When McCain’s story falls apart a little more

Since the NYT story about John McCain and Vicki Iseman broke on Wednesday, there have been two angles to the controversy, one of which clearly looked stronger than the other: 1) McCain’s alleged romance with this telecom lobbyist; and 2) McCain’s professional efforts to help the lobbyist’s client. The senator and his campaign have rejected both points.

The evidence pointing to the alleged adultery is still elusive, but the evidence that McCain has lied about his efforts on behalf of Iseman’s client keeps piling up.

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign said, in writing, that “no representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter” to the FCC on its behalf. Yesterday, Newsweek reported that McCain gave a deposition in 2002 in which he contradicted his own claim. Today, the WaPo makes matters worse for McCain.

Broadcaster Lowell “Bud” Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson’s behalf.

Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters in 1999 to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson’s quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.

Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, likely attended the meeting in McCain’s office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. “Was Vicki there? Probably,” Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday. “The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings.”

I think it’s safe to say this is going to get worse for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Let’s step back briefly and set the stage — during his first presidential campaign, McCain took four trips aboard Paxson’s corporate jet to campaign events. Paxson company executives — the ones urging McCain to intervene on their behalf with federal regulators — had just ponied up $20,000 in campaign contributions. Shortly thereafter, wouldn’t you know it, McCain pressed the FCC to give those nice Paxson folks the break they’ve been looking for.

And then, years later, with the pressure on, McCain lied about his efforts. And got caught.

I think there’s a perception in many circles that the NYT story was a dud because the paper hadn’t nailed down the adultery angle. Maybe so. But the article has nevertheless created quite a headache for McCain, for reasons that have nothing to do with any inappropriate relationships.

The appearance of corruption certainly isn’t helpful — especially given the perception of integrity McCain has worked so hard to sell — but reporters seem to be waking up to the fact that the senator and his campaign have tried to deceive people. As a rule, journalists a) don’t care for that; and b) perceive this as a sign of trouble, causing them to dig deeper.

Cue the image of John McCain—with the sound of bacon sizzling in the background—and this could turn into a massive segue for Lou Dobbs to toss his hat into the ring. That could be the GOP’s “unknown quantity” in this election….

  • This does however raise the question, Why did the Times go with the incredibly thin adultery angle anyway? It certainly looks like there’s more meat to the ethics issue. If the adultery was poorly-sourced, why not leave it out? Why make it a centerpiece of the debate?

  • The only good thing about this for McCain, and it’s not really good, is that it’s happening now and not in September. Could leave a permanent scar, however.

    OT slightly: Nader is going to be on MTP tomorrow. He’s talking about a third party bid for the WH. If he runs this year, it will be proof positive that he’s a GOP shill, if there was ever any doubt.

  • The adultery angle is prurient, but the close relationship, romance aside, with a lobbysist is more troublesome. As an older male, nothing is more dangerous to my even keel than the flattering, perhaps flirtatious, attentions of a young woman. Vicki could get them meetings.

    So we have John McCain the midshipman who disliked taking orders and finished in the bottom of his class, who admitted to adultery, who has a bombastic temper, who was the most unscathed of the Keating Five, who lied to Tim Russert about all those “I don’t know anything about the economy” quotes and who has repeatedly lied about his actions in the Paxson affair.

    Yet he will continue to be the straight talking maverick. The press doesn’t have the colones to withstand the right wing heat if they brought down McCain, even (maybe especially) if it is with the truth.

  • Shortly thereafter, wouldn’t you know it, McCain pressed the FCC to give those nice Paxson folks the break they’ve been looking for.

    There are details that I’m still not clear about, CB. McCain claims the letters only asked, not for a specific decision, but for the FCC to make a decision. In addition, McCain claims that such requests were standard operating procedures and that such requests were not unusual or inappropriate.

    I still have lots of questions:

    1. Was it unusual for a Senator to request an agency (any agency) to make a decision in a more timely manner, as he claims…especially one in which they have more direct oversight responsibilities? If so, then why did the FCC complain about his request?

    2. Is it unethical for a Senator to request an agency to make a decision in a timely manner. After all, wouldn’t timeliness be part of due process and something that an oversight committee member be justifiably concerned about?

    3. Did members of the FCC reasonably interpret McCain’s requests for a decision to actually be a request for a decision in favor of Paxson? I’ve heard it said that the FCC knew what McCain wanted. If so, why? How?

    I don’t trust McCain, and I will not be surprised if there’s something to this. But so far, I’m not seeing much. As far as I can tell, the Chair of an oversight committee contacted an agency that he oversees to insist on due process. How the information concerning lack of due process came to his attention would be, it seems, irrelevant. As far as I can tell, McCain’s letters seem reasonable.

    Maybe I have a blind spot. What am I missing?

  • Hmmm, does this mean Mr Straight Talk will “say anything” and “do anything” to get elected? Can we expect to hear Chris Matthews say McCain is willing to “lick the bathroom floor” to win the Presidency? Nahh, didn’t think so.

  • I’m a little troubled by this post, Steve, particularly your statement that: “The evidence pointing to the alleged adultery is still elusive.” What does that mean? That we know it’s there and just haven’t found it yet? That we (or the MSM) ought to be searching high and low to find it?

    Yes, it’s clear that McCain’s response to the NY Times article has been revealing. Easy to prove lies.

    But the article itself was just lousy, out-of-line journalism — hinting at a sexual affair for which it offers no proof. There’s no place in our politics or our media for that kind of innuendo. And there ought not be a place in the progressive blogosphere for it either.

  • I didn’t ask about whether McCain told the truth to the press yesterday. Maybe he thinks that there’s an appearance of wrong doing. Obviously, there is.

    But I don’t care about such an “appearance”.

    I want to know what is wrong with a member of an oversight committee (or any member of Congress) contacting a federal agency to insist that they conduct their operations in a timely fashion if, in fact, the agency was not doing so? The FCC is responsible for conducting these reviews in a timely manner. If they’re not doing so, it seems appropriate for members of Congress to call them on it. It has been pointed out that members from both sides of the aisle often do.

    Maybe I’m dense, but where’s the beef?

  • “Maybe I have a blind spot. What am I missing?”

    Well, for one thing, the fact that 2 members of the 5-member commission (including the chairman) found the letters to be grossly improper. IIRC, it goes beyond this, and the letter were officoally found to be improper ex parte contacts.
    And if, as reported by the NYT and, it appears, confirmed by multiple sources, McCain’s close friendship w/ Paxson was a matter of common knowledge in the relevant community (including the FCC) you wouldn’t have to be a mind-reader to know which decision would make McCain happy.

    Finally — as if the above weren’t bad enough — this all follows an earlier letter, in 1998, in which McCain essentially threatened the commission with retaliation (FCC funded and authorized by his committee) if it did away with a loophole that was highly favorable to another one of his telecom buddies. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html.

    And — in an absolutely amazing coincidence — that telecom was also represented by Iseman.

    At first I also thought that the NYT made a mistake by dragging in the sexual angle. But as these stories come out, I’m starting to wonder if the reason they did so is that the pattern of McCain’s actions can only be understood through a lens that takes into consideration, at the very least, his friendship w/ a younger clone of his current wife. Bear in mind that Bennett is making a big deal about other instances where McCain voted against the telecom’s interests. Maybe those were cases where Iseman didn’t go to the mat (so to speak) on behalf of the telecom in question.

  • Bernard HP Gilroy (2) The NYT only mentioned the romantic aspect of the story in 6 of 59 paragraphs. The TV media blew it up into the main issue.

    Dick M (8) The NYT article did say that two former associates claimed that McCain himself “acknowledged behaving innappropriately” and it is clear in the contect of the story that they were talking about the romantic aspect.

    Fred Rutherford (5) The unusual aspect to this letter to the FCC was that McCain demanded that each member separately explain what they were going to do and why. The FCC chairman wrote him back that this was inappropriate.

    There is one other aspect about his campaign public funding that should be drawing more ink. The public funding laws (which I believe are part of the McCain Feingold bill) specifically forbid a candidate from dropping out of public funding if he uses the fund for collateral of a loan. McCain took out a loan, promising he would stay in the race an extra thirty days to repay the loan if he didn’t do well in NH. His loan agreement then redefines “collateral” and says this agreement is not to be considered collateral. He then writes to the FEC dropping out of public financing, stating that “certification of funds has not been pledged as security for private financing.” The FEC issues a response that challenges this claim. His claim could be more than a little problematic.

  • But the article has nevertheless created quite a headache for McCain, for reasons that have nothing to do with any inappropriate relationships.

    So let me get this straight. Taking their money and riding on their airplanes and then writing letters that the head of the FCC said were “unprecedented” isn’t “inappropriate”????

    I guess “business as usual” becomes business as usual when whatever the business is is no longer thought illegal or corrupt, or any of those “inappropriate” negative things people with no business poking their noses in the affairs of Important People would have the temerity to use.

  • Fred (#9) said: I want to know what is wrong with a member of an oversight committee (or any member of Congress) contacting a federal agency to insist that they conduct their operations in a timely fashion if, in fact, the agency was not doing so? The FCC is responsible for conducting these reviews in a timely manner. If they’re not doing so, it seems appropriate for members of Congress to call them on it. It has been pointed out that members from both sides of the aisle often do.

    Go over to Talking Points Memo (www.talkingpointsmemo.com) and do a search on this – “McCain + FCC” – and you will find a statement from the then-head of the FCC saying this was inappropriate and unprecedented.

  • “I want to know what is wrong with a member of an oversight committee (or any member of Congress) contacting a federal agency to insist that they conduct their operations in a timely fashion …”

    Well, I am not familiar with the exact contents of the letter that he sent (does someone have that?), but if Paxson is the only company mentioned then it appears that McClaim is not really interested in the delay in the process so much as he is interested in the delay regarding Paxson; and yes, I would consider that improper…

  • “Shortly thereafter, wouldn’t you know it, McCain pressed the FCC to give those nice Paxson folks the break they’ve been looking for.”

    I don’t believe that is an entirely accurate characterization of the evidence I have read about to date. The evidence I have seen so far does not seem to indicate that the letter McCain sent explicitly “pressed” the FCC to give Paxson a break. But, Fred Rutherford’s questions above are pertinent and important. The reaction by the chairman at the time appears to imply that although the letter did not explicitly “press” the FCC to favor Paxson, that given the total context of the situation – McCain’s other statements and actions including taking money and plane trips from Paxson – it may have fairly been construed by the commissioners as trying to improperly influence them in Paxson’s favor. It is hard to imagine that McCain would not have been aware of the sensibilities of the commissioners with respect to their understanding of his letter. Getting to the bottom of that is, I believe, where the focus ought to be.

    As to the Times article’s reference to a possible sexual liaison between McCain and Iseman, it was inappropriate of the Times to reference that “rumor” at all unless they had some firm evidence to present in the article that there was indeed such an affair. Because sexual affairs are so salacious in nature and carry such a powerful impact, I believe it behooves reputable news organizations to exercise great care when transmitting such information. From a partisan and somewhat cynical point of view, reporting such an unverified rumor can have the effect of drawing attention away from, and diminishing the impact of, what may be a real problem of near hypocrisy if not actual hypocrisy on McCain’s part.

  • Jamison Foser at Media Matters recaps how our corporate media applies different rules to Dems and Repubs.

    Particularly pertinent is his observation that, if any aspect of an allegation against a Dem proves true, then all aspects are presumed true. Conversely, if any aspect of an allegation against a Repub proves false, then all aspects are presumed false.

  • The main stream media Fox/CNN particularly have defended McCain and also even launched spin to say “it is good for McCain”. Absolute nonsense. The main stream media made no attempt to give Ron Paul New Republic hit piece before the NH primary any such favoritism. It is becoming evident that the McCain story has legs and the NYT will be exonerated.. (as of Sat Feb. 23). The real story is we really have no choice in this election. It comes down to a Red/Blue vote for more big government which is what has caused the problem to begin with. The mess in Kosovo/Iraq/Pakistan and the financial crisis caused by massive government subsidies to housing and credit industries.. You will have two choices in November but there is not a hill of beans difference between them.

  • I think the case can be made that neither the exercise of influence in the Paxson matter nor the sexual dalliance, if any, amounts to very much. The former is certainly the only part with any real claim to significance, but it’s not clear to me that, substantively, McCain did anything different from what any other senator routinely does for people like this. On the other hand that’s precisely why it has a bit of a sting, since he’s a Maverick(TM), and Not Just Another Senator. But even that would not have much real purchase had he not gone overboard in his response, with blanket denials that couldn’t bear a moment’s inspection, thus creating the impression of attempted concealment, which is prima facie evidence of shame and guilt. Plus giving reporters some extra covers to peel back and keep the story running. I think this hurts him, if it does, because that overboard, unnecessarily categorical response is typical of the man’s mentality.

    It’s so redolent of the kind of guy he is and the kind of gut-reaction politics the GOP is desperately hoping we’re all not utterly sick of yet.

  • You will have two choices in November but there is not a hill of beans difference between them.

    Spoken like a true fantasy world inhabitant…

  • And now we also have McCain’s relationship with Renzi coming out.

    NYT–if you want a juicy adultery story about Mccain, why not search your archives about McCain and how he dumped his first wife for young, blonde socialite Cindy Lou Hensley.

  • I think the Republican establishment is waiting to see how this unfolds… If it gets too bad, Romney may well come back into the nomination process. He did ‘suspend’ his candidacy… I did not hear him say that he quit.

    You never know… it’s the Republican party and anything is possible

  • John AKA Highwaytoserfdom: your comment betrays your ignorance…

    As your name implies, you ARE on the highway to serfdom… The Republican Party’s way of running the country… And all you can think of is blaming the Democrats for being similar to the crap you’ve been living in.

    Cognitive Dissonance Look it up… It applies to you nicely.

  • it is also a little suspicious that Isely is apparently in hiding; has not come out to comment….why ?

  • Let’s not forget this: When the FCC decided in his favor, Lowell Paxson got even richer than he already was, at the expense of the public interest. By creating a precedent whereby a single broadcaster was able to own more stations than had previously been permitted, the FCC accelerated a trend of concentrated ownership that has deprived the citizens of this country of the full benefit of our publicly-owned airwaves. The degradation of viewpoint diversity in broadcasting caused by this kind of action on the part of the FCC has been widely documented, and I have never seen the fact of its existence disputed.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love that people in this country are able to get rich. Hey, by many standards, I’m one of them! What I don’t like is when they get rich by subverting my government, by using the taxes that I pay to pad their contracts and line their pockets, and by undermining the checks and balances that let me participate as an equal voice in this, our republic. What I don’t like is that if you hire a lobbyist you can make more money than if you work hard, and that if you don’t hire a lobbyist, you’ll get beat out in the marketplace by your competitors that do.

    The Times today is reporting that letters John McCain wrote to the FCC on behalf of Vicki Iseman’s clients were not just “business as usual”, but were more aggressive than other letters he has written to federal agencies (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?ref=us). Sure, take whatever the Times says with a grain of salt, but the fact that this report is based entirely on a review of public documents does indicate that the current “party line”, that “all McCain asked the FCC to do was to make a decision one way or the other”, may just be an obfuscation of the truth.

    If the Senator did use his power in an extraordinary manner to benefit Ms. Iseman’s clients, whether it was because he was sleeping with her, whether it was because she was just flirty with him, or even if it was only because they were platonic buddies, that use of power is a betrayal of the public trust. And it is not an abstract betrayal, some technicality of ethics; it is a betrayal that harms me directly, and that harms you, in order to benefit specific individuals.

  • Worst case scenario, Congress attempts to reprimand him and Republicans block it.

    Forgotten quickly assuming it gets that far before November.

    Wish it weren’t so….
    Just my best guess.


  • The Times today is reporting that letters John McCain wrote to the FCC on behalf of Vicki Iseman’s clients were not just “business as usual”, but were more aggressive than other letters he has written to federal agencies (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?ref=us). Sure, take whatever the Times says with a grain of salt, but the fact that this report is based entirely on a review of public documents does indicate that the current “party line”, that “all McCain asked the FCC to do was to make a decision one way or the other”, may just be an obfuscation of the truth.

    Could you provide a (fair use) quote ? The Times still seems to be in the Dark Ages about gathering info of people reading their pages (i.e., requesting a log in).

    Toon Moene (a socialist European)

  • Did anyone else notice that on “Tucker” on Friday Bob Bennett said he did not interview John Weaver? Isn’t that strange. Weaver is the only on the record source for the NYT, and Bennett doesn’t interview him. Wonder why? How can Bennett be so cocksure nothing happened without interviewing this source? The questions you don’t ask are as important as the ones you do. No wonder Clinton got hammered with Bennett defendeing him..

  • There’s another witness to this story who’s rarely acknowledged: John McCain. He refused to be be interviewed by the Times for the story. His non-answers are a testament to something, particularly given his evasive denials made in public after the story appeared.

    In fact, as I commented at unbossed.com, McCain’s press conference on Thursday also provided pretty good evidence that he was lying. It was full of contradictory assertions, as well as statements that on their face appeared improbable. Some of the statements I pointed to as improbable in that presser have already been undermined by new revelations in the last two days.

    You might also say that Iseman’s refusal to comment publicly is evidence of a sort.

    And the (alleged) failure of McCain and Bennett to talk with Weaver is, again, evidence of something.

  • well,lets see now,ummmm.McCain is a liar,yikes,who would have thought it.
    So if a person will lie about one thing,I would think perhaps they just might,now remember,I said,”just might”,lie about another.Like,I didn’t have sex with that woman,awwwwwww,ha,ha,ha…
    The rumor for many years now is that John McCain has a elevator zipper,the gals just have to push the right buttons for the correct floor.
    I suppose that perhaps McCain figures that if George Bush can lie all that he has,well heck,why can’t McCain,or is he afraid of losing his 40 million dollar plus trophy wife.

  • Comments are closed.