« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
McCain Comments Distort FCC Matter
Whatever you may think of this morning's New York Times and Washington Post stories, they turn on whether John McCain did legislative favors for Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist with whom McCain denies having had a romantic relationship.
And McCain was keen to hit back hard on that account at his news conference this morning. 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. The lengthy statement out from McCain's campaign states that no one from Iseman's lobbying firm or Paxson "personally asked" McCain to send the letter to the FCC.
But as the Times reported way back in 2000, it was no secret on the commission what outcome McCain was seeking. And on a 3-2 vote only days after his December letter, the commission approved the deal. Opponents of the sale cried foul, pointing in particular to the $20,000 Paxson and its lobbyists had contributed to McCain.
Update: You can see the exchange of letters between McCain and Kennard here.
Later Update: The McCain camp now says McCain wasn't referring to Kennard, who actually received the letter, but to a different former FCC chairman.













Not important. John McCain did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Iseman.
February 21, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if he's had sex with a dozen lobbyists and continues to do so.
But if he has used his influence in their favor, THAT's what I care about.
February 21, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, and you'll note that he didn't say "the chairman of the FCC at the time," he said "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." Which former chairman in 2000 do you suppose he was talking about?
February 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
John "Keating 5" McCain says, " I did not have sex with that women but I did take her money and free jet rides to push legislation for her." I think tax payers would prefer it if he had just done her Bill Clinton style and not owed her anything but tip money for her "personal services."
February 21, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either way you slice it, he was in bed with the lobbyists.
February 21, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ba-dum-bum!
February 21, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this thing becoming Rathergate II?
February 21, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I wonder what this might remind some people of? Forget the might -- Keith O already brought it up yesterday when he was breathlessly (steady Keith) breaking the story on Countdown -- it took him about two sentences to mention Bill and Monica. Not that anyone's forgotten about that, but it's sure to continue coming up during the fallout from the McCain story.
February 21, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just another fucking GOP hypocrite.
He did vote to impeach didn't he?
And Monica wasn't even on a corporate payroll like this whore.
February 21, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when is it news that a legislator has acted aggressively on behalf of contributors, constituents, favored industries and friends to influence Administration and regulatory decisions?
If the goal is to blow the cover off McCain's populist image, I suspect this sloppy NYT attack will backfire badly, to the extent that it will be hard to get at how McCain really conducts himself. This guy Schulzberger appears to be really stupid.
February 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're just going to get more of the same, like we did with Bush (obfuscation, prevarication), in a potential McCain administration.
February 21, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This story will be the best thing to happen to the McCain campaign - Those Republicans do love their hypocrits. And, the fact that he was doing the bidding of a corporate lobbyist (for whatever reason, money or sex, or free air travel) only bolsters his "conservative" credentials. Betcha even Rush Limbaugh coughs up some campaign cash, after this.
February 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know a Republican is cheating when he appears in public alongside his dutiful wife, especially one that looks as much like Tammy Wynette as Cindy McCain.
February 21, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even without the salacious angle, this story is all about the hypocrisy and arrogance of McCain. For now, the GOP base is standing by their man because he's all they got, but if more comes out, I would expect the base to get ansy. They're not going to take a bullet for a guy they hate (and who hates them). See http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/election-2008-update-221-the-vicki-iseman-mccain-love-n-lobbying-scandal-time-for-hillary-to-go/
February 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't give a rat's ass if he did anything with her or for her ....even though she sure was some more Cindy candy for the geezer. I think the reactionary party owes us a freebee after smearing our three purple hearts guy and impeaching our blow job guy. If grandpa stinks up the room with this one it is great for the future of America anyway you slice it. Take one for the team John!
February 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sympathetic with the position that one's personal life is personal. However, in places where public power is excercised, there is little that is purely personal. This leaves us with the question of whether the development of a personal friendship between a lobbyist and anyone in any branch of government is off limits to the press. Lobbyists are paid to engender warm relations with those that they seek favorable decision from. In the real world, it is really hard to say no to a person who is a friend, and harder still to one who is a "friend".
The idea that decisions on public matters take place in a vacuum, devoid of human emotional affect is not supportable. I would submit that those who make decisions on our behalf just have to keep their social relations limited while in office. In this context, "just say no" doesn't work, and never has.
February 22, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink