Does John McCain's campaign really want to go on record with the idea that he has "never done favors for special interests or lobbyists"? I would, personally, find it shocking if there were truly zero instances in the man's 25 year congressional career in which he did something for a special interest. What about Charles Keating? This seems like an invitation for trouble down the road.
« High-Speed Rail | Main | Clinton's Money »
Strong Claim
20 Feb 2008 09:59 pm
Comments (80)
This statement can come and haunt him after this story from the NYT.
Good point. He should probably qualify that statement a bit. Maybe:
"I have never done special favors for special interests or sexy lobbyists."
That should give him a little wiggle room.
Exactly what I thought. He admitted to doing favors for Keating. That's why McCain was censured.
I dunno, this makes it seem like Charles Keating* may qualify.
* Yes, I know this is a different Charles Keating.
Matt just can't handle the straight talk.
I think McCain is lucky that this stuff seems to be coming out now instead of later. Of course, when hasn't he been lucky in this campaign?
My previous comment was in response to mankiewicz's qualified rewriting of McCain's statement.
He's definitely lucky it's come out now and not just before Iowa, but still, this strikes at what is arguably his strongest asset: his honor. I think this is going to hurt for awhile.
Not to mention that most of the jokes write themselves.
this story looks bad, certainly, but it doesn't hold a candle to this: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=the_pete_rose_of_politics#104506
which has him on record promising to use our tax dollars as collateral if his campaign was to fail, in order for him to avoid taking matching federal funds for as long as possible. disgusting. I wonder when this will break, or if Obama will use it in a debate.
I think the NY Times deserves a little blame here. If it were any other politician, the story would have been "Smith has questionable relationship with lobbyist." In McCain's case, however, the headline is "McCain is so ethical he doesn't realize his questionable relationship is questionable."
Y'all don't get it. He means "special interest" in the Republican sense - working people, women, minorities, the elderly, etc.
You know, 70% of the population. The opposite of "special interests" is the "national interest;" i.e. large corporations and extremely wealthy people.
APS
You're missing the point. The "never done favors for ... lobbyists" line just means he's selfish in bed.
Another slight problem for McCain when you look at both the NY Times and WaPo stories together:
NY Times:
“In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.”
WaPo:
“McCain's campaign denied that Iseman or anyone else from her firm or from Paxson "discussed with Senator McCain" the FCC's consideration of the station deal. "Neither Ms. Iseman, nor any representative of Paxson and Alcalde and Fay, personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding," the campaign said."
Someone lied.
Another slight problem for McCain when you look at both the NY Times and WaPo stories together:
NY Times:
“In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.”
WaPo:
“McCain's campaign denied that Iseman or anyone else from her firm or from Paxson "discussed with Senator McCain" the FCC's consideration of the station deal. "Neither Ms. Iseman, nor any representative of Paxson and Alcalde and Fay, personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding," the campaign said."
Someone is lying.
Have we learned nothing?
While it is all well and good and amusing to play 'neener neener neener' politics, wouldn't jumping on this story justify the hypocritical Republican treatment of Bill Clinton in the 90's?
If this is what you think is important in American politics, please pile on. However, if you took offense at President Clinton getting called out for getting a bj in the whitehouse by an intern, perhaps you should step back and get some perspective here.
A rejection of Rovian politics takes a certain amount of discipline that would include rejecting said politics even if they favor you. If you can't manage to so that, what principles are you fighting for, exactly?
Dan, the WaPo quotes McCain's campaign as saying McCain was never personally asked. The Times says that McCain's staff was asked.
I haven't read either article entirely -- but going by what you quoted, there's no actual lie.
(Obviously, this means that McCain is still a paragon of integrity. Move along, now -- nothing to see here.)
Benniefly2: I didn't particularly appreciate it when Bill Clinton lied to my face and misused his office to seduce a succession of trashy chicks, either.
This is a fair question: did McCain behave inappropriately again? He has cheated on his wife with a younger blonde, and also gamed the system for Keating and most recently, his own campaign.
Here is why I hate being a lawyer. Those two portions do not directly conflict. Their denial is carefully written to say that no one PERSONALLY ASKED SENATOR MCCAIN. The staff on the other hand, is a different story.
"Neither Ms. Iseman, nor any representative of Paxson and Alcalde and Fay, personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding," the campaign said.""
Benniefly2
The article wasn't about sex, it was about taking money and favors from lobbyists in return for doing their bidding. It is a shame that the possible adultery is getting the attention and obscuring the more serious issues.
Any predictions as to how the NYT story will effect the Democratic race, if it does at all? I suspect that it helps Obama in that the story hinders McCain's efforts to ding Obama's credentials. At least for a few news cycles, the story could crowd out the McCain campaign's planned attacks on the Democratic frontrunner.
It turns out that I am just like Senator Obama. I should have credited KarenCC for stealing her words.
Well...not really. I didn't know that she posted. I guess I am a slow typer.
Kidding about the Obama thing too.
Of course this McCain throwdown is an open invitation for repoters to, you know...report.
And a challenge like this is about the only way to make a lot of them do it.
Of course this McCain throwdown is an open invitation for repoters to, you know...report.
And a challenge like this is about the only way to make a lot of them do it.
The clear beneficiary here is Rudy! Why can't you all see that?
Pretty much every else wins every primary except Rudy...winner, Rudy!
McCain engaged in shady behavior with lobbysit...winner, Rudy!
It doesn't look like it's going to amount to much. McCain isn't exactly the most vulnerable Republican on these sorts of issues considering he doesn't do earmarks and is the co-author of McCain-Feingold.
Agree with GPS here. I didn't think it was inappropriate for Bill C. to be criticized in re: Monica Lewinsky. That was an egregious abuse of power. Not impeachment material, but pretty bad nevertheless.
This doesn't look quite as bad to me, on the face of it -- but the problem is the same. Not the adultery, but the abuse of power. Also, and maybe more disturbingly, if you read the whole NYT piece, a pattern of bad judgment on McCain's part, based on a sense that he is, sort of by definition, above reproach.
Wouldn't it be funny if Barack Obama avoided yet another serious challenge due to an opponent's personal misconduct?
Matt, thanks for reminding us about the Keating 5.
I adapted a little Jay-Z for McCain here
Keep up the great work!
I'm actually kind of surprised that the Keating 5 hasn't become a campaign issue. Will it?
In light of the new story about McCain and his new blond, I'd like to suggest the following Violent Femmes song as his new campaign ditty:
Add It Up
Day after day
I will walk and I will play
but the day after today
I will stop
and I will start my way
why can't I get just one kiss
why can't I get just one kiss
believe me there'd be somethings that I wouldn't miss
but I look at your pants and I need I need a kiss
why can't I get just one screw
why can't I get just one screw
believe me I know what to do
but something won't let me make love to you
why can't I get just one fuck
why can't I get just one fuck
I guess it's something to do with luck
but I waited my whole life for just one
day after day
I get angry
and I will say
that the day
is in my sight
when i'll take a bow
and say goodnight
Say goodnight, Johnny boy, and take the rest of the Repiglicans with you. I want the beating the GOP takes on Election Day to be so severe that each and every two-time Bush voter wakes up every morning with the taste of blood in its mouth until 1-20-09.
Wouldn't it be funny if Barack Obama avoided yet another serious challenge due to an opponent's personal misconduct?
Tim K, it's probably a little unfair to call Hillary's disastrous campaign management "personal misconduct" - but I realize you've had a very difficult primary season, so I'll let it slide.
I thought you were a huge fan of hers, though. I guess we all had you pegged wrong.
I really doubt Obama will try to make ethics an issue with John McCain. I think it would be a mistake.
SoCal:
Touché... no I was referring to his Illinois primary opponent and major Republican opponent. But you knew that.
Tim K: re-read the story, third graph. He wrote letters to regulators on behalf of her clients. That creates, at a minimum, an appearance of conflict of interest.
And if you think that reputed strengths of character make you immune to attack on the areas where you're supposed to be strong . . . go back and re-examine the last couple of presidential campaigns.
bozo is right:
Here is why I hate being a lawyer. Those two portions do not directly conflict. Their denial is carefully written to say that no one PERSONALLY ASKED SENATOR MCCAIN. The staff on the other hand, is a different story.
My secondhand knowledge of how things work for lobbyists on the Hill is that they generally work personally with staffers. They'll draft letters to administrative agencies, drafts of legislation they want enacted, etc., send them to the staffer, the staffer presents it to the Senator or Representative to act on it.
So yes, probably technically true that nobody contacted McCain personally about this specific matter, but that's not necessary. All the face-to-face corruption is laid out well in advance with the jet rides, dinners, and campaign contributions. I cannot delude myself that a Senator famous for campaign reform would fail to understand that. Unless Feingold's quote in the article should be taken to mean that McCain is just dumbly expressing his visceral disgust for fancy lobbyists rather than engaging in a systematic critique of our political system.
Ted:
Well contrary to what you may believe spending a few years in North Vietnamese tiger cage does tend to innoculate one one to a certain degree on issues of character.
If the Obama campaign pushes ethics then it opens him up to greater scrutiny on Rezko. Just like if they push him on lobbyists McCain can come back with Exelon.
"It doesn't look like it's going to amount to much. McCain isn't exactly the most vulnerable Republican on these sorts of issues considering he doesn't do earmarks and is the co-author of McCain-Feingold.
Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 11:30 PM"
Tim K: Who the f*** are you?
As a 'fellow' Clinton supporter (jokes on me), I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, despite some dubious posts. And your sudden appearance on the scene here.
But this post pretty much demonstrates you're a fraud. A GOP troll.
F*** off and die.
Andruw:
I never said that.
Maybe you've noticed I've managed to make some pretty persistent enemies on this blog and they insist on impersonating me in comments. I apologize but I can't control it.
I agree with SoCalJustice - it's time for another round of discussions at The Table.
You could talk about questions like:
-Is this NYT piece on McCain as big as Josh Marshall thinks it is?
-Is Obama invincible?
I should add in response to Matt's post that McCain's statements that he hasn't done favors for special interests are in one sense true if you are talking about specific tit-for-tat, i.e. give me campaign contributions and I'll vote your way on this specific bill. Yes, McCain has probably not been complicit in straight-up bribery. But again, the co-author of McCain-Feingold should know he was not drafting some redundant bribery statute, but one intended to target the deep, pernicious, and subtle influence of special interest money and relationships.
Dear Tim K: Who said anything about Obama? Obama's not pushing the story, and I don't expect him to touch it. Not his style.
I don't know what motives could possibly make you drag Obama into this unrelated thread. Don't care to speculate. Going to sleep now. Cheers!
Haunt him down the road, as opposed to now when he's accused of humping a lobbyist?
So yes, probably technically true that nobody contacted McCain personally about this specific matter, but that's not necessary. All the face-to-face corruption is laid out well in advance...
StJoe, we know this -- they're counting on most people not catching it. (And you already knew that too, so there was no point in my mentioning... ah, never mind.)
Bozo, if you hate being a lawyer, just be glad you're not me. I gotta work for 'em.
My favorite bit from the article was this:
Mr. Keating, a Phoenix financier and real estate developer, became an early sponsor and, soon, a friend. He was a man of great confidence and daring, Mr. McCain recalled in his memoir. “People like that appeal to me,” he continued. “I have sometimes forgotten that wisdom and a strong sense of public responsibility are much more admirable qualities.
Human history to Mr. McCain! Those guys who appeal to you that way -- the great confidence and daring guys? Guess what. 9 times out of 10 they're egoistic assholes or con artists. You're 71 years old, chump, but it's never too late to learn the basics . . .
Andruw:
Okay I was confused. I thought you were saying I said "who the fuck are you?"... but in fact you were being that vulgar with me, instead. Okay, I'm up to speed now.
Yeah I said that about McCain. What exactly would you argue about substantively with what I said in that quote?
Tim K: I have noticed your imposters, but I am still confused, as prior fake posts were more obvious.
If you're correct, perhaps MY and the Atlantic could take advantage of their new policy and figure that out.
BTW, real Tim K: what do you think about McCain banging lobbyist for favors?
Andruw:
All I am saying is as McCain is not the kind of politician who is going to be very vulnerable to character attacks, charges of corruption or misconduct. I think the campaign to run against McCain is on the issues... the war in Iraq, the economy, health care. There's no need to go into the gutter and I think will backfire.
Matt, this the sex scandal "everyone knew" the LA Times was allegedly sitting on back in November?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/thirdhand_rumormongering.php
Yikes, Tim K., you are a total fraud.
Yes, John McCain is a....wait for it...STRAIGHT TALKER!
He's been very consistent policy-wise, ethically, and of course, rhetorically (love ya Bob Jones and Falwell, and Robertson!) throughout his career.
Disclaimer: God knows what the hell Tim K this is.
Andruw:
Are you being impersonated? I pegged you as a reasonable guy but you seem to be flying off the handle here.
There are plenty of things not to like about John McCain but I don't think ethics and corruption are the things not to like.
Hmm. . .
This is an old story. Circa 1999. So it's possible that this has been floating around Republican circles for some time now.
I wonder if Huckabee knew about this. And I wonder if he thought it would be enough to bury McCain. It could explain why he's stayed in for so long. Should the story pan out, it would be decisive. If McCain withdrew and renounced the nomination, would Huckabee get passed the torch as the only nominee still remaining?
It's certainly something to think about.
I apologize Tim K., clearly a member of the Keating Five who has flipped on the fundamental premises of his prior campaign for president should not be criticized in that vein.
And he banged a lobbyist and gave professional favors in return, btw.
No, "Tim K', you're right, Dems should go after him on that weird Daylight Savings controversy that Arizona has put before the nation.
Does this mean the phrase "McCain is in bed with lobbyists" is off-limits now?
Because, you know, in the metaphorical sense, it's true.
Matt, this the sex scandal "everyone knew" the LA Times was allegedly sitting on back in November?
Given the pundit talk tonight -- 'around Thanksgiving' -- it looks like it.
As Josh Marshall said, this is a story that has been stripped of its meat by the lawyers, and we're left to imagine what was there from the bones.
My guess is that the NYT knew that it couldn't go further without publishing: this means the other people covering it have to show their cards, reporters can ask pointed questions based on what they don't feel at liberty to print, and we'll know better what the overarching story actually is by the weekend.
The American Spectator even mentioned the lobbyist's name last month, showing that it was bubbling up beyond gossip level.
LOL.
Only if you exclude sexual favors.
Bwahahahaahahahah.
He has cheated on his wife with a younger blonde
Again. Cheating on his wife with a younger blonde is how he met the current Mrs. McCain.
Tim K,
You are saying that we should LIKE the fact that McCain is unethical and corrupt? Why?
Or ... no, it can't be ... no one is REALLY that naive ... you couldn't be THAT stupid ... you're not saying that he ISN'T unethical and corrupt, are you? Oh, man, not when I'm drinking a soda - you know how hard it is to clean that shit off a keyboard. Man, I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.
Now, I agree that it might not make sense for the Democratic candidates to go after him directly on those grounds, but he is scum, he is corrupt, he is unethical, and I certainly hope that surrogates go after him on that ground.
He is a cowardly corrupt senile punk with anger issues. And those aren't even his worst points.
Larry M
John McCain is more of a man than you will ever be. You have the nerve to use the word "cowardly" and then you hide anonymously behind your computer.
I hate to agree with EWard, but whatever McCain's faults, cowardice doesn't appear to be among them. Emend to, "He is a corrupt senile punk with anger issues. And those aren't even his worst points."
One of Obama's main points is that lobbyests corrupt the system. He'll be able to use this against McCain without referencing the sexual aspect.
ie: My opponent's campaign and senate staff are run by lobbiests. His belief that he can take favors from lobbyists without creating the impression that they influence him shows that he fails to understand how they have corrupted our political system.
Another hair-splitting distinction inherent in the McCain denial is that Charles Keating was a constituent and thus not a special interest.
Hey, I spelled lobbyists three different ways in four sentences. Is this a record?
My theory is that Tim K is if not an incarnation than a close relative of frankly0.
Tim K is quite a bit more succinct than frankly0. However, I note the following similarities:
1) more interested in attacking Barack Obama than in advocating for another candidate
2) ignores inconvenient facts and arguments
3) capable of assuming reasonable tone
4) prolific
5) prissy
6) indefatigable
7) frankly0 has been MIA
@GPS
Obama (or Clinton) won't have to be that obtuse. They can say: McCain claims to the experience and judgment to be president, but had to have his staff tell him it was improper to have a lobbyist constantly by his side. He had to have his staff tell him it was improper to share a private jet with a lobbyist. John McCain had to have his staff intervene with a lobbyist to keep her away from him. All this after a serious ethics breach twenty years ago. How can we trust that kind of judgment?
Merle,
Excellent - you're pretty close to his speaking cadence with staff . . . staff . . . staff . . .
And now that his campaign and senate offices are managed by lobbyists will his staff continue to correct his bad judgement?
Matt, what about Charles Keating?
Can we please stop repeating this stupid canard? The "Keating Five" should've been the "Keating Three" -- one realizes you were a widdle boy back then, but, if you don't know the details, drop it (and btw you're besmirching John Glenn, who doesn't deserve it). The investigations uniformly found that McCain and Glenn had done no wrong -- but in an effort to make the scandal bipartisan Congress opened up the investigation to include the two senators who bailed after meeting Keating originally and finding out his stuff was before the Senate. McCain, to his very great credit, accepts the weight of the "scandal" anyways. He doesn't have to.
I incorrectly stated that McCain was censured for his role in the Keating scandal. Actually he was rebuked. And although McCain admitted that he used bad judgement, I think he was only admitting to creating the appearance of doing favors in return for contributions.
Might the Bush campaign's attacks on McCain in 2000 over his involvement in the Keating 5 have caused his staffers to be overly sensitive to contacts with lobbyists?
This "I never inhaled" posture from McBush regarding his purity is really going to cost him. It's like the Gary Hart "Just try to catch me" challenge. Okay, John...
Two days ago Brent Wilkes was sentenced to twelve years in prison for being the mastermind behind the Duke Cunningham scandal, the largest Congressional bribe scheme in history.
Wilkes, 53, showered Cunningham with meals, gifts, fancy trips, bribes and prostitutes. Prosecutors were very disappointed in the sentence - they wanted a minimum 25-yr. sentence.
Remember Brent? Brent the Pioneer! Mercer Reynolds, III, the numero uno Bush family money wrangler, created the Pioneers for the Bush '04 campaign.
Each Pioneer had to "donate" a minimum of $100,000. Two weeks ago, the Bush machine assigned Mercer to the McCain campaign as his senior money wranger. Who is Mercer? Mercer's background includes Spectrum 7 (oil), Arbusto Energy (oil) and Reynolds, DeWitt & Co. (more oil investments).
McCain is now a "made man" with the Bush machine, and his claims to purity are strictly based on not being in the room when the deals are done.
Same old, same old, follow the money.
Sanjay, McCain knew Keating very well -- tons of campaign contributions, went on vacation with him, etc. "Bailed after meeting Keating originally" doesn't cover it.
in case anyone needs recalling mccain's role in the keating five matter, in which he certainly did do favors for charles keating, a very special special interest who contributed more than $100,000 to his campaigns, this is verbatim from the wikipedia entry on mccain:
"Between 1982 and 1987, McCain received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[112] In addition, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family and baby-sitter made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. After learning Keating was in trouble over Lincoln, McCain paid for the air trips totaling $13,433.[113]
"McCain and some of his family at the September 1992 christening of USS John S. McCain at Bath Iron Works in Maine. Left to right, John McCain; his mother Roberta McCain; his son Jack; his daughter Meghan, ship's maid of honor; and his wife Cindy McCain, ship's sponsor.Eventually the real estate venture failed, leaving many broke. Federal regulators ultimately filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating, accusing him of siphoning Lincoln's deposits to his family and into political campaigns. The five senators came under investigation for attempting to influence the regulators. In the end, none of the senators was convicted of any crime, although McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" in intervening with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[114] On his Keating Five experience, McCain said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[114]"
in case anyone needs recalling mccain's role in the keating five matter, in which he certainly did do favors for charles keating, a very special special interest who contributed more than $100,000 to his campaigns, this is verbatim from the wikipedia entry on mccain:
"Between 1982 and 1987, McCain received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[112] In addition, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family and baby-sitter made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. After learning Keating was in trouble over Lincoln, McCain paid for the air trips totaling $13,433.[113]
"McCain and some of his family at the September 1992 christening of USS John S. McCain at Bath Iron Works in Maine. Left to right, John McCain; his mother Roberta McCain; his son Jack; his daughter Meghan, ship's maid of honor; and his wife Cindy McCain, ship's sponsor.Eventually the real estate venture failed, leaving many broke. Federal regulators ultimately filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating, accusing him of siphoning Lincoln's deposits to his family and into political campaigns. The five senators came under investigation for attempting to influence the regulators. In the end, none of the senators was convicted of any crime, although McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" in intervening with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[114] On his Keating Five experience, McCain said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[114]"
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
Comments closed March 05, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
New Table episode on the McCain scandal, fallout, etc...
Please.
Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 10:07 PM