« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
It still remains to be seen whether yesterday's New York Times piece will be the last word on John McCain's relationship with Vicki Iseman. For now, the Times quoted anonymous aides saying that they'd suspected there was an affair ongoing; McCain denies that there was.
But remember that the Times piece ran under the memorably lame headline, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk." There's a broader point there. Set aside the issue of the nature of his relationship with Iseman, and you have the undeniable conflict of McCain, the chest-beating reformer, being so undeniably close to lobbyists. That, many have pointed out, is the real story. The man who's absurdly proclaimed that "I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to" is surrounded by lobbyists.
And The Washington Post, a day after it ran its own Iseman story on page one, goes with that story on today's front page under the concise headline, "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists."
The story involves quite a roll call:
-- "His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications."-- "His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways."
-- "Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae."
-- "McCain recently hired Mark Buse to be his Senate chief of staff. Buse led the Commerce Committee staff in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and was until last fall a lobbyist for ML Strategies, representing eBay, Goldman Sachs Group, Cablevision, Tenneco and Novartis Pharmaceuticals."
-- "McCain's top fundraising official is former congressman Tom Loeffler (R-Tex.), who heads a lobbying law firm called the Loeffler Group. He has counseled the Saudis as well as Southwest Airlines, AT&T, Toyota and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America."
McCain, of course, insists that he's incorruptible. During yesterday's press conference, he proclaimed “I’ve never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special interest group — that’s a clear, 24-year record.” Maybe he just keeps all those lobbyists around to test his fortitude.
Josh
Zachary
This is all just a pack of lies! Everyone knows Republicans practice abstinence. If they didn't all hell would break loose. Next they would be trolling for sex in airport restrooms, sending sex emails to juveniles, or having gay male escorts sleep over at the Whitehouse. I mean really, who coulds see any of that happening?
February 22, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this attempt at "balance" from the story: "A common career path for political operatives is a lucrative job at a Washington lobbying firm that allows them to continue campaign work, and McCain is hardly the first candidate to draw on that talent pool. The campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has been aided by lobbyists Harold Ickes and Mark Penn, who heads Burson Marsteller Worldwide. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been advised by former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who is not a registered lobbyist but advises clients about Washington." Which one of these is not like the others?
February 22, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I laughed pretty hard at this. Thanks, JZ.
February 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A clear 24 year record... which includes the Keating Five Scandal. There certainly weren't any favors done there. It's amazing to me how he and his campaign gets away with using lines like "i've never done any favors for anybody" when there's clear, well-documented evidence of past activities.
February 22, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need to be very, very carful about passing on the innuendo about a private citizen who has also been unfairly smeared by the NYT. Ms. Iseman is not a public figure and she has done nothing wrong according to the reliable media.
You should instead pose some salient questions to the paper of record.
The New York Times owes its readers some answers to very basic questions.
It is clear that the New York Times violated its own policy on anonymous sources in yesterday’s front page article about John McCain. The core of the story was based on two unidentified former staffers who spoke on “the condition of anonymity.” The article only noted that the anonymous ex-staffers claimed to be “disillusioned.”
Bill Keller laid out the NYT policy on anonymous sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/business/media/14asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all
“We do all we can to inform the readers about the reliability and motives of the unnamed source.”
Except in this case. We know nothing about why they sought and were given anonymity. We know nothing about their reliability or motives. We do not know whether they were fired, associates of Ann Coulter or Sen. McCain’s political enemies, or otherwise biased.
On the substance of the article, it was both internally inaccurate and marked by innuendo – all designed to put Sen. McCain (and the lobbyist, a private citizen) in the worst possible light.
The most significant problem was the alleged “romantic” link. The NYT lacked probative evidence of an affair. So the NYT reported the opinion of two unidentified ex-staffers that there was a “romantic” link. This was shameless and unfair and contrary to the standards of any decent newspaper. Reporting the opinion, not backed by any evidence, was tabloid trash.
On the alleged “romantic” link, the NYT exaggerated the opinions of the unidentified ex-staffers to create the appearance of a sex scandal. In the introduction, the article asserts that unnamed staffers were “convinced that the relationship had become romantic.” But the body of the article does not say anyone was “convinced.” The body of the article asserts that, according to anonymous sources, “some of the Senator’s [unnamed] advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.” The NYT took a “concern” and elevated it and inflated it to a “conviction” and put the false charge in the opening section of the article. So the Times lede and its most sensational claim – that staff was “convinced” of a romantic link – finds no support in the article. The exaggeration (an editorial decision to trump up a sex scandal) was harmful to Sen. McCain, but he has a bully pulpit to rebut the charge. But this was extremely unfair to a private citizen – Ms. Iseman the lobbyist. Where does she go to get her reputation back after this front page hit job?
The NYT also misused the Weaver quote. After asserting the alleged concern about a “romantic” link (and the staffers decision to “intervene”), the NYT next addressed the separate meeting between Weaver and Ms. Iseman at Union Station. The reader is left with the impression that Weaver intervened because of concern about the alleged “romantic” link; however, it takes a close reading, and later clarification by Weaver, to see that his concern had nothing to do with any alleged romantic link. Weaver’s concern was that she was claiming “strong ties” with the Senator’s office that did not exist. Weaver was doing what he was supposed to do – privately act to protect the campaign from false claims of influence. The NYT did not point out the real reason for Weaver’s action but left readers with the impression that he intervened to prevent a sex scandal. This innuendo was false.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/john_weaver_on_the_record.php
February 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW Richmond write me a book! Did some nice corporation leave an envelope with some cash under your door last nite? You are soooo good at this internet thingy .... let me try .....
It wasn't the KEATING FOUR ..... it was FIVE! Don't leave grampa war monger out of his claim to fame. For the guy who never did a favor in his lifetime that sure as shit looked like, smelled like, and still won't get off my shoe like ....... a payola favorola!
Hmmmm......
February 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the first time that the NYT has gone back on its alleged policy re: anonymous sourcing, even after the whole Judith Miller fiasco.
Yeah, you're right in that they should tell us who's saying what about whom, but to imply that the NYT threw out its anonymity policy specifically to tag McCain is, to put it politely, idiotic.
February 22, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spencer -- No insults please. You obviously know nothing about journalism.
Here is part of the NYT anonymity policy: “Forms of Attribution to Confidential Sources”. My comments are in brackets, and show how the NYTobviously violated its own policy.
http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html
NYT: “We should avoid automatic references to sources who "insisted on anonymity" or "demanded anonymity"; rote phrases offer the reader no help and make our decisions appear automatic. When possible, though, articles should tersely explain what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, and should shed light on the reasons and the source's motives.”
[This was clearly violated. The NYT said in the very opening paragraph: “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.” The NYT used the very automatic phraseology --“several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity” – that its policy was designed to prevent. Nothing is offered to explain motive. (The text of the article is also inaccurate – nobody said they were “convinced” that there was a romantic link; two unidentified ex-staffers said they had a “concern” about such a link according to the article).
NYT: “When we agree to anonymity, the reporter's duty is to obtain terms that conceal as little as possible of what the reader needs to gauge reliability.”
[The NYT told us nothing about the backgrounds of the ex-staffers, except that they were “disillusioned.” Why were they disillusioned? Were they denied promotions, was their advice rejected, were they fired for cause, were they working for a rival campaign, were they reliable sources in the past? We’ll never know. The NYT concealed as much as possible about these ex-staffers and prevented any assessment of “reliability.”]
NYT: “We should distinguish conscientiously between high-level and lower-level executives or officials.”
[The NYT did not disclose whether the ex-staffers were high or low level, part of an inner circle of select advisers, or interns].
NYT: “Readers value signs of candor: "The report was provided by a Senate staff member working to defeat the bill."
[We know nothing about the motives of the unidentified ex-staffers; no candor at all]
February 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's starting to look like the lobbyists picked a bonafide war hero to take care of business and not a bonafide war hero who just happened to pick a bunch of high powered lobbyists to clear a path to be president.
February 22, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ironic possibility of McBush being brought low by a pay for play scandal served up after so many rancid dollops of smug self appraisal (my friends) is not lost on, well, me. Forget the sex angle; it's just the teaser to get coverage by MSM.
Arizonians who have been fed up w/McCain for a good long while- get beyond the archives of the AZ Republic & start digging. Lobbyists burrow both shallow & deep, local as well as DC....
February 22, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And they're all Corporate Lobbyists. Not one of them is from a Consumer's Group like Public Citizen, a Good Government Group like Common Cause, an Environmental Group like The Sierra Club, or any group that lobbies for the poor or the blue collar people.
As the Nuns in St. Anne's School in Philly used to say;
"Show me your company and I'll tell you what you are."
February 22, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And speaking of fun in AZ- Via AP & here @ TPM, just in-
"Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) indicted- conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, extortion, insurance fraud, criminal forfeiture."
The case that in all probability got USA Paul Charlton added to the 12/7/06 firing list.
This one's for you, Mr. Charlton.
February 22, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think the NY Times reporters have tape recordings of their interviews with Weaver and the anonymous aides described in the article?
Or do they have only their hand written notes that may or may not have been transcribed?
February 22, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
THE MAC IS BACK!!!! WOO WOO!!! MAKE WAY FOR THE STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS!!! AIN'T NOTHIN' STOPPIN' US NOW!!!! WOOOOOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 22, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: scratch "tape recordings" and replace with "audio recordings"; just remembered that most people now use digital recorders and not tape recorders.
February 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Answer: the one who claims he isn't beholden to lobbyists, that is, the one who claims he isn't like the others.
February 22, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has been in bed with lobbyists one way or another for his entire career. And while lust no doubt played a big part in his courtship of Cindy Lou, the fact that she had pots of money and a super-rich daddy had to be the clincher. He is an amoral opportunist of the first order.
February 22, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems some posters forget that the N.Y. Times is trying to sell papers. "Careful reading" ought apply to any published piece, let alone all of the clarifying quotes contained in an article. That hardly means the paper that endorsed McCain has devolved to the Enquirer's standards.
Careful reading tells me TPM means something else when suggesting McCa(i)ntispecialinterest is in bed with this lobbyist. For that matter, so does the NYT article.
I also have no concern that Ms. Iseman will be added to the welfare rolls tomorrow. She'll struggle on and reclaim her saintly reputation (which all special interest pushers have, of course) by hook and by crook.
February 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hollywd: McCain and Keating Five is old news -- so 1980s. Its been rehashed time and time again. If you have a problem with McCain, don't vote for him. I don't care. But what I care about is fairness from the NYT. If anything close to this was done to Sen. Obama, there would be a riot. Incidentally, given the way the NYT has been burned by its unprofessional hit piece, all major candidates will benefit -- no Executive Editor (with the exception of Bill Keller, who might, just might, be planning to spend more time with his family) would now run a piece like this unless the sources were on the record.
February 22, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 22, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget - he calls us all his "friends."
Yech!
February 22, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
good call.
February 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCain, McCain, McCain - nothing is more relevant to me than the fact that he has endorsed torture. Yes, he made a statement just before the NYTimes story broke urging Bush to veto the anti-torture bill. He is in favor of 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' read WATER BOARDING. This is more relevant to the future of democracy and human rights in the USA.
February 22, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why doesn't Richmond call the Washington Post as a subprime paper for its similar story regarding Mr. McCain and the lobbyist Ms. Iseman? What about when the U.S. News and World Report brought up the REAL issue (note the headline) of McCain's self-righteousness and "incorruptible" nature and his ubiquitous "special interest friends" back in May of 2007?
The editorial board of the NYT probably have everything they need in terms of assurances of anonymity to warrant the story's appearance. Like you mentioned, they have been burned once, why try for a second time?
Significantly, the NYT used its editorial page to advocate for John McCain in the New York primary. Why would a paper publish an article on someone their editorial board supports, unless there is a story.
I'm sure if there was a similar story to be had about Senator Obama it would run too. The Senator from Illinois wasn't the editor's choice for Democratic candidate in the New York primary.
February 22, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink