TNR BLOGS

August 19, 2008 | 11:10 PM
August 19, 2008 | 9:13 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:53 PM

August 19, 2008 | 5:17 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:12 PM
August 19, 2008 | 11:32 AM

August 19, 2008 | 6:06 PM
August 19, 2008 | 3:49 PM
August 17, 2008 | 9:21 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 19, 2008 | 1:59 PM
August 19, 2008 | 12:43 PM
August 18, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.02.2008
McCain Bombshell

About two-thirds of one anyway. See here

Some key passages:

Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

The story reads to me like it had originally been much more ambitious, but had its guts ripped out somewhere along the way. The obvious question is whether those guts will ever trickle out now that this story has surfaced.

For what it's worth, my first thought upon reading this was: "Blaire Hull" and "Jack Ryan." In addition to being a phenomenally talented politician, is it possible that Obama's the luckiest man in the history of civilization?

Update: These two grafs give you a peek into the making of this story:

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries.

The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.

Update II: The McCain campaign just released the following statement:

"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career." 

I guess there are worse things for a Republican nominee than having the New York Times take a shot at you. Assuming those theoretical guts never trickle out...

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:31 PM with 27 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!

jimregnier said:

Noam that was my first thought as well.

Can't wait to see Obama-Keyes round 2! Unless Ditka decides to run this time....

February 20, 2008 8:44 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Hmmm. So THIS is what the Times has been sitting on for months? I'm sorry but is this all the NYT's four horsemen can come up with by way of searching for a smoking gun? Media ownership tut-tutting, coming from Times Co? Are they kidding?

"A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients."

Um, isn't that, er, deregulation in action? Given the explosion of new media, alternative media, blogs and user-generated content and YouTube and all the other outlets, isn't this relaxation of media ownership a GOOD thing, and wasn't it the prescient thing to do in 1998 and 1999?

Oh and gee, I seem to recall that a certain east coast media company, with Teddy Kennedy's help, overcame similar ownership restrictions in order to control a TV company and the dominant newspaper in a certain east coast market in Sen. Kennedy's state. What was that company... hmm, run by a family called-- what was it-- Sulzberger. That's it, Sulzberger.

"[McCain] introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson."

Can't have minority ownership of stations, can we? That would be, you know, liberal! And there's that white-is-black deregulation = regulation illogic again.

Look, if he was diddling the woman, that's for him and his wife and the GOP's bluenoses to deal with. I couldn't care less. But this garbage about telco scandals! media companies expanding their market share in the age of deregulation is utterly ridiculous, esp coming from Times Co.

February 20, 2008 8:50 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Granted I got Teddy K's role wrong in the above post-- he's tried again and again to bend the rules to attack his nemesis, Murdoch (no corruption there, eh?)-- but still.

Where's the beef?

February 20, 2008 8:56 PM

virginiacentrist said:

This story was a disappointment. My friend sent me an email titled "McCain bimbo eruption!" and it was all for naught.

February 20, 2008 8:59 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Please don't let this be true.

February 20, 2008 9:01 PM

teplukhin2you said:

If they don't have anything better than this, I'd bet that it will help McCain. It's a BS non-scandal that increases sympathy for him, especially among conservatives and anyone who understands what a joke the media ownership rules are in the age of new media.

February 20, 2008 9:10 PM

BHLnyc said:

I wonder what McCain's black baby feels about all this?

February 20, 2008 9:11 PM

BryanRDC said:

BHLnyc, I hear Obama has *two* black babies!

February 20, 2008 9:18 PM

arsonplus said:

Lucky? Are you kidding Noam? The man clearly has a freakin' leprechaun in his pocket.  But to be fair and serious Ryan was 20 points behind before that story broke. By the way, doesn't this completely deflate Mrs. Clinton's big bad republicans attack?

February 20, 2008 9:22 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Wouldn't a McCain "bimbo eruption" help allay concerns about his physical health?

February 20, 2008 9:22 PM

primwallflow said:

So, as the story stands now, the scandal is... what, exactly? Two McCain aides did their job admirably well and kept the appearance of impropriety to a minimum? THIS is what McCain got all bent out of shape about back in December?

I agree, though, that this reads like they're holding back. Maybe there's a final loose end that the Times or someone else is waiting to tie.

February 20, 2008 9:25 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Tep:

But it supposedly occured in 1999/2000. Even if he was still able to "erupt" back then, it's still doubtful that eruption is still a possibility at this juncture. And so forth.

February 20, 2008 9:34 PM

Rhubarbs said:

For a candidate from the party of Jon Grunseth, David Vitter, and Larry Craig, this type of "bimbo eruption." assuming there were anything to the story, could actually be beneficial. Republicans could rest assured that they'd finally found someone who wasn't (A) Molesting children; (B) Paying for sex; or (C) Gay. Which, for the GOP, is actually something of a trifecta. Granted, he's married to a narcotics thief with a federal rap sheet, but nobody expects a GOP candidate to have the family values of some kind of goody-two-shoes Democrat.

Strategically, it's almost a shame for McCain that there doesn't seem to be any meat to this story.

February 20, 2008 9:40 PM

AaronBBrown said:

And the gods of politics smile on the Obama campaign.   :-)

It seems that the stars are aligning for Barack Obama.

Obama 08, Yes We Can!

February 20, 2008 9:41 PM

bhunziker said:

In late October, there were rumors - reported by Ron Rosenbaum - about the LA Times sitting on a major "sex scandal" story.  I wonder if they got the paper wrong.

pajamasmedia.com/.../shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

February 20, 2008 9:41 PM

bensharma said:

What's that old expression?

"Once is luck, twice is coincidence, three times is skill."

February 20, 2008 9:50 PM

tomeg said:

Aah, Rhubarbs, I like your thinking. I'm sure Limbaugh and FoxNoise are frantically emailing each other.

February 20, 2008 9:56 PM

bhunziker said:

Why on earth would the Times throw this out there if there isn't more there? It just doesn't make sense.

February 20, 2008 10:04 PM

ralphnelle said:

click on teplukhin2you and check out how many posts this windbag has.

not that there's anything wrong with obsessive compulsive disorder.

February 20, 2008 10:05 PM

liebig said:

"Victory awaits him who has everything in order -- luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck."

Roald Amundsen.  

Just call him Barack Obamundsen.

February 20, 2008 10:11 PM

huntlib said:

There's also this, from December 21:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2007122001356_pf.html

February 20, 2008 10:40 PM

The Plank said:

One interesting question about the piece is just how it will be received by the considerable segment

February 20, 2008 11:28 PM

spencer97m said:

"John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists,..."

Oh, really?  Keating Five, anyone?

February 21, 2008 1:42 AM

dabeffert said:

You beat me to it Spencer97m. Exactly what I was thinking.

What I would love for reporters to ask McCain, in one of those all day chat sessions, or better yet on TV, is what he has learned about financial regulation in the wake of the Keating 5 scandal and the later, and related, Savings and Loan debacle.

February 21, 2008 10:03 AM

The Plank said:

Brief detour from the fascinating McCain story : In the story I put up this week on the invisibility

February 21, 2008 10:51 AM

Lundell said:

Amen spencer97m and dabeffert.  Why does the Keating 5 not get mentioned. . . . .ever?

As for this story, how does a military man act in the sack?  Is it like, "Launching in 3 . . .2 . . .1" or something like that?

February 21, 2008 11:02 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

The Times ’ story on John McCain’s alleged affair with a lobbyist during his last presidential run crashed into the political discussion today like a flaming satellite tank filled with toxic innuendo and accusations. People are wondering a

February 21, 2008 11:39 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.