by James Oliphant
In the McCain campaign's full-throttle effort to condemn and belittle the stories connecting him to a sea of special interests, it has brought out one of the biggest guns in Washington.
Bob Bennett is perhaps the best-known lawyer in the city. And in a town of 70,000 well-heeled barristers, that's saying a lot. (He's the brother of Bill, quoted below.) Bennett represented President Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller in the CIA leak investigation. He's also served as defense counsel to Enron, HealthSouth and a number of companies in trouble. He's a lawyer in the tradition of the late Washington titan, Edward Bennett Williams, who was known as "the man to see."
Bennett was retained by the campaign to head off stories such as this one and it appears he dealt with the New York Times directly in the weeks leading up to today's story. Bennett showed up on Fox News Channel last night to address the Times piece and had strong language for the Gray Lady. Here are some excerpts (courtesy of the McCain campaign, naturally.)
"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.
* * *
"All of the matters that they allude to, I mean, they are not even very specific, we answered fully to the New York Times. We showed them that there was just nothing there. And, unfortunately, they have just obviously disregarded all of the hard evidence that we presented. Now, I'm not suggesting that the New York Times has an agenda here. I will let others conclude that. But they certainly have allowed themselves to be a vehicle for a repeat of what happened in South Carolina. And I suspect it's only because John McCain is winning so much, that we are even reading this story ...
"What I know is that the members of the staff who were there and dealt with this lobbyist and ran Senator McCain's office say no. They say there is nothing to it, and they provided that information to the New York Times, and it just apparently didn't have much of an impact on them."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I never did believe McCain "straight-talker" when he called himself a "reformer" right after he was implicated in the Keating scandel.
I'm going to wait to comment further on this BREAKING NEWS until there is more research done on it than there has been so far but from what I understand the second shoe is going to fall on this one in the next couple of weeks.
If this is true, you can start calling McCain, "McToast", because he not only won't win the general election he may be stripped of the Republican nomination.
From here on out, Obama should be tying McCain to the phrase "poor judgment."
As one of the Keating Five, McCain was officially reprimanded for having "poor judgment."
He showed poor judgment in supporting the decision to invade Iraq and continues to show poor judgment in wanting to stay there.
And the very most charitable characterization of the NYT revelations is that McCain has consistently exercised poor judgment in his association with lobbyists.
Posted by: John E | February 21, 2008 12:42 PM
Let me guess, now Republicans want us to listen to what lawyers have to say. I just can't keep up. One week Hollywood actors are a joke, the next week they are "legitimate" contenders for the GOP. One minute all lawyers are scum and cannot be trusted, and the next Mr. Bennett, a LAWYER, says McCain is innocent and that is a "fact" carved in stone.
Posted by: john | February 21, 2008 12:51 PM
Uh oh, Beltway McCain doesn't want a smear campaign. Where were you, Senator, when your party was lying about and smearing a real war hero, John Kerry? You showed such cowardice in 2004 not defending your fellow soldier that you deserve to be smeared.
Posted by: Paul | February 21, 2008 1:03 PM
I've got news for Bob "the puppet master" Bennett.
The Times only broke this story because other news agencies where going to do it first, McCain should be thanking the Times that they didn't break this story right after Iowa like they we're going to do (and McCain asked them not to do so), otherwise Mitt Romney would be the GOP nominee right now and not McCain.
The improper use of influence by a government official for personal gain is illegal, is it not? Undisclosed private jet trips without compensation were illegal even in 1999. And influencing government policy for a squeeze who's a lobbyist can certainly be construed as personal gain.
This ain't a Sidney Ellen Wade situation, and John McCain isn't (yet) an American President. He may get behind the podium and bluster, but the ending is not likely to be a happy one.
This little incident raises lots of questions about what kind of favors John McCain did for his telecom friends during the years he was chairing the Senate Commerce Committee in the 108th and 109th. Given the current controversies about telecom amnesty, that subject could get exceedingly interesting.
Experience is a double-edged sword, eh John?
Posted by: John E | February 21, 2008 1:06 PM
"KARL ROVE/CONDI RICE SPEAKS"
JOHN JOHN, COME ON JOHN JOHN TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM.
COME ON JOHN JOHN, TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM.
IT'S DISTRACTION DAY IN AMERICA. COME ONE WE COULD OF DONE THIS THREE MONTHS AGO AND YOU WOULD BE TOAST.
WE HAVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER OUR INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND WE DIDN'T RESPECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR ALLIES.
WE DID USE THE AIRSPACE OR THE AIRPORTS OF OUR PARTNERS FOR ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD LEAD RENDENTION TO TORTURE.
YEA, SO COME ON JOHN JOHN, HENRY WAXMAN IS STILL LOOKING FOR ME, AND THE HOUSE IS LOOKING TO ARREST KARL.
COME ON JOHN JOHN, TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM!
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 21, 2008 1:13 PM
Hey Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee supporters, how does this make you feel?
You know, if this story had broken earlier and John McCain hadn't talked the Times into holding off on it, one of your guys would be the Republican Party nominee for President right now and not John McCain.
Posted by: Don't Be Fooled Again! | February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
"KEATING FIVE SPEAKS"
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN.
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN.
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN.
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN.
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN.
SO WHAT IF THEY WERE THE ELDERLY. SO WHAT IF THEY WERE ON SOCIAL SECURITY. SO WHAT, SO WHAT, TAKE IT ANYWAYS.
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN AND ALL THOSE $350,000 TO 1,000,000 DOLLAR PROPERTIES.
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN.
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN.
NO I OWN ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN.
NO I OWN IT AND THAT IS THE END OF OT.
NO 4
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 21, 2008 1:25 PM
Maybe he didn't have sex with that woman, but he sure hangs with lobbyists.
Posted by: chimpymcflightsuit'snavigator | February 21, 2008 2:05 PM
I am a Democrat, but I side with Senator McCain against the NYT story going back EIGHT YEARS! I usually have respect for NYT, but this negative story about Senator McCain is disgusting. I could go over it point by point, but suffice it to say that it wasn't worth the time it took me to read it. Most of it was innuendo. I trust Senator McCain's record in Congress and believe him to be an honorable American.
Posted by: JoeAnne Miller | February 21, 2008 2:15 PM
"As you pointed out in the lead, it's almost entirely unsourced." "Almost?"
Juan McCain is part of the problem in Washington - NOT THE SOLUTION.
Posted by: Kay | February 21, 2008 2:23 PM
Bob Bennett representing John McCain = blessed defender of truth and justice.
Bob Bennett representing Bill Clinton = shameless ambulance chaser.
Republican principles = windsock.
Posted by: a blinkin | February 21, 2008 2:24 PM
Here's what the headline to this story should have read like:
"Republican Presidential Nominee and Self Proclaimed Role Model for Children Schtupps Lobbyist, Collects Money, Grants Favors."
Posted by: chuck e cheese | February 21, 2008 2:35 PM
To all the zombies questioning the timing of this article:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnyt.htm
Posted by: jethro | February 21, 2008 2:38 PM
"GLENN BECK SPEAKS"
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT
CONSERVATIVES SPEAK. IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT.
"PROTECTING HILLARY"
"COILPRO" "COILPRO"
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT THAT JOHN MCCAIN USED HIS INFLUENCE 20 YEARS AGO.
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT THAT JOHN MCCAIN GOT ON THAT JET.
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT THAT JOHN MCCAIN SIDED WITH THE "PAX TELEVISION"
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT THAT THE EVANGELICAL SPIRIT IS UNDER ATTACK.
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT THAT TODAY, CONDI RICE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT RENDENTION AND TORTURE ON ALLIES AND FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY.
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT THAT JOHN MCCAIN WAS SEEN WITH A LOBBYIST FOR THE FCC AND HER PERSONAL CONSTITUENTS.
IT'S THE CLINTONS FAULT. IT'S HILLARY CLINTON THAT FABRICATED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ.
IT'S HILLARY CLINTONS FAULT, VOTE JOHN MCCAIN, VOTE JOHN MCCAIN. IT'S HILLARY FAULT.
NO WE JUST WANT HER TO RESPOND, BECAUSE OBAMA DIDN'T AND WE NEED A DISTRACTION.
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT THAT JOHN JOHN GOT CAUGHT WITH HIS HAND IN THE "UNETHICAL" "IMMORAL" AND "UNPROFESSIONAL" KITTY JAR!
IT'S HILLARY CLINTONS FAULT, BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN AND SHE CAN GIVE BIRTH TO A MAN WHO COULD POSSIBLY GROW UP AND LIE.
ROE V WADE, 22ND AMENDMENT.
IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FAULT!
I GLENN BECK APPROVE THIS MESSAGE!
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 21, 2008 2:59 PM
Another utterly BS item in the Joke-une Swamp. Love this lead: "In the McCain campaign's full-throttle effort to condemn and belittle the stories connecting him to a sea of special interests, it has brought out one of the biggest guns in Washington."
Hey James, did moveon.org tell you to write that lead? Media Matters for UnAmerica?
Mr. Zell, with you upcoming layoffs, may I suggest you begin with human "journalistic" filth like James Oliphant, Frank James, heck, why not just about the entire Washinton BS Bureau at the Joke-une?
Posted by: John D | February 21, 2008 3:11 PM
That settles it. The very fact that Bennett is involved leads one to think there's certainly fire where there's smoke.
Posted by: WOOLFOLK HOGE BLAKEMORE | February 21, 2008 3:29 PM
Uh oh, Beltway McCain doesn't want a smear campaign. Where were you, Senator, when your party was lying about and smearing a real war hero, John Kerry? You showed such cowardice in 2004 not defending your fellow soldier that you deserve to be smeared.
Posted by: Paul
HEAR! HEAR! Nice call, Paul.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | February 21, 2008 4:03 PM
Somebody is not telling the truth here. This reminds me of the Intern scandal where you had staff acting independently to rectify a bad situation involving a member and even counseling members but the members have no recollection. How could McCain not know if they banned her from his office and then ran her off? I don't know what was going on with her but it looked bad enough for someone to actually talk to her. I can't believe they didn't talk to him also. Or didn't he have is staff under control? Was he so out of the loop? Not likely. If so, not good either. Maybe they were afraid to tell him. They say he has a real temper
Posted by: Tom Holladay | February 21, 2008 4:06 PM
"Joke-une"?? That's just downright dorky!! Hahahaa.
Take a deep breathe and check out this comic for a little perspective:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Posted by: Kelly | February 21, 2008 4:40 PM
Does anyone remember this from the 2000 campaign? http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/042000wh-gop-mccain.html
The man will say or do anything to get elected.
Posted by: ck | February 21, 2008 4:51 PM
John D.,
"filth."
Dude, you're nuts.
You apparently have no idea how over the top you are.
Get a hobby. Get a grip. But no matter what you do, get a clue.
You're nuts.
Posted by: Doug Zook | February 21, 2008 5:04 PM
the Joke-une Swamp.
Posted by: John D | February 21, 2008 3:11 PM
Little Johnny D,
How long did it take you to come up with that cute name?
Posted by: janet | February 21, 2008 5:13 PM
Ah yes, all part of the intoxicating McCain cachet'.
Posted by: C.Morris | February 21, 2008 5:54 PM
McCain should thank the New York Times for further sullying their own already lousy reputation (home of Jayson Blair) and doing more to rally the republican base around him than he could've possibly done on his own.
I held off commenting until I had a chance to read the entire story and it has less than nothing. We've discussed some of his ties with lobbyists that are supposed revelations on this very blog ad nauseum. Every candidate running has similar connections to lobbyists.
There's no substantiation of any of the lurid accusations in the "article"'s opening paragraphs.
The New Republican piece details how hard Bill Keller fought to keep this liberal advocacy piece masquerading as news from appearing in the Times, only to lose to his liberal investigative staff and then be forced to defend it.
Frank James further shows how he, personally, has no shame with his loaded and inaccurate lead to this swamp item.
This is basically a classic example of the liberal New York Times building up a republican candidate so they can then tear him down. The "guilty until proved innocent" attitude is alive and well in James' loaded words and "woolfolk"'s "where there's smoke there's fire," analogy.
This is unsubstantiated, anonymous, unsourced smoke. In other words, smoke you can't see, smell or look at but the New York Times and an investigative reporter that doesn't even work there anymore assure you, as a reader, is there.
On top of that none of its even new. Thank you, NY Times, for firing up the republican base. Even Obama knows this is a crock. That's why he won't comment on it. Sounds like he was hoping for more from his friends in the media that took down Blair Hull and Jack Ryan. Too bad.
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2008 7:24 PM
More proof that liberals suffer from selective memory. Bud, Paul, I have no idea where you were in 2004 but here's just a few stories about how McCain condemned the attacks on Kerry:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-05-mcain-ad_x.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42740-2004Aug5.html
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/014246.html
Will you apologize to Senator McCain for continuing the smear campaign against him by insinuating that he didn't speak out against the attacks on Kerry? Didn't think so. Typical liberals.
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2008 7:42 PM
Will you apologize to Senator McCain for continuing the smear campaign against him by insinuating that he didn't speak out against the attacks on Kerry? Didn't think so. Typical liberals.
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2008 7:42 PM
Jeffy,
You're right, John McCain/Bush did defend John Kerry during the Republican swiftboating...about two weeks later after the smear had already set in, and then to follow that up, John McCain/Bush said that Kerry should quit falling back on his Nam experience because it has nothing to do with becoming President.
Now I ask you, Jeffy, where would John McCain/Bush be right now if he wasn't always falling back on his Nam experience?
I'll tell you where he'd be, if his past academic performance is any indicator, he would be working the night-shift at the same 7/11 that John D and Paulo work at.
Posted by: John E | February 21, 2008 8:07 PM
Where's the apology?
Please, McCain's list of legislative accomplishments is extensive and his work as Navy Liaison to the Senate is just as distinguished.
When you've spent your entire life in the armed forces, as McCain and the men of the previous two generations of McCain's family did, it's difficult to not "fall back" on that distinguished leadership experience. But your post is disingenuous. McCain always gives credit to the men who served with him and helped him survive Hanoi. He never uses those experiences to exult himself, but rather the heroes he served with.
Kerry's military career wasn't nearly as long and he threw dirt on it by testifying before congress that he knew US soldiers "cut off heads, ears" in Vietnam, only to admit he had no firsthand knowledge of any of that happening a week later. That's why it's comparing apples and oranges. What McCain was specifically commenting on, too, was the disastrous "I'm reporting for duty" theme of Kerry's DNC. McCain wasn't the only one who thought he overdid it. It's the first convention in the last 20 years where the opposing candidate, Bush, actually got a "bump" out of.
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2008 8:22 PM
Kerry's military career wasn't nearly as long and he threw dirt on it by testifying before congress that he knew US soldiers "cut off heads, ears" in Vietnam, only to admit he had no firsthand knowledge of any of that happening a week later. That's why it's comparing apples and oranges. What McCain was specifically commenting on, too, was the disastrous "I'm reporting for duty" theme of Kerry's DNC. McCain wasn't the only one who thought he overdid it. It's the first convention in the last 20 years where the opposing candidate, Bush, actually got a "bump" out of.
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2008 8:22 PM
Wrong answer Jeffy, you're not going to score any political points for John McCain/Bush by re-swiftboating John Kerry, that horse has already left the barn.
Strike Two, Jeffy
One more and you're outta here!
Posted by: John E | February 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Where's the apology?
Please, McCain's list of legislative accomplishments is extensive and his work as Navy Liaison to the Senate
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2008 8:22 PM
Good god Jeff, do you have a super-power John McCain war-hero poster hanging over your bed?
Your obsession with him is weird...to put it mildly.
He's as crooked as the day is long..
WAKE UP SON!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: John E | February 21, 2008 9:06 PM
Why is a lawyer talking like this?
If there is no truth in it and it's just a smear, then shouldn't he demand NYT to retact or sue them for defamation?
Shouldn't McCain quit his campaign if "more campaigning (=spin)" is all that his lawyer can do about a smear?
Posted by: reuel | February 21, 2008 10:12 PM
The only thing to "see" with McCain is a proven flip-flopper and a proven adulterer.
Just another shining example of the "family values" of the Republic Party.
Posted by: BC | February 21, 2008 11:07 PM
[quote]
Little Johnny D,
How long did it take you to come up with that cute name?
Posted by: janet | February 21, 2008 5:13 PM
[/quote]
About as long as it took him to move the island of Cuba several hundred miles to the west so he could claim that it's totally inside the Gulf of Mexico.
Posted by: BC | February 21, 2008 11:09 PM
Doug, I'm over the top? Didn't you just thank me the other day for calling you John E-lite or going to John E School of Idiot Thinking? Have you seen the posts from your mater?
Anyway, you may be a died-in-the-wool Demonut, but this NY Times McCain "article" is crap and you should know it. And for Oliphant to say McCain is "belittling" the BS story is just as bad the BS story. That's why it is filth.
Oh and Dumb Dumb Janet, it took me all of a second to come up with Joke-une. I'm sure you're still thinking a .7 C increase in temp equates to 33.26 F increase, aren't you?
Posted by: John D | February 22, 2008 1:31 AM
Ya know, John E, you're being patently offensive as usual and not talking substance but I'm going to continue this back and forth with you since you did acknowledge reason and thinking for once and admit McCain defended Kerry.
You need to look at what your fellow left wing posters said and own up to it and quit trying to make the rules up and call balls and strikes as you go along. I know it's hard for you guys, but just try it. You'll feel better about yourself after.
This is what Bud McFarlin wrote: "Where were you, Senator, when your party was lying about and smearing a real war hero, John Kerry? You showed such cowardice in 2004 not defending your fellow soldier that you deserve to be smeared."
YOU even admit that is a boldfaced lie! The question isn't if McCain denounced the attacks in a matter of time that is personally satisfying to you, John E. The question isn't who's the better veteran or whose quotes we can take out of context. THIS is the question Bud McFarlin posed in his horribly erroneous smear of a post: "Where were you, Senator, when your party was lying about and smearing a real war hero, John Kerry?"
THIS is the answer that even you recognize: "In an interview with the Associated Press, McCain called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable." Asked if the White House was behind it, McCain said: "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."
The Washington Post even said McCain "rushed to Kerry's defense."
I honestly do not care if you guys hate John McCain. I don't care if you post a million times a day how awful you think he is. But what I do care about is the truth and you know as well as me that this story is sourced as well as Jayson's Blair's reporting on the DC sniper.
You're not doing anything to help your credibility, Bud McFarlin, et al by claiming after the fact that McCain didn't support Kerry. He did. You're just piling on now.
In your zeal to smear this man and also to say he "deserves" to be untruthfully smeared (as if anyone ever does) you show that the real motivation behind this entire story is not honesty or truth or any of the supposed virtues most democrats believe in. It's rather hate. Hate of McCain. Hate of Bush and hate of all things Republican. And John E and Bud McFarlin why should a simple thing like the truth get in the way of your hate, eh? A simple google search would've turned up the quotes condemning the attacks on Kerry. No, you had to get it out that McCain "deserved" to be smeared.
You're showing your true colors.
Posted by: Jeff | February 22, 2008 2:44 AM
McCain's list of legislative accomplishments is extensive...
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2008 8:22 PM
Yeah and it read like a Best of list of the Democratic Party. Keep posting lists of his Senate accomplishments. I think it's great when you show there is absolutely no difference between Sen. McCain and a hybrid Democrat John Breaux, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer. Keep it up buddy.
PS How come you ignore the Washington Post article? Is it because that article actually had a source who was not anonymous?
Posted by: jackson | February 22, 2008 9:23 AM
General Stonewall, even the WaPo says there article couldn't've happened without the Times'. I'm sure you can find a dissatisfied former campaign staffer who'll say innuendos about Clinton and Obama, too. That's no source.
Well, you could find one for Obama, probably. That person would probably mysteriously die like so many other people once connected to the Clintons...
p.s. McCain has a lifetime 82.3 rating from the American Conservative Union. Real conservatives know who to stand with. He's always had the courage to do what's right whether the party says so or not.
Posted by: Jeff | February 22, 2008 11:41 AM
Jeff,
What was Sen. John Breaux's rating with the ACU?
Posted by: jackson | February 22, 2008 3:57 PM
Yes, Mitt Romney should resurface.
Posted by: Vivian | February 22, 2008 4:03 PM
Where were you, Senator, when your party was lying about and smearing a real war hero, John Kerry? You showed such cowardice in 2004 not defending your fellow soldier that you deserve to be smeared.
Posted by: Paul | February 21, 2008 1:03 PM
Oh! so the great John Kerry WAS in Cambodia after all ? Oh i forgot, he lied about that. It's a little hard to defend a liar, just ask Bill Clinton.
Bud, what would you know about it , you spend half the day with your lip hanging off a beer mug in the south side gin mills, have another one Bud.
Posted by: Don B. | February 22, 2008 5:09 PM
Uh oh, Beltway McCain doesn't want a smear campaign. Where were you, Senator, when your party was lying about and smearing a real war hero, John Kerry? You showed such cowardice in 2004 not defending your fellow soldier that you deserve to be smeared.
Posted by: Paul
HEAR! HEAR! Nice call, Paul.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | February 21, 2008 4:03 PM
Bud: Typical revisionist history, Mr. McCain was one of the few vets. that defended the liar Kerry, why I'll never know. You usually post better than that Bud, perhaps you should start to google some of these topics before you script next time.
Posted by: Don B. | February 22, 2008 5:18 PM
Can someone name me one thing he has done positive for the people of this country?
Or
Can someone name me one thing they like about him?
Why when I ask people this they get mad at me is it because they can think of nothing in his favor?
Posted by: Erin | February 22, 2008 6:57 PM