybe they didn't know or maybe the Times is reaching now.

    It seems the Times is trying to create a story out of old news here. And we wonder why so many decent people won't enter politics.

    What of the rest of the story? (none / 0) (#5)
    by robrecht on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:52:42 PM EST
    "What of the rest of the story? I do not know. The egregious tabloid journalism practiced by Bill Keller and the New York Times makes the rest of the article seem superfluous."

    The rest of the article does  not seem superfluous.

    You think not? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    Watch and see how much followup it gets.

    Parent
    I'm withholding judgment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    This isn't about sex, it's about his casting himself as an ethics reformer when he has engaged in conduct that shows differently. Read the whole 4 page article. The hook is that she was a lobbyist, whose clients had business before his committee. He flew on the corporate jet of one of them.

    I don't know why they ran with it today, how long they've been sitting on it or whether there's more.  

    The Times doesn't run stuff like this normally, I suspect there is more but we'll know soon.

    Hopefull, all the candidates will stay away from it.

    If it is NOT about sex (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    then do NOT put the sex in the story.

    Pretty simple.

    Parent

    there were no sex allegations (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:59:30 PM EST
    there was a statement that his aides suspected they had a romantic relationship and both denied it. It's  relevant to the reasons his aides were concerned the woman's access to him would lead to tarnishing his record as a reformer -- because her clients had business before his committee.

    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:01:45 PM EST
    Sure Jeralyn. That is in the story WHY?

    We simply disagree on this.

    Parent

    So what? (none / 0) (#27)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:12:57 PM EST
    It's an unseemly fact that was revealed by the NYT.  It's not Jeralyn's duty to limit the damage done to McCain.  She's not out there hitting McCain below the belt.  There is no need for Democrats to sweep the unseemly back up under the rug.  It's not their job.  It's not democrats fault that McCain got hit once when Democrats have been hit far worse far more often.  So don't ever forget that Republicans have benefited from this slime.  Once again.  Spare me the outrage.  I agree it's bad journalism but let's keep a little perspective here.

    Next thing you know the Democrats will be voting on the Senate floor a bill to sanctify the marriage of St. McCain.  

    Parent

    I am not talking about Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    I am talking about the NYTimes.

    I am talking about irresponsible journalism.

    Parent

    My question is (none / 0) (#93)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:13:01 AM EST
    why now? The Times supposedly has had this information for awhile so why wait until McCain pretty much has the nomination sewn up to put it out? If they think people have a need to know this stuff, then they should have known it BEFORE they voted.
    This behavior is what a lot of Hillary supporters have been complaining. The media is only now starting to vet Obama when he is well on his way to getting the nomination. This makes absolutely no sense. Is the media playing a game of gotcha with the voters?
    I urge everyone to email the Times' ombudsman and complain about their irresponsible journalism.

    Parent
    Just found the answer (none / 0) (#97)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:27:03 AM EST
    to my question. According to Taylor Marsh the New Republic has an article about the Times holding off on this story and the infighting about it. Guess the Times decided to run with it before the NR came out. Very strange.
    Of course, if it had been Bill Clinton.....

    Parent
    Its the quid pro quo (none / 0) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM EST
    that matters, not the specific quid and quo.

    Did he do favors for Ms Iseman? If he did the favors for cash, you would be all over it. The only question that matters is did he do favors for Ms. Iseman and did he get any quo in return?  

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    You folks keep pretending that is the "story."

    If ALL that is true, then do NOT include the "romantic relationship rumors."

    Parent

    In fairness you have to explain the quo (none / 0) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:05:33 PM EST
    otherwise the story is McCain did a favor. So what. McCain did a favor was paid for it is a different story.

    So did he do any favors for Ms. Iseman? If he did was it out of the kindness of his heart?

    Parent

    Is the allegation (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    these were sexual favors?

    Now that I did not get that at all.

    Indeed, I deny that is the alleged quo.

    Parent

    According to the article, yes, McCain. who (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    was chair of the Senate communications committee, acted favorably toward Ms. Iseman's client, a telecommunications company.

    Parent
    In exchange for sex? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:12:16 PM EST
    Is that REALLY the allaegation?

    Is is NOT.

    this is sophistry.

    Parent

    Maybe I am more cynical than you (none / 0) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:21:56 PM EST
    I don't know that it was as crass as you put it, though it certainly lends itself to such crass charges. It could be an older man made a fool out of himself over a younger woman. In order to impress her, he did a couple of favors. Its not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before.

    That would be a breach of ethics, using his position to do favors to gain favor.  

    I withhold judgment until all the facts are in. But the questions have to be asked now that the story is out. If I were the editor, I would like to think I wouldn't do the story without solid proof.

    Parent

    There is no a shred of evidence (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    presented that supports that charge.

    It is irresponsible journalism to run that.

    I say they did not run THAT STORY.

    Parent

    You may be right as to the NY times motivation (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:29:02 PM EST
    I presume the story was done in good faith. If not we are screwed- because it will become the left has Borked McCain.  

    Now that the story is out there, the voters deserve the truth. And so does McCain.

    Parent

    The voters don't deserve anything in regards (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:35:25 PM EST
    to John McCain's sex life nor anyone else's.  That's pure BS.

    Parent
    Not his sex life (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:47:04 PM EST
    only whether or not he did favors to gain favors. The sex is incidental.  As I said he would not be the first older man to make a fool out of himself with a younger woman. 8 years ago he was a media darling at the top of his game. His ego must have been at an all time high then.You think there is no way a little flirting didn't go to his head and he did a favor or some favors for her clients to impress her? And if he did, you don't think that is a breach of public trust?

    Parent
    It may or may not be a (none / 0) (#65)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:16:53 PM EST
    breach of public trust.  If it was, there's not one iota of proof in that story.  That story led with the sex because it was the "real" angle.


    Parent
    not for sex (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:35:29 PM EST
    but because of their personal relationship -- it could have been a male or a female -- she was a personal friend and he did a favor for her client and flew on her client's corporate jet when the client had business before his committee. It puts it in context.

    Parent
    We disagree (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:41:46 PM EST
    I do not buy that for a moment.

    Parent
    I highly doubt (none / 0) (#74)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:18:43 PM EST
    that this story would exist if the lobbyist was a man, unless they were found in a bathroom stall together. ;-)

    One has to wonder if this had come out during a McCain campaign against Hillary, how would she have acted towards it? I'm guessing she'd rightfully deplore it.

    Parent

    McCain in Bed with Lobbyists (none / 0) (#18)
    by robrecht on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    The campaign's fear of a romantic relationship illustrates how close the relationship was.  You cannot ignore that part of the story.

    Parent
    I must ignore it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM EST
    as the story itself forces me to with its irresponsible allegations.

    Parent
    If you read the entire four pages, (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    you would learn McCain's associates were worried about the appearance of impropriety due to the fact he was in a Presidential primary campaign, was emphasizing his part in ethics reform, and, even after Keating 5, was embarrassed by his pulling strings on behalf of Ms. Iseman's client with the FCC.  

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    the story is about the sex, and ALL OF YOU know it and are pretending like it is not.

    Would the story have been about all the tings you folks want to talk about? sure. IF the sex was NOTin the story.

    Now the story is ALL ABOUT the sex and pretending it is not is just plain silly.

    Parent

    I think you watch too much TV. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:32:37 PM EST
    Read the story.  

    Parent
    I Don't Watch Any TV (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST
    And this story is dripping with sexual innuendo. Almost every paragraph

    "He is essentially an honorable person," said William P. Cheshire, a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. "But he can be imprudent."

    Mr. Cheshire added, "That imprudence or recklessness may be part of why he was not more astute about the risks he was running with this shady operator," Charles Keating, whose ties to Mr. McCain and four other lawmakers tainted their reputations in the savings and loan debacle.

    and

    A drive to expunge the stain on his reputation in time turned into a zeal to cleanse Washington as well.

    Mr. McCain's friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.

    Mr. McCain's confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

     One recalled asking, "Why is she always around?"

     Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.

     ...

    placing the nation's interests before either personal or special interest,

    "her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us." He declined to elaborate.

    "I never had any good reason to think that the relationship was anything other than professional

    And on and on....

    Parent

    I couldn't agree more! (none / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:34:10 PM EST
    Jeralyn, if its not about sex, my suggestion is (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    change the title of your post.  

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:07:24 PM EST
    and it's not Jeralyn's fault that the NYT interjected the sex angle.  There is a lobbyist/ethics issue that should be pursued.  That's all well and good that the republicans are finally concerned about journalistic standards . . . we democrats should welcome them to the table.  But come on.  There are very few republicans that lecure us on sex, media, and politics with a straight face.

    The republicans would have hired a special prosecutor if McCain's name was Clinton.  So spare me the outrage.

    Parent

    Appalling (none / 0) (#11)
    by delandjim on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM EST
    This is so bad it will make dems come to his defense! You even if there was anything---is it really any of our business? Remember how Bill Clinton's popularity went up when he was attacked? And that had some parts that were true. WHO CARES, it will make him more popular.

    By the way, MSNBC cut into programming to talk about this. That kinda says something.

    If NYT has become the National (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:58:20 PM EST
    Enquirer, hasn't TL also?  [I am not referring to this particular post.]

    Please note the NYT did quote John Weaver and cited information received from Ms. Iseman:

     

    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."

    Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about "her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us." He declined to elaborate.

    It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.

    Ms. Iseman acknowledged meeting with Mr. Weaver, but disputed his account.

     [Emphasis added.]

    With the exception of the unsubstantiated rumor of sexual relationship, denied by Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman, the remainer of the information in the article is, in my opinion, relevant to judging Mr. McCain's candidacy.  

    Hell of an exception you identify (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    I don't care either....but I do care that (none / 0) (#24)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:10:12 PM EST
    the GOP smeared a perfectly good president for sleeping around, and this DOES feel like poetic justice (just after McCain declared himself the nominee).

    So...I agree that the NYT is acting very slimy here, there is a part of me that is saying: "how does it feel Republicans?"

    The thing is (none / 0) (#50)
    by delandjim on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    The thing is I don't remember McCain joinging in very loud on that. He may have but I sure don't remember it. I think this will get him a lot of sympathy.

    Parent
    He voted to impeach (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    But (none / 0) (#98)
    by delandjim on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    Was he real active on running him down? Or just vote in the end?

    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#51)
    by delandjim on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    Joinging = joining

    Parent
    He doesn't have to be Henry Hyde to be (none / 0) (#57)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    implicated.

    He was an enabler....just like he has been for Bush on everything (including torture apparently)

    Parent

    Bravo. (none / 0) (#29)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    Scathing yet utterly fulfilling (as usual) analysis.  Thanks, BTD.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer guy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:20:37 PM EST
    McCain has shown to be absolutely shameless in his pursuit of power.  He will say anything to anybody at any time.  He has a serious financial scandal in his past, not to mention the circumstances in which he left his first wife.  He makes things up.  He is temperamentally unsuited to be President.  I welcome any story that examines patterns of behavior in light of McCain's newly found love for hard right fundamentalists.

    Now if he were caught in bed with Karl Rove (none / 0) (#34)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:28:14 PM EST
    they might have something LOL....

    someone on MSNBC just said... (none / 0) (#35)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:28:35 PM EST
    ....that the NYT basically had the research on this story completed by last December, but sat on it out of various concerns.  Then they heard that The New Republic was about to run a story about the NYT sitting on this story, and the NYT board had a meeting and then decided to run the story.

    What research? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:29:12 PM EST
    They have no evidence of a romantic relationship.

    Parent
    It doesn't need to be romantic, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:31:47 PM EST
    she was a lobbyist.  Smell test and all that.

    Parent
    Then leave it OUT of the story!! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:40:43 PM EST
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#88)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:31:15 AM EST
    NYT and people here know darn well that SEX is what sells everything. But putting that little tidbit, suggesting a favors for sex, the story will catch the attention of people that care less about substance but just can't bypass a good sex scandal.

    Parent
    you are the one hung up on the sex aspect (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:39:19 PM EST
    it's about whether he had improper ties to a lobbyist and did favors for her clients.

    If he has bad judgment when it comes to his friends and does favors for them while playing the role of Saint Reformer, I want to know about it and think others should also.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:40:24 PM EST
    watch the coverage and you will see.

    If sex is not the whole story I will eat my shoe.

    Parent

    Google Related Stories (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:06:39 PM EST
    To the NTY story which is presently the second "top news" headlines, almost all have headlines about romance.

    For example:

    Was John McCain Getting "Lobbied" By A Woman Thirty Years His Junior?

    John McCain forced to deny romantic link with lobbyist

    John McCain's Close Personal Relationship With Lobbyist Threatens ...

    Did John McCain have an affair with a lobbyist and use his power ...

    NYT: McCain may have behaved unethically and also cheated on his ...

    John McCain's Long Career Of Sleazy Lies, Semi-Affairs & Total ...

    link

    Parent

    No shoe eating for you (none / 0) (#72)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    Now the WAPO and TPM have stepped in it.

    Parent
    I'm with you on that (none / 0) (#94)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:20:48 AM EST
    The Times knows darn well that the sex angle will cause a big uproar.
    Again what's with the timing of this? Whether you think it is important to know or not, if the Times really thinks the public needs to know, they should have put it out before the primaries. Are they just trying to sell papers? It really feels like they are screwing with the voters.


    Parent
    I think when BTD, who hasn't read the (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    NYT article, says "story" he is talking about how the TV talking heads treat whatever they gleaned is newsworthy from the NYT article.  

    Parent
    I have read it (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    twice.

    But yes I mean what is being and will be focused on.

    Parent

    The Whole NYT "Story" (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:58:38 PM EST
    Is a double entendre. If it was not, there would be no need to mention, anything about his wife, his honor, and that some think that there is romance.

    The lobbiest corruption angle is overshadowed by heavy innuendo.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by Lora on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    You got it, Squeaky.

    Parent
    jeez this is just ridiculous (none / 0) (#40)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    I hated it when Bill Clinton's sex life was dragged out for everyone to oooh and aaah over.  It no different for John McCain.  This isn't worthy on any level.


    crappy story (none / 0) (#60)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:04:42 PM EST
    New lows for the NYTimes I think.

    Two former associates claim that they warned him he was risking his career.  They claim he admitted to behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.  Never any further revelation as to what "behaving inappropriately" meant.

    I do not care one way or the other about John McCain's sex life.  He can be having an affair with her or just like having her around for eye candy.  Makes no difference to me.  Not my business.

    I do want it spelled out how much he got in campaign contibutions for the fixing he did before congress, if any.

    Nobody would have read or talked about this story if there wasn't the sex angle though.

    Read all four pages (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    Here's a sample -- and a clue as to what the story is. This is just one example given:

    In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain's staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain's staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

    Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

    . McCain's aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain's advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

    Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history.



    Parent
    This is pretty common, sending letters (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:29:55 PM EST
       McCain's aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain's advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

        Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history.

    If all his letters to the FCC were released, don't you think problems would have come to light at the time.  It was 8 years ago after all.


    Parent

    Bigger scandal about McCain (none / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:22:59 PM EST
    He voted against a ban on torture last week.

    I can't help but wonder (none / 0) (#67)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    if the Times decision to run the McCain story wasn't influenced by the fact that they ran this story on the Clintons.

    Maybe Keller and the Times are trying to be fair by running a similar story on the republicans.  Although, there may be more substance in the McCain story than the Clinton story.

    According to the print version, it is part (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    of a series about each candidate.

    FYI:  Print version now ends with McCain's statement.

    Parent

    Yeah that makes sense, (none / 0) (#89)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:33:40 AM EST
    We wrote a sleazy story about the Clintons so now we'll write a sleazy story about the Republicans? Is that what passes for journalism these days? Not facts but tit for tat?

    Parent
    It's not about the sex (none / 0) (#71)
    by pedagog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM EST
    What about this theory regarding the McCain story: It's being floated now [or pushed] by the Obama side for several reasons. One, to take attention away from Michelle's stupid remarks and any flubs Barak may make tomorrow in the TX debate.

    But second, after reading a story on MyDD about McCain and Hillary and their teams being pretty friendly and that they respect one another, the story goes on to say that McCain could actually help Hillary out in TX by taking a lot of the Independent voters [and probably a lot of moderate Republicans] away from Obama. Thus, the Obama team needs to tarnish him before TX to deter Indies from voting Republican.

    The sex part of the story is NOT the real story--it's the fact that McCain has always been seen as politically pure [McCain-Feingold, after all], the straight-talker, Mr. Clean who doesn't take $$ from lobbyists. If the non-sex part of the story is true, then that hits McCain where he lives big time.  Then, Obama can claim that he is "The One" who is pure in this regard.

    The other possibility is that the RW nuts want to get Romney back in the game, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me because the NY Times wouldn't support that. I think the timing here is everything.


    Why on earth would the NYT run this? (none / 0) (#75)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:18:50 PM EST
    Honestly, I don't know. I think McCain will be able to tear this up - and actually rally conservatives behind him.  There's really not too much there. It would seem to be a blunder.

    But my sense - as others elsewhere have speculated - is that there is a lot more to this story, just not in the Times piece. It may be a story that has legs, especially if it slowly comes out, bit by painful bit.  And if it turns out McCain was doing special favors for someone he may have had some kind of special relationship, it is newsworthy.  

    I just can't believe the Times would put this out there if they didn't have more that could soon be uncovered by another news outlet. I'm also reading over at TNR that TNR may have pushed the Times to get this story out.  They'll have a piece on that tomorrow.

    I suspect (none / 0) (#76)
    by OldCoastie on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:27:42 PM EST
    the story will be who was selling this story to the NYT in the first place?

    or not...

    My money is on David Axelrod (none / 0) (#80)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:47:21 PM EST
    he can't run an Obama campaign without dragging a divorce or someone's sex life into it.

    Parent
    I just read that The New Republic (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:55:10 PM EST
    was about to run a story about the NYT holding this article.  Which doesn't explain just who tipped off TNR.

    Parent
    Larry Johnson (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:18:31 PM EST
    said that they knew about the story in December 2007....knows one of the sources.

    The question now is why the NYTimes might have sat on the story for 2 months, waiting until McCain had the nom sealed.

    Link: Read first paragraph

    Parent

    Just speculating that Bennett (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:30:47 PM EST
    threatened a lawsuit.  

    Parent
    The Republicans are getting... (none / 0) (#84)
    by robertearl on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:31:51 PM EST
    exactly what they've dished out for years.

    I just hope this doesn't backfire and hurt Hillary or Obama in the general.

    If it was wrong when it was done to Democrats (none / 0) (#90)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:39:47 AM EST
    Then it is equally wrong when gone to Republicans. I thought that we were enraged by these kinds of smears? I thought we were going to set higher standards? Well, I thought it once upon a time when I somehow thought that "we" were better than "they". Reading comments around the net I no longer believe that.

    Parent
    Yes, we are equally enraged... but do the math (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ellie on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:52:11 AM EST
    A whiff of a negative story about John McCain, plus innuendo, appearing for 24-48 hours does not EQUAL fifteen years of unremitting mud-slinging, invention and swiftboating by McCain's fellow Republicans.

    Did he and his pals step forward and put a stop to the witch hunts or capitalize on them?

    The media -- with Team McCain's own Bill Bennet harrumphing loudly about The Clintons' loose morals -- have been dogging HRC's entire campaign, throwing in stupid gossipy sex scandal stuff and outlandish unproven accusations wherever possible. (They could even present a panelist claiming that HRC paid to have someone's cat whacked and it be accepted as current political analysis!)

    Recriminations about this kind of media coverage from the opposite side, primary rival Dems or Repugs?

    :: crickets ::

    If you want to be equal, be ... er, equally equal.

    Parent

    Washington Post has an article (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:56:24 PM EST
    on line.  A fact I didn't see in the NYT article is that McCain let Weaver go in July 2007.

    WA PO

    NYT's ombudsman (none / 0) (#87)
    by robrecht on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:26:12 AM EST
    Here's an old WaPo story on the divisions and shake-up in the McCain campaign.

    URL=Link[/URL]

    Wonder what the NYT's ombudsman will have to say about the story?

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#86)
    by ek hornbeck on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:36:38 AM EST
    Sorry, would have been here for your scorn earlier, but I forgot I already had an account.

    This is NOT about sex, she's a fracking TelCo lobbyist.

    This is SO all about FISA.

    My contribution of clutter and links-

    McCain / Iseman Open Thread

    Instead of all the sturm and drang (none / 0) (#91)
    by hvs on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:37:23 AM EST
    can we have a little fun with this [on a serious note, I hope this starts to break the myth of St. John re: lobbyists...the sex angle is irrelevant]?

    [As with a fortune cookie fortune, finish these with "in his bed."]

    I wonder if he's a straight "talker"...
    It appears there are special interests...
    He's got a reputation as a maverick
    Does he have truly conservative positions
    Is he ready to be commander-in-chief
    Is he full of empty rhetoric or does he gets results


    This is going to help McCain (none / 0) (#95)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:20:52 AM EST
    He is going to come out and strongly challenge the NYT and they are going to loose.  ON MSNBC and other networks that I watched this morning he has all the facts on his side.

    The NYT's went fishing.  Also why did they sit on the story until he was the nominee?  

    McCain will win this tussle and gain support with the conservative base that hates the Times.  

    BTD you are correct in this is poor journalism but for us conservatives it is more of the same.   They have been practicing poor journalism for years in our eyes and we won't give this a second thought.   We will believe McCain until somebody else comes up with something and that appears as if it won't happen.

    Unfortunately we don't consider the NYT a respectable newspaper anymore so our first assumption was not that McCain did anything wrong but look at what the NYT's is up to know and this kind of story just feeds into the assumption by conservatives that the NYT's is a waste of good paper.

    Case in point (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:25:14 AM EST
    Email to the NRO...

    I'm the typical conservative who has not been happy with the McCain ascendancy, but the NYTimes has accomplished what Tojo did with Pearl Harbor.  They have awoken a sleeping giant.  We have been reminded who the real enemy is and it is not Senator McCain.  I'm ordering my bumper sticker today.

    Parent