TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 12:15 AM
November 19, 2008 | 5:54 PM
November 19, 2008 | 5:27 PM

November 19, 2008 | 11:20 PM
November 19, 2008 | 9:29 PM
November 19, 2008 | 4:23 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
21.02.2008
McCain's "Bipartisan" Support

C/o the McCain campaign--which emailed it around this morning--I read a transcript of uber-lawyer Bob Bennett's appearance on Fox News last night, in which he said:

Senator McCain did not want a repeat of what occurred years ago in South Carolina, namely a real smear campaign and asked me to assist them and I have been assisting him. And this -- I'm just -- I think what the New York Times did here was shameless, just shameless. As you pointed out in the lead, it's almost entirely unsourced. You know, I'm in a pretty unique position to talk about John McCain. First, I should tell your listeners you know I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not on his side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five. Which, by the way, this New York Times article goes back to and discusses -- goes back years and years. And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him, and I think for the New York Times to dig this up just shows that Senator McCain's public statement about this is correct. It's a smear job. [Emphasis added.]

All of which may be true. But what matters more here: the fact that Bennett is a registered Democrat, or the fact that he's  McCain's lawyer? 

Update: If you want more on Bennett's work for McCain--and, more imporantly, the whole backstory of how the NYT piece wound up in this morning's paper--Gabe Sherman has it all here

--Jason Zengerle 

Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:21 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

boxofrox said:

Seems he did some work for Clinton, too. Seems his special counsel work and its conclusions should carry some weight. That would be, of course, in all fairness.

February 21, 2008 12:36 PM

boxofrox said:

We wouldn't be leveraging this fortunate confluence of events for the sake of circulation improvement. Please allow me to be as cynical as the next guy and suggest that mayhaps with Obama sympathies which might attend some past sins for which the bottom line has suffered. Neh? No smoking gun, of course, but were your motivational considerations ruled only by the desire to pursue the truth and nothing but the truth?

Circulation improvement. Lordy. I can smell some good Letterman material.

February 21, 2008 12:48 PM

teplukhin2you said:

It's hilarious that the regulations in question put McCain and his sweetie on the same side of the fence as the suits from TimesCo. And every other person with a brain who wonders why we still have media ownership regulations that were already antiquated and absurd 20 years before anyone ever heard of digital media.

February 21, 2008 1:09 PM

boxofrox said:

Oh yeah. For all of you doodles that think hiring a criminal lawyer is a smoking gun, please allow me to point out that Mr. Bennet is the logical choice for this hire as he can directly refute the legitimacy of including McCain in the Keating 5 embroilment. No matter how it cuts McCain gets a 2fer.

February 21, 2008 2:05 PM

teplukhin2you said:

This is a colossally stupid error by our side. A half-baked story that bungles the lead (is it the womanizing? or the legislation?), triggers a legalistic PR match with DC's heavyweight among heavyweights-- the guy who defended Clinton and who recommended to the Senate that they exonerate Glenn and McCain, not Deconcini, Riegle or Cranston, in the Keating affair-- and do the one thing that McCain himself could not do: rally the right-wing base to his defense.

Are we TRYING to lose this thing?

!@#@!$%!&^%&$@!!! morons

February 21, 2008 2:25 PM

stgla said:

Tep, you say "our side" a lot on Talkback and it confuses people.

February 21, 2008 4:14 PM

nancyirving said:

So is Bennett claiming that what George W. Bush's campaign did to McCain in 2000 was a smear-job?  Does McCain agree with that characterization?

February 21, 2008 5:52 PM

teplukhin2you said:

our side = 1) America 2) TNR 3) the Democratic Party, moderate/decent version. Them's me tribes.

February 21, 2008 5:53 PM