New McCain scandal; sex brings down another candidate?

Blatham posted a link to the TNR piece (or a TNR piece) here:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24

Still reading it, interesting so far.

Yglesias, on how this story dredges up McCain's history as a cheater:



Cycloptichorn

A Hole in McCain's Defense?
A Hole in McCain's Defense?
An apparent contradiction in his response to lobbyist story.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:33 AM ET Feb 22, 2008
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff?-and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue?-an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named?-"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"?-even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

McCain's subsequent letters to the FCC?-coming around the same time that Paxson's firm was flying the senator to campaign events aboard its corporate jet and contributing $20,000 to his campaign?-first surfaced as an issue during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. William Kennard, the FCC chair at the time, described the sharply worded letters from McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, as "highly unusual."

The issue erupted again this week when the New York Times reported that McCain's top campaign strategist at the time, John Weaver, was so concerned about what Iseman (who was representing Paxson) was saying about her access to McCain that he personally confronted her at a Washington restaurant and told her to stay away from the senator.

The McCain campaign has denounced the Times story as a "smear campaign" and harshly criticized the paper for publishing a report saying that anonymous aides worried there might have been an improper relationship between Iseman and McCain. McCain, who called the charges "not true," also told reporters Thursday in a news conference that he was unaware of any confrontation Weaver might have had with Iseman.

The deposition that McCain gave came in the course of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of his landmark campaign finance reform law, known as McCain-Feingold. The suit sheds no new light on the nature of the senator's dealings with Iseman, but it does include a lengthy discussion of his dealings with the company that hired her, including some statements by the senator that could raise additional questions for his campaign.

In the deposition, noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams (who was representing the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell) grilled McCain about the four trips he took aboard Paxson's corporate jet to campaign events and the $20,000 in campaign contributions he had received from the company's executives during the period the firm was pressing him to intervene with federal regulators.

Asked at one point if Paxson's lobbyist (Abrams never mentions Iseman's name) had accompanied him on any of the trips he took aboard the Paxson corporate jet, McCain responded, "I do not recall." (McCain's campaign confirmed this week that Iseman did fly on one trip returning to Washington from a campaign fund-raiser in Florida.)

At another point Abrams asked McCain if, "looking back on the events with Mr. Paxson, the contributions, the jets, everything you and I have just talked about, do you believe that it would have been justified for a member of the public to say there is at least an appearance of corruption here?"

"Absolutely," McCain replied. "And when I took a thousand dollars or any other hard-money contribution from anybody who does business before the Congress of the United States, then that allegation is justified as well. Because the taint affects all of us." Elsewhere McCain said about his dealings with Paxson, "As I said before, I believe that there could possibly be an appearance of corruption because this system has tainted all of us."

Abrams's purpose at the time was not especially damaging to McCain. The lawyer's argument, which he later unsuccessfully made to the Supreme Court, was that the "appearance of corruption" was relatively commonplace in Washington and therefore too amorphous a standard to justify the intrusion on free speech that Congress made by passing a law that restricted big-money campaign donations and last-minute campaign advertising by outside groups.

In his deposition McCain got the opportunity to emphasize some of the same points his campaign made in 2000 and again this week about his letters to the FCC at Paxson's behest: that he never pressed the agency to rule in Paxson's favor, only to make a decision one way or another.

"My job as chairman of the committee, Mr. Abrams, is to see that bureaucracies do function," McCain said. "Bureaucracies are notorious for not functioning and not making decisions. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint. Not about whether the commission acted favorably or unfavorably, but that the commission act."

But despite McCain's own somewhat detailed descriptions of his conversations with Paxson about the matter in the deposition, his campaign Thursday night stuck with its original statement that the senator never discussed the issue at all with the communications executive or his lobbyist.

"We do not think there is a contradiction here," campaign spokeswoman Ann Begeman e-mailed NEWSWEEK after being asked about the senator's sworn testimony five and a half years ago. "We do not have the transcript you excerpted and do not know the exact questions Senator McCain was asked, but it appears that Senator McCain, when speaking of being contacted by Paxson, was speaking in shorthand of his staff being contacted by representatives of Paxson. Senator McCain does not recall being asked directly by Paxson or any representative of him or by Alcalde & Fay to contact the FCC regarding the Pittsburgh license transaction.

"Senator McCain's staff recalls meeting with representatives of Paxson, and staff was asked to contact the FCC on behalf of Senator McCain," Begemen continued. "The staff relayed to Senator McCain the message from Paxson's representatives. But we have checked the records of the Senator's 1999 schedule and it does not appear there were any meetings between Senator McCain and Paxson or any representative of Paxson regarding the issue."

There appears to be no dispute that Paxson lobbyist Iseman did indeed contact McCain's top communications aide at the time about the Pittsburgh license issue. Mark Buse, who then served as McCain's chief of staff at the Commerce Committee and is now chief of staff in his Senate office, recalled to NEWSWEEK that Iseman came by his office, talked to him about the issue before the FCC, and left behind briefing material that he used to draft the letters under McCain's signature. He said there was nothing unusual about this. "That's Lobbying 101," Buse said. "You leave paper behind."

But the campaign's insistence that McCain himself never talked to Paxson about the issue seems hard to square with the contents of his testimony in the McCain-Feingold case.

Abrams, for example, at one point cited the somewhat technical contents of one of his letters to the FCC and then asked the witness, "where did you get information of that sort, Senator McCain?"

McCain replied: "I was briefed by my staff."

Abrams then followed up: "Do you know were they got the information?"

"No," McCain replied. "But I would add, I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue."

"You were?"

"Yes."

Abrams then asked McCain: "Can you tell us what you said and what he said about it?"

McCain: "That he had applied to purchase this station and that he wanted to purchase it. And that there had been a numerous year delay with the FCC reaching a decision. And he wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I said, 'I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act, but I will not write a letter, I cannot write a letter asking them to approve or deny, because then that would be an interference in their activities. I think everybody is entitled to a decision. But I can't ask for a favorable disposition for you'."

Abrams a few moments later asked: "Did you speak to the company's lobbyist about these matters?"

McCain: "I don't recall if it was Mr. Paxson or the company's lobbyist or both."

Abrams: "But you did speak to him?"

McCain: "I'm sure I spoke with him, yes."

McCain's ?'Free Ride'
McCain's ?'Free Ride'
A critic on the senator's cozy ties to the press corps.
By Matthew Philips
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 4:06 PM ET Feb 22, 2008
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/114548

This week the New York Times made news with a front-page story on John McCain's relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist. The story hinted at a possible romantic entanglement and raised questions about the propriety of McCain's dealings with the lobbyist and her clients at a time when the Arizona lawmaker was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. The story, which McCain's campaign has vigorously disputed, marked a rare incidence of bad press for a politician who has enjoyed a remarkably amicable relationship with the establishment media over the course of his 25-year career. Other than a flurry of critical stories surrounding his involvement in a savings-and-loan scandal in the late 1980s, McCain has enjoyed such positive coverage he sometimes jokingly refers to the press as his base.

It's hardly a coincidence, says Paul Waldman, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a left-leaning nonprofit research center that analyzes conservative "misinformation" in the media. Along with founder David Brock, Waldman has spent the last three years studying the relationship between the press and politicians. Waldman and Brock were so struck by McCain's cozy relationship with the press corps that they decided to write a book about it. "Free Ride: John McCain and the Media" (due out next month) holds that McCain has managed to ingratiate himself with the national media to an extent almost unheard of in modern politics. As a result, says Waldman, McCain has been able to create a glossy image untarnished by what he sees as some damning facts. In the aftermath of the Times piece, Waldman spoke with NEWSWEEK's Matthew Philips. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Do you see this Times piece as the first shot across McCain's bow?

Paul Waldman: Yes, but it's just one. We won't know how much traction it'll get for a while, since, barring some catastrophe, he'll be the [GOP] nominee. Then, hopefully, he'll be subject to more coverage that goes beyond the boilerplate, but I'm not counting on it. I'd like to think this story will open the door to really dig into this disconnect between his record and image. But that's not been the case over the last 15 years.

Were you surprised by the inclusion of allegations of him having an affair without much evidence to substantiate it?

Considering there's been so little negative press for McCain, it's not surprising that they led with the salacious stuff. But the real story is that he had these kinds of relationships with these lobbyists while he was chair of the Commerce Committee. He got millions of dollars from corporations he was regulating. So here, in this case, he was meeting with lobbyists, in particular this woman [Vicki] Iseman, flying around on corporate jets and urging the commission to take action on the sale of a TV station in Pittsburgh they had an interest in. The chair of the FCC said it was inappropriate. That's the kind of thing reporters report on all the time, but the cynical eye gets closed when it comes to McCain.

Why is that? Is it just that he's a likable 'straight talker'? Or are we all suckers?

It's both. You have to understand that the way McCain deals with the national media is a strategy. He realized that reporters want to be treated differently than the way most politicians treat them, which is very carefully and being measured with what they say, going off the record a lot. And that's frustrating for reporters. What McCain figured out was not to be careful, not to go off the record, to return their calls and talk about anything for as long as they wanted. And the results have paid off very handsomely for him, because he gets the benefit of the doubt all the time.

From a reporter's standpoint, shouldn't access and candor be rewarded?
It's an interesting point, but only to a certain degree. It doesn't mean that the fact that he had a discussion on, say, Iraq, with you while throwing back a couple of beers in the back of his bus and you now think he's a great guy … that the next day there should be a halo over the whole thing, over the story you write. But that's what happens, time and again. And it doesn't have anything to do with people's personal politics. It's the personal feelings, especially in that small circle of D.C. reporters, the personal relationships that trump the substantive policy issues. Which is why he's been given a pass on his campaign lacking in substance. There's no question he's run the least substantive campaign; most people are hard pressed to say what he wants to do.

Other than arguing that we should stay in Iraq.

Right, other than to stay in Iraq. But that's it. That's really all we know. The Democrats have complex policy issues laid out on their Web sites, but no one's seriously arguing that McCain's been tremendously substantive.

Most would say that Sen. Hillary Clinton has been far more substantive than her Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama. Yet Obama is now the front runner, so doesn't this emphasis on personality over substance speak to a certain political savvy on McCain's part?

Sure, you could say that all those policy papers don't really matter much. But you could make a case that McCain doesn't seem to have a nuanced grasp of policy, domestic or foreign. And you don't see the same serious investigations about what he wants to do on health care or taxes that you get with other candidates, the kind of coverage that Americans deserve. Instead, with McCain you get the constant regurgitation of the same tropes, that he's a war hero, a maverick.

Why has that maverick label stuck?

Well, for one because we've been told the story so often. Everyone in Congress goes against [his or her] party at some point. But when McCain does, something different happens. If moderates defect from the Republican cause on an issue, it's still presented as a conflict between the Democrats and the Republicans. But when McCain does, the story becomes McCain against the Republicans. He becomes the central actor on those rare occasions, and it gets much more press. But when you look at it, almost every one of those times he does go against the Republicans, it's when their position is unpopular with voters. He puts himself on the popular side. If his ambition was to be majority or minority leader in the Senate, that would be a bad idea. But he wants to be president, so it becomes very good politics to find those places where your party is out of step with the public and break with them. You get the double benefit.

In your book you chart the number of appearances he's made over the years on Sunday talk shows and how many times the terms "straight talk" and "maverick" have been mentioned within 10 words of McCain. In 2000 that number was 2,114. That's a lot.

It is, and that's usually all we get. And in terms of talk show appearances, he's by far the leader over the last several years. People see him as a great guest, a politician who's not being political.

In your book you compare it to a line in the movie "Singles," when a girl tells a guy, "I think not having an act is your act." Is that McCain's secret?

Totally, and it's something you would think more politicians would have figured out by now. That being on the record all the time and talking about anything might entail some risk, but over time it builds up so much good will that when you do say something embarrassing, it doesn't stick.

What's an example?

There are tons. Like in 2000 he referred to Vietnamese as gooks. For a presidential candidate to use a racist term like that is usually incredibly damaging, but the press just ignored it. And when they finally did address it, after some Asian-American groups started to complain, they were very careful to put it into context and explain it away.

Back in the late '80s he was involved in this Keating Five scandal, which essentially ended the careers of most of the politicians involved. But not John McCain. How was he able to avoid that?

By convincing the reporters to chalk it up to his wayward youth and that it turned him into the great reformer. It became a story of redemption, and they ate it up. What's interesting to note is that before Keating, McCain didn't have a great relationship with the press. He still doesn't with the Arizona press; it's very contentious. It's interesting to contrast the coverage he gets in the Arizona media with that of the national media. The Arizona coverage is much more complicated. With them McCain is warts and all.

This summer did you think he was finished when he'd run out of money and his staff was defecting?

Sure. But what was so interesting was the way it was covered. Usually when a candidate goes into a death spiral, there's this piling on. It's all about this pathetic loser reaching his end and how he deserves it. But when McCain was at a low point, it was nostalgic. You saw this great hope and as soon as he began to bump up again you could sense the excitement of the press wanting to rev up the Straight Talk Express. McCain was a big story heading into Iowa; even as Huckabee surged and won, McCain's 13 percent was a big storyline. The press gave him the wind at his back he needed heading into New Hampshire. NBC's Chuck Todd even said he thought the press was trying to pull McCain across the finish line. What a thing to say! So all the while he was down, that desire for him to succeed was lurking in the press.

So how much do you credit the media for where he is today: on the verge of securing the Republican nomination?

As I said, Iowa was a critical moment when the media gave him a big hand. The importance of momentum can never be discounted. No one wants to throw their vote away, and when people got the impression that he was viable again, that made a huge difference. The axiom that the media don't tell you what to think but what to think about is clearly at play. In this case the corollary is not to tell you who to vote for but who to choose between. So yes, the media certainly had a hand in throwing McCain back into the ring.

Do you think he's a conservative?

Absolutely. Liberals attracted to him would like to believe that he's not, but that's a mistake, and that's why so many in the national media love him. But this idea that once he's president he'll become more liberal, it's wishful thinking. If you look at his record, he's a conservative. But that gets skewed by this obsession with character. In 2000 we were assured that Al Gore was the dishonest one, that George Bush might not be bright, but he's honest. Clearly, Bush has told some pretty heinous lies. So often the press gets it wrong.

Are there any members of the national media who are particular offenders when it comes to doling out love for McCain?

Chris Matthews [host of MSNBC's "Hard Ball"] I think is his biggest fan. It's his tone more than frequency. There's an embarrassing amount of adulation for McCain with him.

How does NEWSWEEK stack up?

I'll politely abstain from making that judgment, thanks.

McCain Co-Chair Hit For Fraud, Extortion
Rick Renzi Indicted: McCain Co-Chair Hit For Fraud, Extortion
Huffington Post | February 22, 2008 10:58 AM

GOP Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi -- the co-chairman of Sen. John McCain's campaign in Arizona -- has been indicted this morning:

Republican Rep. Rick Renzi (REN-zee) has been indicted for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other charges related to a land deal in Arizona.

A 26-page federal indictment unsealed in Arizona accuses Renzi and two former business partners of conspiring to promote the sale of land that buyers could swap for property owned by the federal government. The sale netted one of Renzi's former partners $4.5 million.

Renzi is a three-term member of the House. He announced in August that he would not seek re-election.

Today's indictment comes after a lengthy federal investigation into the land developing and insurance businesses owned by Renzi's family.

In April 2007, federal agents raided a Sonoita (so-no-EE-ta) Arizona business owned by Renzi's wife, Roberta.

Renzi is listed as an Arizona co-chair McCain's website.

Paul Kiel breaks down the indictment:

The charges boil down to this, basically. Renzi is charged with doing everything he can as a congressman to strong-arm others into buying land from his buddy James Sandlin -- Sandlin then allegedly kicked back sizable chunks of cash back to Renzi in a series of complicated financial transactions (thus the money laundering charge). The main details of these charges were reported by the Arizona papers and The Wall Street Journal last year.

John McCain was asked about the indictment in Indianapolis today:

"I'm sorry obviously, you always feel for the family as you know he has 12 children. But I don't know enough of the details or anything to make a judgment, this kind of thing is always, is always very unfortunate. I rely on our department of justice and our system of justice to make the right outcome."

House Minority Leader John Boehner is pushing for Renzi to resign, according to The Hill:

"I have made it clear that I will hold our members to the highest standards of ethical conduct," Boehner said in a statement Friday. "The charges contained in this indictment are completely unacceptable for a member of Congress, and I strongly urge Rep. Renzi to seriously consider whether he can continue to effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances. I expect to meet with Rep. Renzi at the earliest possible opportunity to discuss this situation and the best option for his constituents, our Conference, and the American people."
Rick Renzi's attorney has released a statement responding to the charges:

"We fear that the Department of Justice may have allowed the investigation to have been influenced by political considerations, which should never have a place in the administration of justice."

Some people have no character. Not that I've got anything against carnality, or in favor of the sanctity of marriage beyond financial obligations, but there's more going on. Despite the fact that all love is beautiful, we know why what Clinton did or got caught doing is a problem - it was undignified.

Say that and you hear that it's human nature and such behavior is pervasive especially among head honchos because we're all such squalid weaklings and power is just an accident of circumstance that can be amplified through charisma and ruthlessness. And then you got a guy eats higher on the trough, took a job that would either get him killed or make him a hero, defies his captors, amicably divorces his wife when he wants something else, and admits it and yet suddenly he's not just a guy doing his own thing and a fine job of it, he's as dirty and basal as anyone.

You see what I'm getting at here - the liberals are fixated one the idea that everyone is weak, decadent and self-serving and that statecraft is a necessary matter of channeling it. They want to treat us all like greedy kids in a toy store, and if someone manages to take what he or she wants from life it just scares the crap out of them. They want to deny and punish the concept of human excellence, in any form other than blind altruism which in turn can be manipulated to their own advantage. Turn us all into dulcet cattle while the only scraps of self-determination are theirs, set up a society where you can't pay your dues to nature and the furies but only to the system and the lower needs. Then once we're all just stuffing our faces there'll be no need to get worked up about anything and no intrinsic authority to back it.

Someone that shouted obscenities over his captors, endured imprisonment and torture rather than sign off on enemy propaganda, and rehabilitated himself to fly again is a man who knows what he wants and can keep his drives in order long enough to get it (as if it would be difficult with his current wife as opposed to Bills predicament in which seeking 'novelty' was a bit more understandable). This is more than a smear campaign, it's a Freudian slip.

so can he run the country properly or not? thats all i care about, yet it is last on the list of thing politicians can do usually.

So...is there any actual evidence that whatever did or did not happen between McCain and whoever she is affected what he did in his professional life in a corrupt or illegal manner?



If not, then I see this as just as dumb and hateful as hysteria about Clinton's private life.

****, if hes gettin laid at that old, then he gets my vote.

I'm not a fan of the professional politician myself. There is such a thing as a statesman which I believe McCain qualifies as.

Since you bring it up on this thread you must either mean as evidenced by his alleged behavior or that the alleged behavior is inconsequential. I don't think this kindof thing is inconsequential because our government needs an ass-kicker at the helm not a frat boy. As for his ability relative to the allegation, I've said my piece - he's the man not because the article is BS, but as evidenced by the fact that the kindof BS they think they gotta use on him paints overindulged weaklings of us all.

BBB wrote, or quoted-



Does that mean to suggest he was shagging her or that he was seeing the lady in some ethereal resplendent light?

Okay, so forget the romantic angle; McCain has a serious problem.

He's been caught in a lie. Yesterday in a news conference McCain specifically said that he had not met with Mr. Paxson or Mrs. Iselman prior to writing letters on his behalf to the FCC, after having been lobbied to do so.

Today Mr. Paxson said that he did in fact meet with Senator McCain, in his office, and that Mrs. Iselman was 'probably' there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid=topnews

Caught in a lie - never a good thing for a presidential candidate. And the story gains new legs.

Cycloptichorn

There are what...five people in America who don't think that he was doing this chick? Maybe ten who would care? It is never the sex, it is the cover-up that does these guys in during the modern age.

McCain should have admitted it, said that it was wrong, and that he will try to do better.

sometimes its like beating your head against a wall--its not the relationship or the sex which is the main issue at hand so it don't matter if he admitted it or not.


source



source

The McCain Counter-Offensive

McCain is getting into some legal parsing and I admitt; I don't quite understand it all yet.

BBB
Tell me. If every politician who did a favor for a lobbiest was kicked out of office how many would remain in congress. ! or 2.

rabel


Should I include the politicians who are dead?

BBB

'NYT' Public Editor Weighs in on McCain Bombshell
'NYT' Public Editor Weighs in on McCain Bombshell
By E&P Staff
Published: February 23, 2008 4:00 PM ET

Editors and reporters at The New York Times have been replying online to readers' queries about its bombshell Sen. John McCain/lobbyist story since yesterday but many have wondered: What would the paper's public editor have to say? Now we know.

Clark Hoyt's column for the Sunday paper has been put up at www.nytimes.com. After reviewing the story and Executive Editor Bill Keller's claim that the story really wasn't about "sex," Hoyt concludes as follows.

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

The stakes are just too big. As the flamboyant Edwin Edwards of Louisiana once said, "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."

The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising "poor judgment" by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients.

Much of that story has been reported over the years, but it was still worth pulling together to help voters in 2008 better understand the John McCain who might be their next president.

I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. "That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed," she said.

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

No. If their dead their no longer a danger to government.

Howard Kurtz opines that the point of the NYT's story was the sex, which it never got even an anonymous source to document
NYT's

Who gave the NYT's the lead is what I want to know, was it the conservatives or was it a disgruntled former associate?

The Other Side of the McCain Lobbyist Scandal
The Other Side of the McCain Lobbyist Scandal
By Jerold M. Starr
The Nation
Tuesday 04 March 2008

I don't know whether Senator John McCain had sex with lobbyist Vickie Iseman, but I do know, first hand, that he broke the rules while doing the bidding of media mogul Lowell "Bud" Paxson, a major contributor to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. McCain's staff lied it about it then and they are inventing new lies even now.

I was the leader of the campaign opposing the transfer of Pittsburgh's second public television station (Channel 16), along with $17.5 million, to a conservative televangelist ministry so that Paxson could expand his network into the Pittsburgh market. In fact, I wrote a well-reviewed book in 2000 about the entire case, Air Wars: The Fight to Reclaim Public Broadcasting.

Since this man could well be the next President of the United States, his character should be of concern to all people of this country.

In 1994, local media revealed that Pittsburgh's public station WQED had piled up millions of dollars of debt due to obvious malfeasance and, according to our informants, possible embezzlement. By 1996, new CEO George Miles's solution to this problem was to commercialize and sell off Channel 16. Along with activist Linda Wambaugh, I organized the Save Pittsburgh Public Television campaign to advocate a solution that would have both addressed the debt and saved the station.

In July 1996, the FCC denied WQED's petition on the grounds that a noncommercial license had never been removed from a community without being replaced by another. Around April 1997, WQED proposed "Plan B"-a swap with Cornerstone Broadcasting, bankrolled by Paxson Communications, with Cornerstone taking over our public station and Paxson taking over Cornerstone's commercial frequency.

As reported originally in the New York Times, McCain wrote two letters late in 1999 to each of the five FCC commissioners demanding that they advise him by December 15 whether they had voted for or against Paxson's petition. McCain continues to insist that his letter's disclaimer that he was not calling for a particular outcome exonerates him of charges of interference. However, Steve Labaton of the New York Times plowed through 2,000 pages of McCain office correspondence and found that almost all of his letters included this "boilerplate" disclaimer. Moreover, in "the vast majority of these regulatory cases where McCain himself sent the letter, the interested parties had contributed to his presidential campaigns."

As our attorney, Georgetown's Angela Campbell, advised ABC News: "The timing of the letters was clearly in Paxson's interest." Paxson's contract with all parties was due to expire December 31 and there were clear indications that Cornerstone would withdraw from the deal. The Commission still was undecided and had the option to refer the case for public hearing so that community sentiment could be measured. Short of outright denial, this was our wish. Miles acknowledged to the press at the time that had this happened, the deal would have been "dead in the water."

Back then, after extensive interviews with DC lobbyists and FCC staff, the Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post and others concluded that McCain's letters were "highly unusual," "crossed a line" and "were widely interpreted to favor the complicated transfers."

At the time, McCain's staff said to the press that his intervention was appropriate because "there was no formal opposition." Our opposition had been formal for years. Our board of directors included such community leaders as the president of the Pittsburgh City Council, a monsignor in the Pittsburgh Catholic Archdiocese and a state legislator (who sat on WQED's board but could not abide the sellout). Our supporters included scores of unions with up to 150,000 members, more than forty public interest groups, hundreds of educators, clergy and other professionals and, thanks to Working Assets, up to 40,000 letters urging the FCC to deny the transfer of Pittsburgh's public station to Cornerstone.

The major reason the case took so long is the well-documented presentation by our campaign that Cornerstone was not qualified to run our educational broadcasting station. In a highly unusual move in March 1998, Barbara Kreisman, a high-ranking FCC official, wrote to Cornerstone to advise that it amend their application to demonstrate eligibility. Kreisman called Cornerstone's five-member board "self perpetuating" and "not...broadly representative of the Pittsburgh community."

Kreisman noted further that Cornerstone's "goal still appears to be primarily religious" and "it's not clear to what extent" Cornerstone would pursue its claimed educational purposes. Still another problem was that, given all the commercials on Cornerstone (some programs being little more than infomercials), the FCC needed to know what steps the station "will take to comply with the Commission's rules regarding advertising and fund-raising on noncommercial educational stations."

(One show peddled screensavers with messages such as "Somewhere a homo teacher is molesting a child." Since Cornerstone leaders were active followers of Pat Robertson, gays were not the only groups who got hammered on the air. So did the United Nations, teachers unions, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Buddhists and Unitarians, among others.)

Cornerstone's response to the FCC's concerns was to add two associates to their five-member board and to submit a reformatted schedule with the same programs, even those in which commercials were integral to their content. Cornerstone then accused the FCC of religious bias and refused to make any more changes.

In January 1999, the FCC invited all attorneys to a meeting. When our attorney asked the FCC's Joyce Bernstein whether the meeting was for "negotiation," Bernstein replied, "No, there is a standard for reserved licenses." The FCC then called to advise that Cornerstone refused to attend and the meeting canceled.

Now McCain's camp has issued a 1,500-page document of "facts" the recent New York Times exposé did not include, such as that "No representative of Paxson or Alcade and Fay asked McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding." However, within days, Paxson himself advised the Washington Post that both Iseman and he had met with McCain about the matter.

At the time, according to well-documented reports, Paxson's family, company and law firm were contributing tens of thousands of dollars to McCain's campaign while McCain flew around on Paxson's private jet to rallies and to fundraisers on Paxson's yacht.

Eight months later, the FCC did, indeed, determine that McCain had broken the rules. First, the comment period was over so the case was bound by ex parte rules-no outside attempts to influence the commissioners. Commissioner Tristani recently explained, "It's like going to a court and saying, 'Tell us before it is final how you voted.'" At the time, Chair Kennard wrote to McCain that such inquiries could have "substantive impacts on the Commission's deliberation" and "the due process rights of the parties."

As chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain had control of the FCC's budget. To a colleague of mine at a meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters, Paxson boasted he had the commission "in his pocket." One commissioner, Democrat Susan Ness, had her application for another term at the FCC on McCain's desk. Ness broke ranks with her Democratic colleagues to approve the transfer, and then switched back to warn Cornerstone the FCC would be watching to see that they conformed to the rules governing non-commercial educational stations.

Apparently, wishing to recast McCain as peacemaker rather than influence peddler, his campaign has resorted to more lies, claiming his staff "met with public broadcasting activists from the Pittsburgh area about the transfer" and we "expressed frustration that the proceeding had been before the FCC for over two years." Allegedly, we asked McCain's staff "to contact the FCC regarding this proceeding." We had no idea of McCain's sudden and urgent interest in our local matter until the FCC advised that the commissioners already had voted 3-2 to approve the transfer, at which time McCain's letters were dropped on us.

In the end, Cornerstone miraculously withdrew, stating it could not risk compromising its religious ministry. Subsequently, Republicans in Congress moved a bill stripping educational programming as a requirement for holding an educational license. It actually passed the House, but stalled in the Senate.

As I said, McCain's private life is not my concern. But I care deeply, as a veteran of Pittsburgh's struggle to save public television, that he sought to dictate the solution to our community dispute on behalf of some Florida-based media mogul.