McCain and Iseman

Well, The New York Times's article on John McCain's relationship with Vicky Iseman sure did make Mark Salter mad. It's often unclear at times, however, what exactly Salter is trying to say. The Times story is a bit odd and innuendo-y, hinting at a sexual relationship between McCain and Iseman but they clearly don't have the goods. Salter says McCain spoke to New York Times editor Bill Keller and "denied any personal 'romantic' involvement with Iseman, and said that he did not 'betray the public trust.'"

Obviously, I don't know whether or not McCain had sex with Iseman. I suppose by "what the meaning of the word 'is' is" standards, he didn't even deny having had sex with Iseman. Certainly it'd be a bit rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career. That's well known, I should say, except to the electorate, who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's "character" appeal.

Meanwhile, there's all this stuff Salter doesn't deny (because, again, it's true) about McCain's questionable ethics. He wrote "letters to government regulators on behalf of the [Iseman's] client," he "often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support," he resigned as head of a non-profit when "news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor," his Senate office and his campaign are run by corporate lobbyists, etc.

Meanwhile, there's a storm of speculation surrounding the Iseman story, which continues to be a weird lede for the piece, and we'll have to see what else comes out.

Comments

The consensus of people who are familiar with journalism seems to be that "the meat was lawyered out of the story," rather than there was never any meat. Whatever that means. Like you say, we need to wait to see what else comes out.

Also: Does an affair 8 years ago really torpedo John McCain's campaign? Even if all the innuendo is backed up by facts and so forth, is this really such a big deal? Are we really surprised that McCain, of all people, may have had an affair?

Posted by John | February 21, 2008 8:35 AM

To say nothing of leaning on a whistleblower from Cindy McCain's non-profit to shut up about her stealing drugs meant for the poor to support her own personal habit.

http://www.photobasement.com/41-hilarious-science-fair-experiments/

Posted by steve duncan | February 21, 2008 8:45 AM

Oops! Try this link (although you'll laugh your ass off at the mistaken link!).

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/

Posted by steve duncan | February 21, 2008 8:48 AM

oh c'mon, two more trades in the West last night that actually kinda make sense, and you're talking political scandal?

Posted by paperpusher | February 21, 2008 8:51 AM

Having sex with people you're not romantically involved with is called having casual sex.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 21, 2008 8:55 AM

You know who's really pissed at this story? George W. Bush's oppo research guys from the 2000 campaign. They've got some e-mails in their in-boxes this morning to this effect:

"So in 2000 this guy was flying all over the place with a sexy telecom lobbyist, in her bosses' plane, and writing letters on her bosses' behalf -- and you made us run with a bullshit racist story about his obviously adopted daughter? Ah, jeez."

Don't know whether this will hurt McCain, but that's a couple of oppo rsch guys who may never work in D.C. again.

Posted by Ted | February 21, 2008 9:08 AM

Matt,

As I recall you were a little less sanguine about this sort of unsupported innuendo when it was Kaus suggesting Edwards had had an extramarital affair. Fair game with McCain though?

Here's another take on this, from the Captain.

Posted by Fred | February 21, 2008 9:13 AM

Fred:

This is more than an extra-marital affair. Power, lobbyists, favors, ethics. Stuff McCain likes to talk about.

Posted by Craig | February 21, 2008 9:16 AM

"Don't know whether this will hurt McCain, but that's a couple of oppo rsch guys who may never work in D.C. again."

I think being a D.C. campaign professional is like being an NFL coach -- you may lose your job, but there's always another team hiring. How else to explain Bob Shrum's career?

Posted by Fred | February 21, 2008 9:16 AM

"Also: Does an affair 8 years ago really torpedo John McCain's campaign? Even if all the innuendo is backed up by facts and so forth, is this really such a big deal? Are we really surprised that McCain, of all people, may have had an affair?"

I think the various aspects of the story affect
different segments of the electorate. The Christian
fundamentalists - who don't much like McCain to
start with - won't like the infidelity angle; and
independents and moderates who might have bought the
story of McCain as a maverick and a reformer won't
like the cozying-up-to-lobbyists angle.

But I'm betting what will really torpedo McCain's
chances are his cranky-old-man persona,
exacerbated by the his evident personal dislike
for Obama, together with the physical exhaustion
of a gruelling campaign for a 71-year-old.
A few "who's-this-young-whippersnapper"
moments in the debates - which I'm pretty sure
Obama is smart enough to set up - will do it.
McCain's legislative record is thin, and his
policies are vastly unpopular - knock down the
idea that he's "likable" and he's got nothing.

Posted by Richard Cownie | February 21, 2008 9:21 AM

"Also: Does an affair 8 years ago really torpedo John McCain's campaign? Even if all the innuendo is backed up by facts and so forth, is this really such a big deal? Are we really surprised that McCain, of all people, may have had an affair?"

I think the various aspects of the story affect
different segments of the electorate. The Christian
fundamentalists - who don't much like McCain to
start with - won't like the infidelity angle; and
independents and moderates who might have bought the
story of McCain as a maverick and a reformer won't
like the cozying-up-to-lobbyists angle.

But I'm betting what will really torpedo McCain's
chances are his cranky-old-man persona,
exacerbated by his evident personal dislike
for Obama, together with the physical exhaustion
of a gruelling campaign for a 71-year-old.
A few "who's-this-young-whippersnapper"
moments in the debates - which I'm pretty sure
Obama is smart enough to set up - will do it.
McCain's legislative record is thin, and his
policies are vastly unpopular - knock down the
idea that he's "likable" and he's got nothing.

Posted by Richard Cownie | February 21, 2008 9:22 AM

When is MY going to get down to some substantive blogging and explain what the aliens did with Cindy McCain's eyeballs.

Posted by Lucy | February 21, 2008 9:24 AM

Is a distraction called for here? Look for something "newly embarrassing" to suddenly surface about Obama to serve as a pushback to all this. Limbaugh, Blitzer or Beck will serve up something to help extricate McCain from this bump in the road.

Posted by steve duncan | February 21, 2008 9:24 AM

I think Richard has it right -- the issue is not whether or not we think this type of thing is good or bad for our presidential candidate.
The issue is that McCain is already struggling with the "Family Values" (cough!) staunch conservatives. This will only decrease their willingness to support him -- and though they are not going to vote for the Democratic nominee, they are now far more likely to stay home and perhaps find the need to wash their hair come election night.

And in this day of tight political races, it will take a shift of only 1% of these people to the "no vote" category to send McCain straight to election Hell in the generals.

So it's not about how we feel about his personal life that matters, it's how the conservative base feels.

Oh, and did I mention that the likelihood of James Dobson and other conservative leaders fielding a third candidate just quadrupled. But why don't we wait to hear from Rush and Anne on this topic. I can't wait to see how much they campaign for the Democratic candidate.

Posted by Tom Ball | February 21, 2008 9:41 AM

It all goes to hypocrisy. McCain holds himself up as this great oracle of wisdom and virtue (just read the initial response from his campaign: He has NEVER violated the public trust) and for years the press has played along. But as the story lays out very well, he's been ethically challenged throughout his career. I follow politics pretty closely and was surprised just how many times he's gotten into trouble over the years. For me, the affair part is a so-what, except it plays to the fact he's two-faced and seems to believe he can do what he wants with whomever he wants, because he's St. McCain. There's a lot of fodder in this story that has nothing to do with sex.

Posted by NHCt | February 21, 2008 9:48 AM

So it's not about how we feel about his personal life that matters, it's how the conservative base feels.

Right, I mean its one thing to cheat on the original, shopworn wife. Its another to cheat on the replacement trophy wife. The family values crowd won't be happy. On the other hand, I suppose the fact that the trophy wife was stealing from children to feed her drug addiction will reduce people's sympathy for her.

Posted by Jim W | February 21, 2008 9:55 AM

John McCain has a pattern of lying to and cheating on people. He cheated on his first wife with the Budweiser heiress while his wife was in the hospital with serious injuries. So much for family values!

John McCain became interested in campaign contribution reform only after he was caught taking contributions from the Savings and Loans and allowing them to screw their investors and senior citizens out of billions, then costing the U.S. taxpayer out of more than $250 billion in bailout money. So much for being Conservative!

Posted by Amy Miller | February 21, 2008 9:55 AM

John McCain has a pattern of lying to and cheating on people. He cheated on his first wife with the Budweiser heiress while his wife was in the hospital with serious injuries. So much for family values!

John McCain became interested in campaign contribution reform only after he was caught taking contributions from the Savings and Loans and allowing them to screw their investors and senior citizens out of billions, then costing the U.S. taxpayer out of more than $250 billion in bailout money. So much for being Conservative!

Posted by Amy Miller | February 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Don't know whether this will hurt McCain, but that's a couple of oppo rsch guys who may never work in D.C. again.

Why? Did Bush lose? No. The racist story was more effective - you think W gives an ethical crap about spreading racial innuendo? Whatever gives you the edge.

I don't think the conservative base cares - most of the people who screamed about Clinton were just partisan wankers. The kind of social conservative who truly gets upset about infidelity probably doesn't like McCain anyway. Now, this may hurt McCain with women, but they will probably go for Obama anyway. Probably the net effect of this story for McCain is positive - any time the "liberal" NYT attacks him, conservatives will feel honour bound to rise to his defense, and may come out to vote for him after all.

On the other hand - if the press plays up the lobbying and the ethics angle rather than the sex, this will hurt McCain with independents, but I'm guessing the press will run with the sex.

Posted by vanya | February 21, 2008 10:31 AM

THIS IS A PURE SMEAR JOB...McCAIN IS A GOOD MAN. WONT BE SURPRISE, IF THIS SCANDAL WAS SET UP BY " BARCK HUSSEIN
& THE NYT "...WHAT'S SAD IS IF THE NYT CAN SMEAR A DECENT,HONEST, MAN LIKE McCAIN....WHO SERVED OUR COUNTRY.....WHAT WOULD THEY WRITE ABOUT A BLACK MUSLIM WHO'S RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT???

Posted by KEVIN | February 21, 2008 10:42 AM

Look for something "newly embarrassing" to suddenly surface about Obama to serve as a pushback to all this.

Well, the freepers are convinced that the 'homo-crack-limo' story is about to break, which really is quite sad.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 21, 2008 10:48 AM

Go fuck yourself KEVIN.

Posted by horatius | February 21, 2008 10:51 AM

After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career.

Anybody else remember the nasty shit they threw at Kerry for marrying someone with more money than he had?

Oh, I forgot--Kerry was a flip-flopper, not a straight-talker. Never mind.

Posted by Tom Hilton | February 21, 2008 10:54 AM

So much for being Conservative!

Au contraire, Amy, it is the very essence of being "conservative." See, DeLay, et. al.

Posted by Brautigan | February 21, 2008 10:57 AM

The issue is that McCain is already struggling with the "Family Values" (cough!) staunch conservatives. This will only decrease their willingness to support him -- and though they are not going to vote for the Democratic nominee, they are now far more likely to stay home and perhaps find the need to wash their hair come election night.

Unless they circle the wagons, instead. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this info was leaked by the McCain campaign itself to (1) defuse the stories well in advance of the general election (but after McCain had the nomination in the bag), and (2) draw the conservatives into McCain's camp by portraying him as the victim of a smear.

Posted by Soprano | February 21, 2008 11:02 AM

The issue is that McCain is already struggling with the "Family Values" (cough!) staunch conservatives. This will only decrease their willingness to support him -- and though they are not going to vote for the Democratic nominee, they are now far more likely to stay home and perhaps find the need to wash their hair come election night.

Unless they circle the wagons, instead. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this info was leaked by the McCain campaign itself to (1) defuse the stories well in advance of the general election (but after McCain had the nomination in the bag), and (2) draw the conservatives into McCain's camp by portraying him as the victim of a smear.

Posted by Soprano | February 21, 2008 11:04 AM

Anybody else remember the nasty shit they threw at Kerry for marrying someone with more money than he had?

McCain is furnishing Democrats with lots of ammunition in terms of character flaws, from adultery to inappropriate relations with lobbyists to a trophy wife who steals from children to support her drug habit. Its our own fault if we can't use this stuff to bring him down.

Posted by Jim W | February 21, 2008 11:04 AM

Sorry for the double post. Having browser weirdness (probably caused by OHM).

Posted by Soprano | February 21, 2008 11:05 AM

There's a lot of ground, between now and November, but this campaign is Saint John's swan song.

He's done some of the usual Republican unsavory things to get where he is today -- and when you step up to the Heavyweights and try to take the title, all those unsavory things are fair game.

I don't count out the power of the wingnut attack machine, or the ability of Rove to create a lie for him that others will believe... but McCain is the politics of the past made flesh. He's old -- not kindly, Marcus Welby, M.D. Old; but crabby angry bad Henry Fonda On-Golden-Pond Old.

McCain has inconsistent positions and public statements; his involvment in the S&L bailout is being resurrected; his lies are easy to spot; and worst of all, he appears to believe his own press. He thinks a self-righteous response will cover just about anything.

Most of all, he represents what some (people whom I know, anyway) perceive as the politics of the Republican machine -- a pay-for-play mode of decision-making and vicious, greed-driven, incompetent crony politics. That machine has run the country for nearly two decades. It made Bush their sock puppet, and McCain is strapped to both the GOP machine and Mister 19%(whom he campaigned for, twice).

As a Republican, McCain's claim of being a 'Maverick' won't prevent him from being perceived as Old Mister More Of The Same... and it's summed up in his favorite phrase, "my friends" -- which I think was last used consistently by Harold Stassen.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | February 21, 2008 11:11 AM

As a Republican, McCain's claim of being a 'Maverick' won't prevent him from being perceived as Old Mister More Of The Same... and it's summed up in his favorite phrase, "my friends" -- which I think was last used consistently by Harold Stassen.

"Pitchfork" Pat Buchanan had the same verbal tick when he was running for Prez.

Posted by Jim W | February 21, 2008 11:14 AM

This was likely started by anti-McCain Repubs.

Posted by LA | February 21, 2008 11:39 AM

Does this sound familiar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

If it was 8 years ago, that would make her 32 right?

Posted by charles | February 21, 2008 11:40 AM

The first thing we need is a special prosecutor. What bothers me so much is not the sex but the
lying. And if found guilty, (which he obviously is) impeachment would seem to be the only suitable punishment.

Posted by Ur | February 21, 2008 11:44 AM

It remains unclear why the paper sat on the story since December. But whether or not the New York Times has had the goods on John McCain, it didn't stop them from endorsing him in the state's Republican primary last month.

For the details, see:
"NY Times Endorsed McCain Before Running Scandal Piece."

Posted by Angry | February 21, 2008 12:04 PM

Matt, the whole thing is fair game. After "supposedly" standing up to them, McCain has started kowtowing to the Religious Right, so the sex angle, as well as the lobby favoritism angle, is perfectly fair game. No wonder the Romney campaign is pissed about the timing.

That said, Huckabee is still around.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | February 21, 2008 12:14 PM

Why not take it for what it is - an attempt to dig up dirt on a candidate, whoever that candidate is. It does not matter whether McCain did or did not do what's alleged. What matters is how long the story lasts and how much damage it inflicts.

Posted by AP | February 21, 2008 12:20 PM

Disregard the incorrect and vicious smear contained above about Senator Barack Obama by a cretin who does not merit to have his name mentioned.

Posted by ceci | February 21, 2008 12:32 PM

Time to educate the voting public about the real John McCain, very far from "maverick war hero", how about cheating, lying, silver spoon born, womanizer.

Posted by Janice Falk | February 21, 2008 1:36 PM

All I got to say is "Where have you gone Mitt Romney, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you -woo woo woo."

Posted by KPRO | February 21, 2008 1:45 PM

You're missing the NYT story's main point. The print edition was quite clear that the issue is the divergence between his recent public persona and his real life involvement with and reliance on lobbyists, among whom is Iseman. It made relatively little of a possible romantic liaison with her.

Posted by eric20008 | February 21, 2008 2:39 PM

@ eric2008: You're missing the NYT story's main point. The print edition was quite clear that the issue is the divergence between his recent public persona and his real life involvement with and reliance on lobbyists, among whom is Iseman.

Bingo.

The sex shouldn't be the point -- that's a "news-as-entertainment" formula. The real issue is conflict of interest and doing favors for cash. If there's any sex involved, it's in the metaphor of McCain fluffing his Bud for money.

We've determined what McCain is; we even know the price: $20K .

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | February 21, 2008 2:57 PM

What is the fuss about the Times detracting from the real/evil of the money angle suggesting sex was involved in the "friendship" with a lobbyist? Sex, my friends, in many, many cases is money. Duh.

Posted by Footloose | February 21, 2008 3:43 PM

Ted:
Right and well said! I was thinking the same thing. Either Karl Rove lost his touch, or he was just getting lazy and going for the obvious, sure to win, racist allusions.

Posted by Cathy | February 21, 2008 3:48 PM

"where have you gone, Mitt Romney"? Can you be serious, KPRO? Mitt Romney is proudly endorsing Cheater McCain! Which just goes to show that Flip Flopney is only concerned with his own political career.

The only hope the GOP has to beat Hillary or Obama, is Ron Paul. Don't laugh. With all the crap coming out about McCain, I think the Republican National Convention may very well abandon him.

Posted by Ben There | February 21, 2008 3:59 PM

Where was your concern when there were allegations about Kerry and some young woman and about Edwards having an affair?

Posted by Kija | February 21, 2008 4:10 PM

The RNC is going to abandon McCain for Ron Paul? McCain is a 'typical Replublican'? Sheesh. I think I am scared more than ever about the extremist on both sides of the aisle and on this board. Do the wackos live in some twisted consipiracy world? Vote or don't vote for the man, but it hard to argue that McCain has been business as usual when it comes to reform or backing the far right nut jobs.

Look, there is plenty to dislike about any candidate, but I can't remember a time in my lifetime where I thought there were so many candidates that had some real qualities I admire. That doesn't mean that I wanted them as President, but I am grateful for the choice. I am not likely to vote for a personal injury attorney like Edwards, but that doesn't mean that I don't have a lot of respect for the other things he has done in his career and what he has emphasized while in the public eye.

None of the major candidates deserve the bitter scorn they go through. (Well, maybe Hillary. I still can't shake the feeling that she and Bill value the political process more than a great sense of public service, but that may be my impression based on the media.) I'm glad that there are decent people like McCain (and others) who are willing to suffer the slings and arrows in order to make the country a better place.

Posted by Dan in Virginia | February 21, 2008 4:25 PM

I will forgive McCain just like I forgave former President Clinton, Monica and her so-called friend, Linda Tripp. But ... I won't forget.
I think the American people should have received a rebate for having to bail out the Savings & Loans.

Posted by Patriotic Democrat | February 21, 2008 5:59 PM

I will forgive McCain just like I forgave former President Clinton, Monica and her so-called friend, Linda Tripp. But ... I won't forget.
I think the American people should have received a rebate for having to bail out the Savings & Loans.

Posted by Patriotic Democrat | February 21, 2008 5:59 PM

One thing that is missing from this is evidence of inappropriate influence - namely, which votes did he sell out?

Surely the times, if they are going to allege that McCain sold votes, can point out which votes they were.

The article talks about some issues that were in front of the committee that he chaired, and letters that were sent, but doesn't quote from the letters, or name specific votes?

Is it possible that there is no evidence of him throwing a vote?

And if there is evidence, why won't they print it?

Posted by cdm | February 22, 2008 1:24 AM

So the facts:

McCain vs lobbying firm X

McCain got campaign contributions of some non-negligible amount from clients of X, something like 1% of the cost of a single Senatorial campaign

McCain got a charming partner, working for X, for some good time around the town (perhaps just strolling and dining and some such)

McCain was active on the behalf of clients of X.

My conclusion is that McCain perception of the common weal is influenced by factors like: campaign contribution and personal charm of persons presenting cases to consider. Not something that would justify tar and feather treatment, but a demerit even so.

PS. It is well known that men, especially of certain age, may feel pleasure of female companionship, especially if of (relatively) young and pretty kind, even if sex is not involved. For examples, young pretty females are clearly over-represented in sales stuff for drugs and medical equipment, even if doctors who make purchase decisions do not sleep with them (at least, I hope that they do not). The companies probably know what they do. And if doctors are influenced by the gender, age and looks of the sales people that is not that good. My guess that the gender, age and looks of lobbyists making personal contacts with politicians is similarly skewed, and, unlike in the case of sales people, the lobbyists are encouraged by their employers to have personal friendship with politicians.

PS. PS. How about "Vote McCain, virile as recently as 8 years ago"?

Posted by piotr | February 22, 2008 8:51 AM

o how easily the sheep are led out to pasture...
here's the story kids:
$20k, favors asked, favors granted.
that McCain, he's a real "maverick" alright.
i could care less if he "got lucky" on the plane.
$20k, favors asked, favors granted.
get it? and this was just one story of many.

Posted by Mike in Seattle | February 22, 2008 10:14 AM

and oh yeah - tho the infidelity angle is not really relevant, i must admit that it was amusing to see the woman he cheated on his first wife with talk about him being a "man of character."
now that's funny!

Posted by Mike in Seattle | February 22, 2008 10:19 AM

and oh yeah - tho the infidelity angle is not really relevant, i must admit that it was amusing to see the woman he cheated on his first wife with talk about him being a "man of character."
now that's funny!

Posted by Mike in Seattle | February 22, 2008 10:28 AM

If I have not mistaken something, only these can be considered as true facts in this story:

- Vicki Iseman had spent more time around McCain, what is normal for a professional relationship.
- She thought, she did have influence on McCain. She was sure enough to speak about it.
- Some people close to McCain were worried enough about Iseman to take all, but one of the possible actions to keep her away.

My questions:

- Is it realistic that McCain did not realize that such an attractive lady, who is hard to overlook, was too much around?
- Is it anything of realistic not asking McCain if it was ok with him to take such actions beforehand?
- Is it realistic, that after the people in charge in his campaign had taken some serious actions to keep Iseman away from McCain, they would not warn him too?

The answer for me this far is NO. So he is lying.

But maybe I am missing something. So suppose it is in fact true, that McCain knew nothing about it.

-Why was he left out?

The only thing I can think of is that they were afraid, that McCain would not listen. And this leads back to the improper relationship.

But maybe I am still missing something. Really would not want to miss anything of importance, so if there are other possible realistic explanations, I am very much open to suggestions.

Posted by Leslie | February 22, 2008 1:16 PM