The Iseman Cometh
By JAMES TARANTO
"He has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle," the New York Times said last month in endorsing John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. A front-page story in today's Times, the work of a team of six reporters, is less enthusiastic about the senator's character:
Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.
Yet what the Times comes up with is very thin. The central story is that of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist who in 1999 began hanging around McCain campaign events. McCain and Iseman also attended a fund-raiser together near Miami, then flew back to Washington on a corporate jet of one of her clients. There is a disagreement over whether that flight was improper:
The campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain's advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.
McCain also sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to help one of Iseman's clients. The commission's chairman delivered "a rare rebuke for interference," but McCain aides "said the senator sided with Ms. Iseman's clients only when their positions hewed to his principles." The Associated Press reports that "a Washington attorney representing Mr. McCain, Robert Bennett, told NBC's 'Today' show that Mr. McCain's staff provided the Times with 'approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist's clients and her public relations firm's clients,' but none of the examples were included in the paper's story."
Some McCain staffers became "concerned that the relationship had become romantic" and took steps to keep McCain and Iseman apart. But the pair deny romance, and the Times sources' accounts of those interventions vary widely. And by the way, isn't there an element of sexism here, as if a female lobbyist is presumptively not fully professional?
So what does this all amount to? McCain is accused of failing to report a flight on a corporate plane and of writing an overzealous letter on behalf of a woman he fancied--both of which allegations are unproved. As background, the Times also mentions a few other "charges" against McCain:
Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman's client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)
How exactly does this reflect poorly on McCain? Using the corporate jets presumably was perfectly legal, or he would not later have "voted to end the practice." McCain's refusal to take the direct Washington-to-Phoenix flight is an act of ethical vanity, but it is hard to see how it is an ethical problem when he decides not to do something that he has every right, ethically as well as legally, to do. Then there's this:
Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor.
Again, maybe the resignation makes McCain a sanctimonious showoff, but what's the ethical problem here? If the organization was departing from McCain's ethical standards, surely that wasn't what he intended when he helped start it. Under the circumstances, what was he supposed to do other than resign?
One interesting question about the Times piece is: Why now? Apparently the paper did delay publication, for in December the Drudge Report claimed that "McCain has personally pleaded with NY Times editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee." Drudge said reporter Jim Rutenberg "has been leading the investigation," and sure enough, he has the top byline on today's piece.
If the information in the report is important--and again, we're far from convinced--would it not have been useful for Republican primary voters before the nomination was effectively settled?
The New Republic claims it was the reason:
The McCain campaign is apparently blaming TNR for forcing the Times' hand on this story. We can't yet confirm that. But we can say this: TNR correspondent Gabe Sherman is working on a piece about the Times' foot-dragging on the McCain story, and the back-and-forth within the paper about whether to publish it. Gabe's story will be online tomorrow.
And indeed, here it is. The Sherman piece quotes two Times editors as saying no factors other than the merits of the story influenced the timing of publication. Uh-huh.
The biggest beneficiary of the way the Times handled this may be McCain himself. The allegations are insubstantial to begin with, and the circumstances of their publication make it easy for his campaign to draw attention away from the story and toward the Times. What's more, the story ended up coming out late enough not to stand in the way of McCain's getting the GOP nomination, yet early enough that it will be long forgotten come November.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
One might find some of us cynical for having the impression that The NYTimes, a BIG McCain fan until they realized he IS the nominee (luring voters against Thompson,Giuliani and Romney, all of whom they feared), published this story to get the world off Michelle Obama's damning line about her nonpride in America "until now". But, really, doesn't it strike you all strange that, for instance, Scott Peterson kills his wife and that is ALL that's on the news? Then something supercedes that and THAT is all that's on the news. It's like the newscasters MAKE the news. How is it that two BIG things don't happen on the same day? Inconvenient to the media? strange.
it's going to get VERY ugly if the NYTimes is protecting Obama this much. Tonight on the Dem debate, just at the ending, Obama looked confused as the camera showed his face...like "Do I get UP now, or..?" as the crowd stood and cheered. The camera left that bewildered face the SECOND it looked unclear, questioning! Couldn't show him looking like that! It astonished me. He's the GOLDEN BOY, folks. Get ready for PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. The Times has already voted.
Comment by Z— 2008/02/21 @ 04:25 PM — (Reply)
I also wonder why they don't mention the supposed tryst with Larry Sinclair?
if they are going to hang McCain on such flimsy stuff
then surely
they should tell the story of Sinclair *ahem* and all 'flimsy' evidence
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 04:31 PM — (Reply)
from patterico.com
So Far As I Can Tell, The NYT Never Ran A Story On The Rumor That Hillary Might Have, Allegedly, Had A Relationship With An Aide Which Was Possibly Sexual, According To Sources Who Were Anonymous, But Said To Have Been Close To At Least One Former Aide Of A Staffer Who Once Drove Chelsea To The Airport
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
Elbro..you should be writing headlines.
real tiny ones.
Comment by z— 2008/02/25 @ 02:01 PM — (Reply)
Elbro..you should be writing headlines.
real tiny ones.
Comment by z— 2008/02/25 @ 02:01 PM — (Reply)
Ya, I KNOW.
You can say THAT again!!!
Comment by Z— 2008/02/25 @ 02:02 PM — (Reply)
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which The Lord God [see YHVH, Adonai, Jehovah, LORD] had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:1-5 KJV)
this is where all our problems began - men trusting women. WHEN are they going to get it straight? IF YOU'RE MARRIED, STAY AWAY FROM GOOD LOOKING SINGLE WOMEN! no good can come of it. none. innocent or otherwise.
Comment by nanc— 2008/02/21 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
ok tried it -
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 06:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/22 @ 01:12 AM — (Reply)
They're propping up that old corpse McCain to make it easier to install Hitlery.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/22 @ 05:11 AM — (Reply)
is it the Jewish controlled media?
the vast Judaic cabal in charge of the movies you see?
riddle me this Batman why would the supposed Jewish controlled media who wants us to fight proxy wars for Israel want a cut and run liberal?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/22 @ 07:29 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/22 @ 08:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/22 @ 02:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/22 @ 01:21 AM — (Reply)
This story about McCain & the lobbyist is 8 years old. I'm w/Z... it was a cover for something else. There certainly wasn't anything new enough in the story to qualify as news.
Comment by Farmer John— 2008/02/22 @ 04:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/22 @ 05:24 AM — (Reply)
Now that the NYT knows that Huckabee cannot possibly win the nomination, McCain is open season.
Comment by Brooke— 2008/02/22 @ 07:05 AM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/22 @ 11:49 AM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/22 @ 02:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/22 @ 02:56 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Jean-sweet pea— 2008/02/23 @ 02:02 AM — (Reply)