Paxson and UHF

It seemed a bit mysterious as to why "Bud" Paxson would go on the record as contradicting John McCain about his involvement in the Pittsburgh TV station sale matter, but Mark Kleiman flags the relevant story. Basically, Paxson (among others) also wanted a much bigger favor related to a spectrum giveaway to owners of UHF spectrum and McCain led the congressional charge against Paxson. Under the circumstances, you can both see why Paxson would be out for revenge and why McCain would be super-outraged that people would cast aspersions upon his integrity.

That said, it seems typically McCainian to decide that that outrage gives him a license to lie. He could defend his actions with regard to Pittsburgh on the merits. Or he could admit that he did a favor for Paxson with regard to Pittsburgh, but argue that this is more than counterbalanced out by his later actions. But the "I'm a good person so I'll deny having had meetings I actually had" line doesn't really wash.

Comments

Seems like a lot of McCain's integrity posturing comes as a result of being caught, well, not having much integrity. I mean, is it possible that his entire McCain-Feingold phase was an overreaction to being caught in the Keating 5 scandal?

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 28, 2008 8:02 AM

"That said, it seems typically McCainian to decide that that outrage gives him a license to lie."

Or, more simply and likely, McCain is a stone liar, who's quite comfortable getting mad at the truth.

Posted by Barry | February 28, 2008 8:19 AM

He's a maverick!

Posted by El Cid | February 28, 2008 8:34 AM

He could also have forgotten, which is the simplest explanation (coupled with a tendency to make broader than necessary denials, I grant you). Why is this so? Because as we know, he testified under oath, in publicly available documents, a few years ago, that the meeting occurred. Thus, either, as you suggest, his memory is good and he lied knowing that he said the opposite under oath which would be found almost immediately, or, in haste, he simply forgot and said more than he could justify in order to put out a fire.

I'm not saying the last is entirely admirable, but it is understandable. Your constant taking of every McCain misstatement and calling it a "lie" while never doing that for Obama (does, for instance, Robert Reich say that his plan saves more money than Hillary? Answer--not any more. Is Barack a big fat liar, or what?).

McCain may have made some serious mistakes--so far the evidence for that is nearly nothing, so we have to pretend that his getting a meaningless detail wrong (either he should have written the letters or not, regardless of whether Paxson asked directly or through staff) because he's a big liar.

Let's all settle down and let the election be decided by the big differences between the candidates, and not these little "gotcha" moments.

Posted by Bill | February 28, 2008 8:55 AM

Oh, give it up, Bill. This is a guy who has fetched a 360 degree circuit around the political poles in just a few years while pretending (successfully as far as the dumbass MSM are concerned) that nothing has changed. He's consummate liar and phony, but as good as he is you can't get away with that stuff forever.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 28, 2008 9:49 AM

I think that all of this misses the real significance of the Forbes story, which to my mind, goes to confirm the quality of the original New York Times reporting.

Think of it this way, if you will. McCain didn't like Paxson, and steadfastly opposed his business strategy. So why was he doing him more marginal favors, like writing letters that made jaws drop over at the FCC? Paxson, it seems, didn't particularly like McCain. So why were he and his associates funneling him donations and flying him about the country, despite any evidence that they were impacting his views regarding the matter on which the company's success or failure then rode?

The answer is Vicki Iseman. It was apparently Iseman who arranged the donations and the plane rides, at least once accompanying McCain on the jet, and always going with him to the fundraising events. Paxson can't recall whether she went with him to meet McCain, but either way, she arranged the meeting. On the other side, it was Iseman who went to McCain or to his staff to arrange the letter to the FCC. By all accounts, the relationship between Iseman and McCain was unusually close for a senator and a lobbyist. (And no, I'm not just being euphemistic. I don't care what passed between them, just how it affected McCain's public role.) And, it would seem, it was that relationship which lay at the core of the paradox - McCain and Paxson scratching each other's backs despite mutual loathing, an arrangement brokered by Vicki Iseman.

I think Bill Keller was wrong on this one. The way to run the story wasn't to set it within a broader conext of influence peddling, or to suggest that Iseman was no more than a conduit for her clients. The Boston Globe had exhaustively reported the Paxson/McCain relationship back in 2000, and there's nothing new on that in the Times piece. Instead, the thing to do was to excise the sexual innuendo, and just rain a straight feature on how a particular lobbyist was able to arrange favors for a client, by trading on the strength of her relationship with a senator. Not as glitzy, but if anything, even more damning.

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | February 28, 2008 10:22 AM

the "I'm a good person so I'll deny having had meetings I actually had" line doesn't really wash.

Just sub in "blowjob" for "meetings" and you can see we're deep in familiar ethical territory here...and hey, maybe that one is relevant to McCain's current stance, as well!

Posted by elle loco | February 28, 2008 10:23 AM

the "I'm a good person so I'll deny having had meetings I actually had" line doesn't really wash.

Just sub in "blowjob" for "meetings" and you can see we're deep in familiar ethical territory here...and hey, maybe that one is relevant to McCain's current stance, as well!

Posted by elle loco | February 28, 2008 10:24 AM

Steve,

Very sharp argument there. I mean, rather than address my argument about the unlikelihood that he was lying, and the fact that all the candidates routinely make misstatements of fact and we don't consider them all liars (I don't, anyway), you came up with a really killer argument. To wit, "He's consummate liar and phony."

I must confess, when you put it that way, who could disagree? Wait, here's a counterargument, "no, he isn't."

Guess it's a tie.

Posted by Bill | February 28, 2008 11:43 AM

Very sharp argument there. I mean, rather than address my argument about the unlikelihood that he was lying, and the fact that all the candidates routinely make misstatements of fact and we don't consider them all liars (I don't, anyway), you came up with a really killer argument.

Bill, one can imagine making a statement in an off-the-cuff sort of way that was wrong; if I were trash-talking Matt, I might say that I thought the Lakers were going to be awesome this year because I remember it that way. It takes brass balls to get up in front of bunch of reporters and make sweeping categorical denials without bothering to check first. Maybe McCain isn't a liar -- maybe he just says these things and behaves this way because he's JOHN GODDAMN MAVERICK MCCAIN and therefore must be right. (Isn't that the likeliest explanation for his petulant hissy-fit about Obama putting forth ethics reform ideas without clearing it with the Maverick first?) I'll accept your argument that he didn't lie as a possibility, but you're basically saying that he's self-deluded and puffed up on his own vain sense of morality.

Posted by Steve | February 28, 2008 12:06 PM

Excuse me, that should be "didn't intend to lie". Because, you know, he uttered an untruth, even if that hurts your feelings.

Posted by Steve | February 28, 2008 12:08 PM

Bill, there is NEVER any unlikelihood that McCain is lying. As his entire political career indicates, in any given situation that is always the most parsimonious explanation for anything he says. Have you been paying attention at all? This is a career right-winger who, apparently in a fit of pique, all but joined the Democratic caucus in Bush's first term (and had serious discussions with Kerry about being the latter's running mate), and is now busy re-re-inventing himself as a winger again to get the Republican nomination. This is the guy who was against Bob Jones University before he was for it. Any relationship between anything he says, and either truth or any actual conviction on his part (if he has any), is purely accidental.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 28, 2008 12:33 PM

Steve,

I don't know which Steve is the temperate one--I don't disagree a ton with him. Yes, I think McCain is too "puffed up" in his anti-lobbying crusade, and that that leads him to make too many simplistic denials of what he has done ("no favors") and simplistic denunciations of what his political foes do. I don't regard being puffed up a fatal flaw in someone running for President, but a prerequisite. These are extremely odd and egotistical people to go through what they go through in order to be President.

As to the intemperate Steve (LaBonne), your own post is itself not accurate. It overstates McCain's flirtation with becoming an independent (there is no credible evidence that he was "seriously" considering becoming a Democrat), and elides too easily his other attempts (as all politicians make) not to be too easily pigeonholed. When I say all politicians do this, look at today's contretemps with Obama and Canada on NAFTA--he doesn't say the Canadians are lying when they say he privately assured them he didn't mean he'd break the agreement, he says it's "inaccurate." Hmm, looks fishy, no? Is he a big time liar? Not as politicians go. It's just that everything they say gets parsed and replayed before a massive national audience and that their foes pounce on every little inconsistency.

Matt Yglesias is classic here--he looks for a daily "gotcha" on McCain but whines incessantly when Russert finds them with Hillary or Barack. And of course, he's right to say that Russert goes overboard in this regard; he ought to follow his own advice in dealing with McCain.

The whole idea of McCain-as-Maverick is predicated on his not being consistently ideological; it's what people find refreshing. You attack it here as his having been all over the place--well, that's part of what it is not to be an ideologue. It's also part of what it is to be a Senator. Did you think all the attacks on Kerry the flip-flopper were intellectually honest? I did not. And the same goes for McCain. The nature of the Senate, historically, is compromise. The appeal of McCain is that he has the potential to bring the party back from the brink of its all-or-nothing immaturity of the House GOP, who after all thought Gingrich was too moderate.

If you think the most important fact about McCain is that he's a liar, and that's the reason you are voting for Obama (I imagine), then I don't suppose I can disabuse you of that. I think he's a fairly typical politician in his attitude toward the truth, I think he has not been a part of the Abramoff corruption of the party, and I think I have to decide this election based on the big differences between the candidates.

I hope that's what they will campaign on, and it would be nice if an intelligent person like MY would stop playing Russert so much with McCain.

Posted by Bill | February 28, 2008 1:19 PM

It overstates McCain's flirtation with becoming an independent

You seem very ill-informed about both his votes and sponsorships of bills during that period. Go educate yourself, then talk.

He's not a "maverick", he's just a completely unprincipled politician, the only constant in whose career (other than warmongering) is coziness with lobbyists. And yes, I will run to the polls to vote for EITHER Obama or Clinton (and not as a result of having any illusions whatsoever about either, by the way) against McCain, who would be a disastrously incompetent president (haven't we had enough of that?)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 28, 2008 1:29 PM