The Strong Claim

As I've said before, the most noteworthy thing about the recent Vicki Iseman story was the cataclysmically overbroad nature of John McCain's denials, which got him into saying not only that he'd never done a favor for a company he clearly had done a favor for, but that he'd never done a favor for any lobbyist at all. You see something similar in today's David Brooks column where Brooks not only wants to defend the proposition that McCain is less lobbyist-tained than your average pol, but actually heap scorn on the notion that a rival campaign might suggest that "He’s more tainted than his reputation suggests."

This is nutty. McCain's pre-existing reputation in this regard was as a kind of George Washington meets Paul Bunyan figure. Of course McCain's more tainted than his reputation suggests and of course his opponent is going to try to point that out. But Brooks' column, like an angry McCain denial, doesn't have so much as a to-be-sure graf. At times McCain has "failed and fallen short" in his quest to make American politics utterly free of the special interests, but he's never once actually done anything for special interests.

Meanwhile, on the specific point that "If this is the record of a candidate with lobbyists on his campaign bus, then every candidate should have lobbyists on the bus" it's worth saying that putting the lobbyists on the bus is the favor. Which lobbyist would you hire, after all, the one sitting in his office somewhere promising to make some phone calls, or the one sitting on a major party nominee's campaign bus? It's the guy on the bus. That's the favor.

Comments

where Brooks not only wants to defend the proposition that McCain is less lobbyist-tained than your average pol, but actually heap scorn on the notion that a rival campaign might suggest that "He’s more tainted than his reputation suggests."

So, just to be clear, a neocon is lying in the service of Neocon John. That is shocking.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 26, 2008 9:42 AM

IOKIYAR

Posted by cleek | February 26, 2008 9:46 AM

Well, Matt, according to Brooks, you are not a decent person:

…any decent person who looks at the McCain record sees that while he has certainly faltered at times, he has also battled concentrated power more doggedly than any other legislator.

This is what Brooks is saying: that if you disagree that McCain battled concentrated power "more doggedly than any other legislator," you are indecent.

Posted by El Cid | February 26, 2008 9:48 AM

Other of McCain's blanket promises are laughable also:

WASHINGTON-AP -- Republican John McCain says there will be no new taxes during his administration if he is elected president.
"No new taxes," the likely GOP presidential nominee said during a taped interview broadcast Sunday.
McCain told ABC's "This Week" that under no circumstances would he increase taxes, and added that he could "see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates," as well as giving people the ability to write off depreciation and eliminating the alternative minimum tax.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. Now, can someone tell me should McCain be elected why this sort of nonsense shouldn't result in agonizing crucifixion once the first new tax is instituted or an existing one is raised? Has there ever been a presidency wherein a new tax or a tax increase didn't occur? McCain should be cruelly mocked for even making such a promise. It demonstrates he's a very unserious person.

Posted by steve duncan | February 26, 2008 9:50 AM

The railing against "special interests" and lobbyists is a little silly, isn't it? I mean, we are the biggest special interest. Well, not me specifically, but, say, older Americans. Almost half of the federal budget goes to them in the form of Social Security, Medicare, etc. Is it a coincidence that the most powerful lobby in America is the AARP? I don't hear any of the candidates denouncing them.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 9:51 AM

Put me on the list of sane people who don't view our older citizens as a "special interest"; not that they aren't special, but they don't have the same "special" needs as, say, America's cobalt producers.

Posted by El Cid | February 26, 2008 9:54 AM

McCain's pre-existing reputation in this regard was as a kind of George Washington meets Paul Bunyan figure

Well, if that's true, then Obama's "pre-existing reputation" is that he is the Messiah. And, you know that the Messiah shouldn't take dirty money from Tony Rezko. And that's how we know that Obama is corrupt.

One thing from Brooks's column is true. And that's that the attacks against McCain certainly are demagoguery. Now, Matthew's never had a problem with a little demagoguery in his blog from time to time. But we should recognize what Matthew has been doing for what it is: Matthew's being a demagogue.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 9:54 AM

What if John McCain had to direct Gen. Petraeus to tell a lie in order to save us from a terrorist attack? Would the whole universe explode at he mere possibility?

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 26, 2008 9:57 AM

Fred, is money paid into Social Security by wage earners to be considered largesse to seniors when it's later repaid to them in the form of supplemental retirement checks? Why is AARP to be denounced for advocating for the rights of the elderly in our society? My paycheck has deductions to be deposited by the federal government to assist me with medical bills later in life. Is AARP wrong for wanting to see that I get my fair share of those benefits? Or for wanting to protect the funds while awaiting my need for them?

Posted by steve duncan | February 26, 2008 10:03 AM

Oh, pish posh, Al. There are serious questions about what McCain did on behalf of lobbyists. It cut against things he's said about the problems of media consolidation. And an FCC commissioner complained about it at the time. Mentioning it isn't demagoguery.

The Times handed a huge gift to McCain by making the focus of the article the unsubstantiated rumor about an affair. If the focus had been on his zeal for the interests of Iseman's clients, the focus would be less on the Times than the actual issues.

I think Fred has a point about "special interests." I guess McCain's implication is that he's talking about "wealthy special interests with interests at odds with the vast bulk of Americans."

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 26, 2008 10:07 AM

And, you know that the Messiah shouldn't take dirty money from Tony Rezko.

It's a good thing he didn't then, isn't it?

Posted by Rambuncle | February 26, 2008 10:07 AM

I think it's even actually a little worse that Matt's "strong claim" and that the claim is actually stronger.

Not only is Charlie Black traveling with McCain, and not only is he working on lobbying from the Straight Talk Express, but he's also being paid by his lobbying firm while on the campaign.

In short, he's "volunteering" for McCain in an abstract way while getting paid in a concrete way by his lobbying firm to work for McCain.

The lobbying firm is paying for McCain's campaign worker--and I'm sure the money Charlie Black makes would be a rather huge in-kind contribution to McCain's campaign.

Posted by riffle | February 26, 2008 11:07 AM

They have to go to the wall with the strong claim because without it, McCain loses. "He's no better than the average congress-critter" is just as fatal to his campaign as "He's as bad as Dan Rostenkowski or Tom DeLay".

Posted by kth | February 26, 2008 12:22 PM

Imagine if you're Charlie Black, lobbying on behalf of a company's bill, and you're calling up a House back-bencher in a swingy-to-red seat. Wouldn't be nicer for you, and help make your argument more convincing, if you were, say, the top political strategist to the presidential nominee and calling from the freaking campaign bus? "Oh, hi, Rep. English. Charlie Black here. We're just going over the budget and thinking about what kind of media buys and GOTV activities we'll be doing in western Pennsylvania. Oh, by the way, did you get a chance to read that bill I sent you?"

Posted by SDM | February 26, 2008 2:44 PM

But Brooks' column, like an angry McCain denial, doesn't have so much as a to-be-sure graf.

I think that what explains this unqualified cheerleading for McCain is the fact that Brooks has probably been in McCain's doghouse since he published his last op-ed piece, "The McCain World Rift", which shed some unflattering light on McCain's inner circle just when McCain was trying to put out the flames from the NYT piece.

I expect plenty more full-fledged McCain advocacy from Brooks until this story dies.

Posted by David Morris | February 26, 2008 3:30 PM