MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson had a fascinating take this morning on the controversy surrounding John McCain and telecom lobbyist Vicky Iseman. In this case, that’s not a compliment.
“Well, look at the lede! It’s about sex! It’s about John McCain had an affair! That’s what this story is about, which is actually a pretty outrageous nail upon which to hang a story, it seems to me, in 2008, at a time when we’ve all sort of agreed that true or not, it’s none of our business. I mean that is the contract in journalism we all sort of signed after Monica…. I’m not flacking for McCain. I instinctively jump to the defense of anyone whose private life is violated.”
There’s an awful lot wrong with this. First, Tucker really only seems to “instinctively jump” when the target is someone he likes, making his vaunted principles look kind of silly. Second, there’s a “contract in journalism” that mandates that every politician’s private life is off-limits, even if he or she is engaged in inappropriate behavior? Really? When did they come to this conclusion? The entire media establishment tried to destroy a sitting president over a victim-less affair, and now they’ve decided, “We better not extend similar treatment to anyone ever again, regardless of merit”?
And third, possible adultery makes the McCain/Iseman story sexy, but it’s a controversy that goes beyond talk of who slept with whom.
I’m aware that human nature includes some prurient interests. For that matter, I can also appreciate the irony of the conservative “family values” party being led by an adulterer. (Though, let’s not forget, regardless of anything we learned from the NYT this morning, John McCain is still the first admitted adulterer to ever even try to seek a major party’s presidential nomination.)
But to look at this controversy with sex at the fore is a mistake. At that point, it becomes a debate over whether McCain’s private life is fair game, and whether someone who already cheated on his first wife can still claim the “character” mantle if he cheated on his second wife.
But the key to remember here is that, unlike the Lewinsky, Foley, or Craig sex scandals, there are legitimate questions in this story about whether McCain did legislative favors for the woman he’s alleged to have been involved with.
[At this morning’s press conference, when] one reporter asked him about one of the key details in the Times piece — that McCain, then the chairman of the Senate commerce committee, had written a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of one of Iseman’s clients — he responded: “On the ‘letters’ to the FCC. Interestingly, this was brought up in the year 2000 by The New York Times. I wrote a letter because the FCC, which usually makes a decision within 400 days, had gone almost 800 days. In the letter, I said I’m not telling you how to make a decision, I’m just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. And I believe that was appropriate. And the former chairman of the FCC at the time in 2000 said that was more than an appropriate role for me to play as chairman of the oversight committee.”
While it’s true that the letter did not request a particular decision (more about that below), it’s not true that the FCC chairman saw no issue with the letter.
As The Boston Globe reported way back in 2000, William Kennard, the FCC chair at the time, had immediately objected to McCain’s December 10, 1999 letter, replying four days later that it was “highly unusual” and that he was “concerned” at what effect McCain’s letter might have on the decision process.
An earlier letter from McCain on the issue in November had not brought a similar rebuke. And McCain frequently wrote letters to the FCC requesting that it act on particular issues. But the December letter was remarkable for its insistence and call for each of the five commissioners to explain why they hadn’t come to a decision.
McCain’s comments today also skirted the issue of whether Iseman had sent information to his office for help in drafting the letter, as the Times reports, and elides discussion of the letter’s effect. Iseman represented Paxson Communications, which was pushing for the FCC decision because it would have cleared the way for Paxson to buy a Pittsburgh television station.
Best of all, one of the lawyers involved with the matter in 1999, said McCain’s letter was “improper, unethical, violated FCC rules barring such contacts on pending FCC matters, and appeared designed to assist a major contributor.”
Maybe there’s a compelling explanation for all of this, maybe not. But it’s not just a story about sex.
