Matthew Yglesias (February 23, 2008) - McCain's Lying Problem (Foreign Policy)

Yeah, if she didn't mention it to him, what the hell were they talking about?

Posted by lauren | February 23, 2008 11:33 AM

Have you read McMegan lately about the whole McCain thing? A few of her regular commenters have gone off the deep end on this. They are saying(along with McMegan's mother as she points out) that they will vote for McCain just to spite the NYT. Teh Stoopid. It burns!!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 23, 2008 11:33 AM

Lol, these are people who were ALWAYS going to vote for McCain. Sure, they may have moaned and bitched about how he wasn't good enough, but in reality Republicans fall in line. It's the biggest part of what makes someone a Republican, the desire to simply fall in line.

Posted by soullite | February 23, 2008 11:43 AM

It's weird to think of something so random as a ten year-old purchase of a television station in Pittsburgh as posing a major political problem for John McCain, but much more so than other politicians he's made the myth of some kind of preternatural powers of honestness central to his persona.

There is a lesson regarding your favored candidate, here, but it seems to be eluding you (at least at present). To illustrate, here's this sentence with a perfectly accurate addition (in bold):

"It's weird to think of something so random as a ten year-old purchase of a television station in Pittsburgh as posing a major political problem for John McCain, but much more so than other politicians not named Barack Obama, [McCain's] made the myth of some kind of preternatural powers of honestness central to his persona."

Drum is right that Obama, despite his considerable merits, is being oversold -- and the inevitable Obama-crash is not going to be pretty.

Posted by von | February 23, 2008 11:44 AM

McCain attorney Robert S. Bennett played down the contradiction between the campaign's written answer and Paxson's recollection.
"We understood that he [McCain] did not speak directly with him [Paxson]. Now it appears he did speak to him. What is the difference?" Bennett said.

Whoa! Time to get a new lawyer!
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 23, 2008 11:48 AM

Matt has forgotten something. McCain CANNOT LIE and DID NOT LIE. That is the one immutable truth. Therefore, the contradictions surrounding McCain's account MUST have another explanation, perhaps to be found in the fundamental nature of time, space, and the universe. Perhaps the letter was written at a singularity point at which all possibilities are simultaneously true. Perhaps the various events happened in different alternate universes.

It may be necessary to engage some of the finest scientific minds to come to a full understanding, but whatever understanding emerges, it will be demonstrated that McCain DID NOT LIE.

Posted by Mike Toreno | February 23, 2008 11:51 AM

Von's concern is noted. But Obama can already blame Exelon on Inhofe, so there's no equivalent ... yet.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 23, 2008 11:53 AM

Drum is right that Obama, despite his considerable merits, is being oversold -- and the inevitable Obama-crash is not going to be pretty.

You gotta love democrats and the circular squad. Right now there's a story that's puts a chink into McCain armor and that may lead to more stories of McCain's corruption, but instead of focusing on that someone has to bring up Obama who has nothing to do with the story.

Posted by MGJ | February 23, 2008 11:54 AM

Somewhere in all the McCain talk over the past few days I heard that he was deeply affected by the public shame he felt about the Keating issue, and that it was the crucible in which he forged his "reformer" persona. (Probably common knowledge but new to me.) With that in mind, I think McCain faces a large, undiscussed potential threat from the puncturing of his straight-talk facade: the excessive stress of new public shame, and memories of past ones (not to mention the Republican smears of 2000). Excessive stress makes people make mistakes; it clouds thinking; it aggravates health problems. And it's just possible that other ambitious Republicans are stroking their chins and saying, "My, my, my: I wonder what I could gain from a brokered GOP convention."

Posted by StuporMundi | February 23, 2008 11:56 AM

soullite, I agree that the sort of folks who are now filled with righteous fury at the NYT were always going to vote for McCain in the end.

But I disagree that "It's the biggest part of what makes someone a Republican, the desire to simply fall in line." That's true, and all, but we all have brains wired for partisanship.

The McCain camp's response to all this has been embarrassingly panicky. I don't care whether or not he was having yet another affair, but there was definitely something going on there that has them freaked out.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 23, 2008 11:59 AM

Let's see-

"Bomb, bomb Iran" - Check
"100 years in Iraq" - Check
"I was not in bed with that lobbyist" - Check

Scamming the FEC, having an indicted fellow Republican as a co-chair of your campaign.....I'd say that McCain is working hard to overcome his undeserved reputation as Mr. Honesty and trying to solidify his credentials as a Mr. Bush Republican.

Posted by Innocent Bystander | February 23, 2008 12:00 PM

What I don't get is that McCain could have made a much more effective response if he had half-told the truth about the issues rather than flat-out lied about them. Specifically, admit to all of the really obvious, provable stuff and hoped for the benefit of the doubt for the less provable, more damaging accusations.

This is a crude example, but let's say you are cheating on your husband. He says while he was at the mall he spotted you in a cafe with an ex-boyfriend. The McCain response would be, "I wasn't at the mall. I haven't spoken to my ex in months." A better response would be, "Of course I was. We're still friends and keep in touch. You should have come over and joined us. I think you two would get along really well." This is also the type of response you would give if you weren't cheating on your husband, which is why it is more effective.

I don't know what, if any, substance there is about the accusations, both about his alleged relationship and the favors he may have did for Paxson. But I don't like how McCain is handling the situation. It shows a cognitive dissonance that prevents him from admitting the times his actions contradict his own, somewhat inflated view of himself.

Posted by Jason | February 23, 2008 12:01 PM

Wonder if Nicholas Kristof still admires McCain for his straight talk? Will the wise men and women of media admit they've been suckered by Keating-5 McCain? Yeh, I'm not holding my breath either.

Posted by Lilybelle | February 23, 2008 12:07 PM

Stuff like this is why I'm really not worried about McCain as a general election opponent. McCain's problem is that all of his positives among the swing voters are built on lies. He's not a straight-shooter. He caves to the Republican leadership when it counts. He's just as (if not more) beholden to the lobbyists as the rest of the congress-to-k-street revolving door crowd.

The next 8 months will see non-stop stories along these lines. The myth of the maverick will be long gone by November, and McCain will be left appealing to the republican faithful (who by then will have rallied around him, because, well, he's not a democrat). That sort of coalition can beat a John Kerry, but probably not a Hillary Clinton, and almost certainly not Barack Obama.

Posted by ArtB | February 23, 2008 12:10 PM

In his press conference, McCain lied about things that could be -- and were -- almost instantly checked, such as whether he'd talked to anyone at the NYT. Has it occurred to anyone that he may be starting to show the signs of Alzheimer's? I mean this as a serious question; he's not a young man, and we do have the precedent of Reagan.

Posted by Jan | February 23, 2008 12:15 PM

I'm with ArtB. It was relatively easy for the McCain campaign to dismiss the initial NYT story because of the weakly sourced sex angle. The Paxson issue, however, is potentially devastating, which is why McCain came out and denied everything about it - telling obvious and easily refuted lies. Stupidly. Birnbaum and Grimaldi in the Post are going after him hammer and tongs, and Bennet's just flailing. The campaign looks like it's taking on water. They'll be playing defense on this till election day.

Posted by pinson | February 23, 2008 12:25 PM

MGJ, for clarity,* I am not a Democrat. And, although I have not closed the door on voting to Obama, I have historically (i.e., in 2000) supported McCain. (I was, quite frankly, rooting for Hillary to win the D nomination so as to make my choice for POTUS easier.)

Incidentally, as MY notes, McCain in '00 was oversold as well -- but he didn't last long enough for it to prove his undoing and some air escaped from that balloon over the last eight years. We're now seeing what remains of the balloon pop (at least among Ds and Independents).

*You deserve to know this so that you may weigh my comments appropriately.

Posted by von | February 23, 2008 12:34 PM

Everything in presidential politics is narrative. This is the first break in McCain's "straight-talk" "maverick" narrative. That narrative has been sustained by his appearances, rather controlled, on Imus, Hardball, MTP and other friendly media outlets.

What is interesting about this episode is how McCain reacts when facing somewhat hostile media that challenge his master narrative. As Matt points out, he lies (okay, exaggerates, misstates, misremembers, overcompensates, etc.)

I hope Obama's people are looking at this dynamic carefully. As McCain nears the nomination, he won't be able to use the NBC boyz help him maintain the storyline. He'll need to engage with media on all levels. Maybe he's not so good at it.

Posted by DaveyJoe | February 23, 2008 12:49 PM

I'm looking forward to an obvious resolution of the Praxton contradiction.

"My memory is not that good anymore"

That is actually consistent with his out-of-the-blue recollection of the 1965 Barbara Ann/Bomb Iran. Short term memory and recollection of formative years are still OK. Anything longer than a year? Nah. This explains his attitude to Iraq, public financing of elections, lobbying reform, you name it.

In short, he's losing it.

Posted by KPlayer | February 23, 2008 12:49 PM

Nice job of staying on subject von!

Posted by gary | February 23, 2008 12:54 PM

I'll repost this from McCardle's board in an attempt to throw some cold water on the little victory dance happening over here:

The denial of a meeting came from his campaign staff, not McCain. Since the events in question happened almost nine years ago, don't you think it's possible that this was just a misunderstanding? They admitted some contact between McCain's team and Paxson. Christ, I don't remember meetings I had 9 MONTHS ago, and I'm not a Senator. To call this a "lie" is a bit of a stretch I think, and requires an assumption of some serious stupidity on the part of the McCain campaign (how could they have hoped to get away with it?).
I'm really getting tired of this "gotcha" politics crap. Both sides are guilty of it obviously, but it is a distraction nonetheless.

Posted by dsr | February 23, 2008 12:58 PM

Elvis, I agree. Under normal circumstances, he'd be relying on his cozy press relationship to laugh this off. Indeed, Tweety and the rest seemed willing to give him a pretty big pass on this. So, why on earth did he go into total lock-down mode and lawyer up on day one?

There's something to this, and McCain at least thinks this has the potential to be fatal to his presidential ambitions.

Posted by soullite | February 23, 2008 1:01 PM

I wouldn't worry about Obama's honesty. He simply will not have any choice.
Hilary can, if she wishes, make her peace, if elected, with all the left-over neo-con, theo-con, criminal and incompetents left over from the Repubs. Obama cannot. If he doesn't go get them, they will come and get him!
Jesus, he can't even trust the Secret Service.

I trust Obama. I trust him to try and save his reputation, indeed even his mortal life. The criminals and neo-cons and theo-cons can never rest easy if Obama is elected. Would you waterboard or eavesdrop illegally for Obama, trusting him to cover for or pardon you like Bush? I doubt it!

Obama is either the bravest politician ever, or the stupidest. I'm betting on brave, and that's good enough for me. Besides, it really doesn't matter what Obama wants. He either cleans the place out or he's toast. Hilary does not face that same choice in the same way, at all.

Posted by Mooser | February 23, 2008 1:09 PM

DSR:
Don't expect a warm reception here. Most of the commenters here don't have a very high opinion of McMegan.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 23, 2008 1:14 PM

Von,

Fair enough. I guess I am reacting to the fact that you have Clinton supporters like Taylor Marsh who is interested in tearing down Obama as much as helping the republicans.

I should be clear I am not against criticizing candidates should it be fair. I do think that one must also be careful in not making a politician into a saint. That applies to Obama as well.

Posted by MGJ | February 23, 2008 1:27 PM

I'm very curious to see where the press goes from here with McCain. They've stuck with him through all the pandering to the religious right and to Bush, even though that contradicted everything he'd supposedly stood for. Now information indicating that he's just another pol, perfectly willing to lie when it suits his purposes, is being waved in their faces. The big question is whether the press does a "la la la I can't hear you" in response, or turns on McCain with all the fury of a jilted lover. The election, and possibly the future of the country, may depend to a large extent on the outcome of this.

Posted by beckya57 | February 23, 2008 1:29 PM

DSr, politicians remember ever Favor they ever do for anyone.

No. There is absolutely no chance he simply forgot about this. There is no way in hell any politician would forget a chit he has to call in.

Posted by soullite | February 23, 2008 1:50 PM

Except that the proof of the story may not come out until after November. The paper(s) wouldn't want to alter the will of the people and/or print the whole truth.

Posted by Clemo | February 23, 2008 2:02 PM

The way McCain, his Senate staff and his campaign have handled media inquiries about this matter in the last few months (hiring Bennett, for example, to respond to media inquiries about McCain actions and relationships long before any story was published) does suggest that McCain folks are really scared about this story. Despite the attempt to turn this into an opportunity to bash The New York Times, their behavior seems more like an attempt by the guilty to spin than an attempt at vindication by the innocent (or near innocent).

Just based on how McCain has handled this story (without the additional disclosures of the last couple of days), it probably has legs. My guess is that there is at least a 1 in 3 chance that McCain will step aside as the Republican nominee -- which is a disappointment to me as I really like how Obama has been framing a potential contest with McCain and was beginning to look forward to it.

Posted by Ben Brackley | February 23, 2008 2:14 PM

This certainly would hurt McCain with PEOPLE who could potentially vote for him later, but it kinda does solidify his bona fides with the global corporatists who effectively control our country now. Does it matter what he did, in contrast to our current ELECTED leaders not being able to say with one voice that Corporations do have consequences if they break our laws, or do not get bailed out of risky financial situations because they no longer benefit at the cost of Amercian individuals?

Dont miss the forest that has grown up and destroyed our society for one particular tree that tilts right, left or as the wind blows. Besides everyone already knows all of the trees are part of the forest, so quit being suprised there is a connection. Voters nowdays are NOT part of the forest or becoming it, they are picking the prettiest tree.

Posted by So | February 23, 2008 2:16 PM

"a ten year-old purchase of a television station"

As opposed to the 100 year old real estate deal that lost money?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 23, 2008 2:22 PM

With Bush, Iraq, the destruction of the Constitution, Abramoff, the fact that Republicans are the party of the rich by the rich for the rich moves back stage.

When Republicans were perceived as fiscally and militarily responsible, their support of the money interests was tolerated.

But now what is left of Republicans:

1. They are reckless in the extreme in foreign and military policy and are a direct threat to us and our children.

2. They are incompetent at governance (Katrina), and fiscal policy (pork, tax cuts, unnecessary wars).

3. Their political base is corporations, the rich and middle east war zealots that can afford first class heath care for themselves, jobs cuts here and factors in China, but third world health care, jobs and education for the rest of us.

No wonder they are placing all their bets on fear mongering -- terror and immigration. They are totally bankrupt.

Posted by eric | February 23, 2008 2:36 PM

Yeah, if she didn't mention it to him, what the hell were they talking about?

Certainly not Cindy McCain.

Posted by Rich | February 23, 2008 2:59 PM

The difficulty with buying, right now, that this kerfuffle will seriously damage McCain is that the NYT ineptly made the "romantic relationship" between Iseman and McCain the salient part of their first article, not the Senator's ties to lobbyist and corporate donors.

Absent very strong evidence that the relationship was more than friendly - which has not yet been produced - the campaign's push back on this angle is what will be remembered, not the false denials of personally exerting influence on a company's behalf.

"McCain in bed with moneyed interests" can easily be spun away. "McCain in bed with 32 year old blonde," not so much. But once the campaign refutes the latter, the former loses power to harm.

Posted by Andrew | February 23, 2008 3:24 PM

Part of me wonders whether the NYT put the weaker story front and center, hoping to elicit a general denial, which would then reveal that McCain/his team were lying. Once they were found lying about one thing, denial of the second would look less plausible. If so, they may just have succeeded. Either way, it looks bad for McCain.

Posted by maraschion | February 23, 2008 3:35 PM

Drum is right that Obama, despite his considerable merits, is being oversold -- and the inevitable Obama-crash is not going to be pretty.

I don't know. He looks poised to go up against someone who's undeserved reputation for "straight talk" is unraveling before everyone's eyes - including a deposition that contradicts his "angry," lying press conference.

That will make for a really good commercial come the general election.

I look forward to more stories knocking down the false image while Chris Matthews gnashes his teeth, joining forces with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in a vain attempt to save his idol.

Sure, McCain has already won the Russert primary, and the Russert general, for that matter, but here's hoping that's not a particularly powerful force anymore.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 23, 2008 3:35 PM

It's all very simple. Senator McCain should just go on Larry King and state that he did not have sex with that woman.

Posted by SLC | February 23, 2008 3:53 PM

The difficulty with buying, right now, that this kerfuffle will seriously damage McCain is that the NYT ineptly made the "romantic relationship" between Iseman and McCain the salient part of their first article, not the Senator's ties to lobbyist and corporate donors.

Not exactly. The narrative was pretty off-kilter, which lends credence to the theory that the Times printed a compromised version of the story that four reporters insisted they'd "nailed". Anyway, the Times doesn't have to prove that McCain and Iseman had an affair. Indeed, how could they? Rather, the argument should be, why shouldn't the Times report that McCain's aides were so worried about an unseemly relationship that they confronted both McCain and Iseman? The story's weakness dervies from the anonymity of the Times' sources, but the paper appeared to have enough backup to justify running the story.

It's about time McCain came under scrutiny by the major media. McCain is an imposter.

Posted by Lucy | February 23, 2008 3:56 PM

The point that should be made is this:

Every single one of McCain's surrogates are saying: goodness, that letter didn't say that McCain cared about the outcome one way or another! All it did was ask the commission to move on it.

The point needs to be made that it is entirely unnecessary for such a letter to say: rule in my guy's favor. Why else would the Senator send such a letter if he was not interested in the guy getting what he was after? Everyone knows this. Oh hi, I randomly decided to write a letter asking why this guy hasn't gotten a ruling. Mind you, I couldn't care less what the ruling is. Just interested in process, you know. Yeah right.

Posted by BM | February 23, 2008 4:51 PM

McCain also lied about Obama pledging to use only public money to finance his campaign.

Posted by Dave Winer | February 23, 2008 5:26 PM

McCain also lied about Obama pledging to use only public money to finance his campaign.

Posted by Dave Winer | February 23, 2008 5:28 PM

"But Obama can already blame Exelon on Inhofe, so there's no equivalent ... yet."

Can he blame Inhofe for Exelon's donations of more than a quarter million to his Senate and Presidential campaigns?

Posted by cal1942 | February 23, 2008 9:50 PM

"Honestness"? And that would differ from "honesty" how?

Posted by daphne | February 23, 2008 10:59 PM

"Honestness"? And that would differ from "honesty" how?

Posted by daphne | February 23, 2008 11:01 PM

dsr:

"don't you think it's possible that this was just a misunderstanding? They admitted some contact between McCain's team and Paxson. Christ, I don't remember meetings I had 9 MONTHS ago, and I'm not a Senator. To call this a "lie" is a bit of a stretch I think, and requires an assumption of some serious stupidity on the part of the McCain campaign (how could they have hoped to get away with it?)."

Yeah, but you didn't get flown on a company jet to a $20k/head yacht party, either.

I'm not sure, but I think that kind of interaction would tend to stand out in your memory, especially when your role in the game is to "remember" who are your "friends" when the legislation starts happening...

Posted by klevenstein | February 23, 2008 11:39 PM