• 
• 
• 
• 
by Frank James and Mark Silva
Sen. John McCain, holding a press conference today to swiftly respond to news reports of a relationship with a Washington lobbyist, somberly said that he and the woman are simply “friends’’ and she had no undue influence over his actions as an influential Senate committee chairman
“I’m disappointed,’’ the senator said of the stories, arriving at an unwelcome time in his all-but-completed campaign for the Republican Party's presidential nomination. “We’ll move on with the campaign… I’m confident that we’ll move forward and I’m confident that we’ll continue to compete in the primaries… and gain the nomination.
“I am very disappointed in the New York Times,’’ McCain said of the story it published today about McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. “It’s not true.’’
McCain said he and the lobbyist are “friends… I have seen her on occasions, particularly at receptions and fundraisers and appearances before the committee,’’ said McCain, with his wife, Cindy, standing by his side. “I have many friends in Washington who represent various interests and those who don’t. I consider her a friend.’’
“The question is, do they have access or unwarranted influence,’’ the senator said – and no one has, the former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee added.
"He's a man of great character,'' Cindy McCain said of her husband, with the candidate's wife stepping to the microphone briefly during a press conference on the campaign trail in Ohio lasting about 15 minutes and then stepping back with a smile.
"Something like this is always distracting and disappointing,'' said McCain, speaking somewhat nervously and somberly at the press conference with his wife. "It does distract... It keeps me from talking about the big issue... But hopefully we can get this behind us and continue with the campaign, and I'm confident that we can.''
Wasn't McCain supposed to be the darling of the mainstream media? At least that's what conservative radio talk show hosts have said for years. You don't get any more mainstream than the New York Times and the Washington Post, but McCain clearly isn't feeling like the apple of the eye of those media giants. More like the bull's-eye.
Both newspapers ran front-page stories today about McCain's ties to the Washington lobbyist. The stories anonymously quote former McCain aides who worried that McCain's association with telecommunications lobbyist Iseman in 2000 during his first bid for the party's presidential nomination might damage his well-honed reputation as a politician opposed to special interest.
The stories say a senior McCain adviser in 2000, John Weaver, met with Iseman to ask her to keep her distance from the senator from Arizona. McCain said today that he had no knowledge of Weaver, also a good "friend,'' doing that.
(Swamp editors' note: The Washington Post, in its reporting of McCain's ties to telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, initially reported that she lobbied for Tribune Broadcasting. That is incorrect, according to Shaun Sheehan, vice president, Washington, Tribune Co. Neither Iseman nor her firm ever has been hired by or on retainer with Tribune Broadcasting, Sheehan said today).
In reporting already proving controversial, the Times, which had the story on its website last night, reports that some of McCain's aides worried in 2000 that there might be a romantic involvement between the senator and the lobbyist. Both McCain and Iseman denied that.
The Times story also suggests there may have been a link between Iseman's contacts with McCain and certain official actions by the senator when he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over telecommunications.
The stories are obviously bad news for the McCain campaign because they force him into having to spend time fending off the story when, as his party's presumptive nominee, he really needs to be spending time raising cash.
Understandably, the McCain campaign has responded to the stories angrily, calling it a "smear campaign."
McCain moved swiftly, holding a press conference at 9 am eastern today to respond to the story. Meanwhile, his campaign had issued the following statement last night:
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker:
"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
Here's the top of the Times story:
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.
But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. 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.
The McCain campaign issued a fact sheet last night containing information the campaign suggests the Times left out of its story since these facts would have weakened the story. Here's the fact sheet which should definitely be read:
The New York Times article states, “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 Iseman’s clients. He 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.”
Local Marketing Agreements (Glencairn)
No representative of Glencairn or Alcalde and Fay, met with Senator McCain in 1998 to discuss the issue of local marketing agreements (LMAs). On July 20, 1999, Senator McCain met with Eddie Edwards, the head of Glencairn, regarding LMAs and minority media ownership issues. This meeting was several months after Senator McCain had weighed in at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its expected December 1998 decision on media ownership rules. There were no other meetings in 1999 between any representative of Alcalde and Fay and Senator McCain regarding the issue of LMAs.
Senator McCain’s Commerce Committee staff recalls meeting at least once with representatives of Alcalde and Fay concerning the issue of LMAs. The staff also recalls meeting with many other representatives of media companies, as well as groups advocating for consumer and public interests, regarding the issue of LMAs during the time the FCC was considering the issue.
As to the December 1998 letters and the February 1999 letter, those letters were not written in support of any one party or in favor of a particular interest. Those letters were simply written by Senator McCain as the Chairman of the committee that oversees the FCC to express his opinion that the agency should not act in a manner contradictory to Congressional intent. In both his December 1, 1998 letter and his December 7, 1998 letter, Senator McCain makes clear that Section 202(h) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act unambiguously directs the FCC to review its media ownership rules every two years with an “eye to lessening them, not increasing them.” Additionally, the letters quote from the 1996 Telecommunications Act and its report language, as well as language from the 1997 Budget Reconciliation Act. The letters do not express an opinion on the merits of LMAs, but strongly encourages the FCC to recognize the “clear language” in the statute.
Hundreds of other interested individuals commented on the LMA proceeding, including over a dozen members of Congress from both parties during December 1998 who were also concerned that the FCC would circumvent Congress’ intent. In addition to Senator McCain, Chairman Tauzin of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also stated that the Commission’s failure to act in a manner consistent with the statutory language set forth in the Act would likely result in a review by Congress of the FCC’s function and structure.
Tax Certificates To Encourage Minority Ownership In Broadcasting
When Commissioner Michael Powell was appointed to the FCC in 1998, he spoke with Senator McCain, then Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, about establishing a program that would encourage minority ownership for communications companies, but prevent the rampant abuse that was found in a previous program that the Congress voted to terminate in 1995. McCain and Powell began working in 1999 with the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, the Minority Media and Telecommunication Council, and other minority groups.
That fall, Senator McCain introduced the “Telecommunications Ownership Diversification Act” and Commissioner Powell voiced his support. As the Senator explained in his introductory floor statement on October 8, 1999, he introduced this bill due to his concern that small businesses face “significant barriers in trying to enter the telecommunications industry … These barriers are even more formidable when the entrepreneur happens to be a woman or a member of a minority group, due to their historically more difficult job of obtaining needed financing.” The legislation was referred to the Senate Finance Committee because the bill amended the tax code.
The bill was supported by many broadcasters, and for this reason a group of over 30 companies formed a coalition to lobby on behalf of the bill, which included several of Alcalde and Fay’s clients. The coalition included the major broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, as well as the National Associations of Broadcasters. Other members included the Minority Media and Telecommunication Council, National Asian American Telecommunications Association, National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, National Council of Churches, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, National Hispanic Media Coalition, National Indian Telecommunications Institute and National Urban League.
Senator McCain reintroduced the bill in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congressional sessions, but it has never been considered by the Finance Committee. It should also be noted that Senator McCain along with Senator Gordon Smith have been working to reintroduce this legislation during the 110th Congressional session, as Senator Smith announced during a Senate Commerce hearing.
Additionally, Senator McCain has continued to introduce a bill to promote more small community radio broadcasters, some of which may be minorities. Senator McCain has introduced some form of the legislation promoting the expansion of low power FM radio stations in the 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congressional sessions to show his continued support of media ownership diversity.
Facts With Respect To Letters To The FCC (November 17 And December 10, 1999)
No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay discussed with Senator McCain the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeding regarding the transfer of Pittsburgh public television station (WQED) to Cornerstone Broadcasting and Cornerstone Broadcasting’s television station (WPCB) to Paxson. No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding.
Senator McCain was actively engaged in a presidential campaign in 1999-2000, and according his calendar, the last day he conducted business in the Senate was November 8, 1999, and was frequently absent from the Senate prior to that date. He returned to the Senate the night of November 19, 1999 for one hour to participate in a budget vote, and the Senate adjourned shortly thereafter on November 22, 1999. Between November 22, 1999 and Christmas, the Senator did not return to the Senate for any substantive meetings as he was involved in a national book tour and a presidential campaign.
Senator McCain’s Commerce Committee staff recalls meeting with representatives of Alcalde and Fay concerning the FCC’s failure to act on the transfer application. Staff also met with public broadcasting activists from the Pittsburgh area about the transfer application. While the two parties differed in their desired outcome from the FCC, both parties expressed to staff members their frustration that the proceeding had been before the FCC for over two years. Both parties asked the staff to contact the FCC regarding the proceeding. Senator McCain’s personal staff did not meet with any parties regarding this transfer.
While neither the Senator nor his Staff agreed to take, nor did they ever take, a position on the proposed transfer, Committee Staff did agree to draft a letter from Senator McCain to FCC Chairman Bill Kennard, dated November 17, 1999 that began, “I write today to express my concern about the Commission’s continuing failure to act on the pending applications for assignment of the licenses of WQEX(TV) and WPCB(TV), Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.” The letter did not call for the Commission to resolve the matter in favor of either party, and specifically stated, “This letter is not written to secure a favorable resolution for any party on any substantive issue pending before the Commission. Please treat this letter in full compliance with all applicable, legal, ethical, and procedural rules.” Clearly, the purpose of the letter was to request action on the transfer application, not to promote a resolution favorable to a particular applicant.
When the Senator received no response from Chairman Kennard, the Senator’s Committee Staff drafted and sent a letter on December 10, 1999 to the other four members of the Commission and attached the original letter Senator McCain sent to Chairman Kennard. Senator McCain explained to the four Commissioners that he had received no response from Kennard’s office and therefore he was bringing the matter to the attention of the remaining four Commissioners. The letter stated, “The sole purpose of this request is to secure final action on a matter that has now been pending for over two years. I emphasize that my purpose is not to suggest in any way how you should vote – merely that you vote.” (Italics used in original letter.)
During this time, the average time for the FCC to decide a broadcast license transfer was 418 days. Senator McCain wrote the Commission after the parties had waited over 800 days for a decision and again, did not request the FCC to decide the transfer in favor of Paxson or any party. Several other legislators were interested in this proceeding, especially Congressmen Oxley, Stearns, Pickering and Largent who also wrote the FCC regarding the proceeding. Additionally, the FCC’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 99-393) for this proceeding states that some Congressmen had threatened to offer legislation regarding the transfer application.
Comments
Straight talk huh? First the Keating 5, now nookie 1.
Posted by: bill r. | February 21, 2008 8:07 AM
When are people going to come to the realization that John McCain is a Republican, with all rights and privileges pertaining thereto, among which is self-righteousness, self-absorption, hypocrisy, pandering, deception, and self-aggrandizement? Give the guy a break, for Pete sake!! Every Republican is entitled to his fair share of sleaziness! He was also entitled to help from the NY Times, which delayed the story in order to for this epitome of morality and virtue to win his party's nomination. Great work NY Times!!!
Posted by: GW | February 21, 2008 8:24 AM
As Ben Bradlee said in All The Presidents Men, "Where's the Story?" He had ties to a lobbyist...name a politician in DC who doesn't. There's no allegations of adultry.
Posted by: Peter | February 21, 2008 8:34 AM
So much for straight talk and the benefit of experience.
Posted by: Tom | February 21, 2008 8:39 AM
Regardless of whether these accusations are true or not, it weakens an already weak candidate.
Saddest part for the GOP is he is still the strongest candidate among the caravan of clowns he ran against in the primaries.
Still, I'd rather he be the nominee than someone like Willard or Huck.
Posted by: Kevin | February 21, 2008 8:43 AM
"Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship."
or
"I did not have lobbying influence WITH THAT WOMAN."
Posted by: syj | February 21, 2008 8:46 AM
How convenient of the NY times, a completely unbiased newspaper, to sit on this story until after McCain more or less got the nomination. They are obviously trying to railroad an election, and once again try to set up the almighty Obama for another win. Just like the Tribune did back when the almighty Obama ran for the US Senate when they railroaded Jack Ryan. The mainstream media has absolutely no credibility left anymore after this. You will never see a story like this about Hillary on the Rose Law Firm or the other skeletons in her closet. And you will absolutely never see them dig up any dirt on the chosen one Obama, with the millions he raises there has to be some dirt out there. But no, you'll only see puff pieces on them, no smear campaigns.
Posted by: Mike | February 21, 2008 8:47 AM
What flatus in a whirlwind!
Only exceeded by MSNB's Keith Olderwoman's swoons and vapors about Lewinski!
http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccainmsnbcs-whiney-old-woman.html
Posted by: Pat Hickey | February 21, 2008 8:49 AM
"some of McCain's aides worried in 2000 that there might be a romantic involvement between the senator and the lobbyist. Both McCain and Iseman denied that."
don't worry folks, there was nothing romantic about it. it was just a business transaction sans pants!
Posted by: scott | February 21, 2008 8:50 AM
i'AM SENDING MR. MCCAIN A ROCKING CHAIR AND A GOOD BOOK. BY THE WAY COULD HIS WIFE BE RELATED TO BERNIE EPTON WIFE U REMEMBER THE GUY that ran aganst HAROLD WASHINGTON.SHE LOOK KIND OF GOOLISH. ALTHOUGH WE KNOW SHE'S SAIN,U KNOW SPECIAL
Posted by: ELONES WOLFE | February 21, 2008 8:54 AM
Sounds like the same thing's happening to McCain that happened to Ryan (when they somehow got into his sealed divorce records) when he ran against Osama...I mean Obama...for the Senate seat. The liberal media is going to attack any opponent Obama has so it takes away from the fact that he isn't qualified to be school board president much less President of the United States. He's a joke!
Posted by: Kevin - Chicago | February 21, 2008 8:54 AM
We all knew that someone would look to dig up this kind of dirt eventually, it was just a question of when. Usually it happens when a nominee emerges within one major party and it's time to go after the rival from the other. Looks as if the DNC knows who its candidate is.
Posted by: Sharon | February 21, 2008 8:55 AM
Anonymous aides? I'd like a little more verification than that. Is this going to be like the story of Bush's military records, that turned out to be a forgery and only helped him win the election?
It seems plausible, given his eye for the young ladies. I say let's put him in front of a Grand Jury, spend a couple million tax dollars of tax payers money on a steamy, televised trial, and impeach him before he ever gets to office. Oh, but wait, he's a Republican and there were obviously corporate interests to be served, so hey, let's elect him for President! It's the American way!
Posted by: DD | February 21, 2008 8:55 AM
The NY Times story is about mid-level Weekly World News, using secondhand quotes from anonymous former aides who allege they were worried about McCain and a lobbyist. No beef. Not even a sizzle, let alone any accusation of wrongdoing.
Even the left-wing "New Republic" concedes the hit piece is worthless:
"What Story?
So here's the essence of the Times' 3,000-word "bombshell" on John McCain.
John Weaver, whom McCain fired last summer (identified in the Times piece as "now an informal campaign adviser" to McCain, which sounds like a puffed-up euphemism for "unemployed") says that 8 years ago, he and two other former employees who have since "become disillusioned" (read: disgruntled), suspected that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist.
The rest of the article, rehashing old news about the Keating Five, is, as Rich Lowry says, complete "window dressing." If you had been wondering whether the Times was in the tank for [the eventual Democratic nominee], well, here's your answer.
--James Kirchick:"
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/20/what-story.aspx
I'd like to say the NY Times lowered their standards with this story, which has been reported about since last December and which the NY Times has been accused of sitting on until McCain won the GOP nomination. I'd like to say that, but that would assume the NY Times HAS standards when it comes to hit pieces on Republicans.
And the Swamp reprints these anonymous rumors. Remember that the next time someone claims that journalists maintain high standards.
Posted by: Peter Zenger | February 21, 2008 8:55 AM
Ridiculuos. A non-story. Typical of the NYTimes. This type of hit and run from the times is what has turned the once beacon of american journalism into an also ran fighting for subscriptions and competeing with supermarket tabloids. What ever happenned to all the news thats fit to print.Another black eye for liberal journalism.
Posted by: GK | February 21, 2008 9:01 AM
GW.....typical!!
NY Times...typical !!
NY Times is one of the media arms of DNC and I'm not surprised at the story or it's timing.
Q.
Is thier any play in the NY Times about Obama's wife "for the first time in her adult life being proud of being an American"?
A.
Probably not......
Posted by: Ted | February 21, 2008 9:01 AM
And the Swamp reprints these anonymous rumors. Remember that the next time someone claims that journalists maintain high standards.
Posted by: Peter Zenger | February 21, 2008 8:55 AM
Probably one of those happy posters jumping in on the old thread about Obamas' flag pin. Isn't it amazing what the partisans find credible and what is edible.
Posted by: bill r. | February 21, 2008 9:12 AM
GOP will feel what its like to be 'swift-boated." The seems to have a lock on this type of behavior for years. Let the (childish) games begin.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 21, 2008 9:12 AM
Why not give it a try? The press used some personal dirt to run Blair Hull out of the Democratic senate primary in 2004, which made it possible for Obama to get the nomination. They did the same thing again to Obama's GOP opponent, Jack Ryan, which led to Obama's romp against ballot replacement Alan Keyes. So why not come up with an unsubstantiated sex scandal involving McCain? The only difference is that Hull and Ryan were used to the collegial world of business, not the rough and tumble ways of politics. Basically, they brought their tennis racquets to a hockey game. McCain is another story. He's more like the guy who brings brass knuckles to a hockey game!
Posted by: JohnP | February 21, 2008 9:20 AM
I'm not sure what to make of this story yet, but one thing is a little creepy: Vicki Iseman and Cindy McCain could pass for twins.
Posted by: Alzado | February 21, 2008 9:24 AM
Lots of rumor. Not much fact.
Posted by: Reality | February 21, 2008 9:24 AM
He's a man. She's a woman, so automatically some people assume a romantic connection?
I thought these papers were better than this.
The lobbyist ties MIGHT be a story, but to throw sleaze in there with no proof is just wrong; and I say this as someone who won't be voting Republican.
Posted by: Walter | February 21, 2008 9:29 AM
The biggest victims of articles like this are professional women who, if they are to be treated with equity, have to be able to interact with men associates without being accused of having an affair in order to get ahead. As long as news media do this sort of thing, women will never be treated as "one of the gang" in the work place. Nice going NYT. You just set back women in the work place by decades.
Posted by: Angela | February 21, 2008 9:31 AM
I think the New York Times should stick to undermining our representative government and release more classified documents to the world.
Better yet, their articles with fictitious quotes makes for great reading!
The people who read the NY Times have to be dumber than the NY Times reporters. When Michael Moore and his entourage of idiots want to post a full page ad they choose a newspaper whose readers are likely to be dumb enough to pay attention to them, the NY TImes.
Posted by: Robert | February 21, 2008 9:35 AM
A regurgitated story from 2000 , I guess after the numerous gaffes over the years for the Grey Lady (jayson Williams, Rathergate ) they felt this was new news. Instead of reporting a legitimate news story,the filing in Minn. of a federal intimidation/harassment suit against Mr Obama , Mr Dean , and Mr. Axelrod. I guess they regard this incident as a normal occurrence during the election cycle. The " Grey Lady " always puts the Republicans over the top on national elections...look what "Rathergate did for Mr. Bush in 2004
Posted by: Don B. | February 21, 2008 9:36 AM
So.
Why did McCain's people get involved in this situation?
Posted by: Doug Zook | February 21, 2008 9:36 AM
An affair? John McCain? Never.
Except with his now-second wife, I mean.
Posted by: Carol McCain | February 21, 2008 9:38 AM
"He's a man of great character," Cindy McCain said of her husband...
Hey Cindy! Your husband cheated on his first wife to be with you! Great character!
Posted by: Amy Miller | February 21, 2008 9:39 AM
Are you supposed to be a journalist or just some high school year book hack? Your comments below indicate the latter.
Wasn't McCain supposed to be the darling of the mainstream media? At least that's what conservative radio talk show hosts have said for years. You don't get any more mainstream than the New York Times and the Washington Post, but McCain clearly isn't feeling like the apple of the eye of those media giants. More like the bull's-eye.
Posted by: MinisterP | February 21, 2008 9:40 AM
Republicans are champions of gutter politics and dirty tricks. Ha ha! I'm glad they have gotten a taste of their own medicine.
Posted by: StCMan | February 21, 2008 9:40 AM
NY Times...typical !!
NY Times is one of the media arms of DNC and I'm not surprised at the story or it's timing.
Posted by: Ted | February 21, 2008 9:01 AM
A) The NY Times endorsed McCain!
B) If they wanted to railroad his campaign they would've brought this out before the New Hampshire Primary to kill him in his crib
C) This is a non-story. If he had an affair it does not mean he's not qualified to be President. When will Republicans get that thru their head?
Posted by: jethro | February 21, 2008 9:41 AM
Wow, an article that has not ONE attribute, not ONE source for verification. Pretty shoddy journalism, but then this is the NY Lying Times.
Could this be the CBS "Memogate" story of 2008?
The media in this ocuntry is shameful. It's becoming that most U.S. newspapers no longer are not even worthy enough to be cheap Soviet-era toilet paper.
Posted by: John D | February 21, 2008 9:43 AM
He was secretly spying on the telecom companies for national security, give him a break.
Posted by: Scott4Obama | February 21, 2008 9:49 AM
"But hopefully we can get this behind us" says McCain in a grand lets-sweep-this-under-the-rug gesture. Funny how that sentiment was suspiciously absent from the Repugnantcans during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.
Posted by: Ann | February 21, 2008 10:01 AM
What happened to the announced policy of the Tribune to not use articles without attribution? And how is this different from the Tribune's criticism directed at a Northwestern professor for not quoting sources of comments.
Posted by: Jamison | February 21, 2008 10:01 AM
Poor Jeff. This is gonna send him into apoplexy.
Posted by: Op109 | February 21, 2008 10:01 AM
Doug: I'm sure some of the aides tasks are to look out for potential pitfalls. signs of impropriety. I bet Bill Clinton wishes he had some of Mr. McCains aides , he'd still have his law license , and he wouldn't of been impeached.
Posted by: Don B. | February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
Typical New York Times BS. You'd have to be brain damaged to beleive that paper.
Posted by: 500 | February 21, 2008 10:13 AM
The media in this ocuntry [country] is shameful. It's becoming that most U.S. newspapers no longer are not even worthy enough to be cheap Soviet-era toilet paper.
Posted by: John D | February 21, 2008 9:43 AM
That’s right Johnny D, someone has to clean-up after a mouth like yours.
P.S. You got a D- on the spelling exam today
Posted by: Rory M | February 21, 2008 10:15 AM
From the article:
"Wasn't McCain supposed to be the darling of the mainstream media? At least that's what conservative radio talk show hosts have said for years."
If the reporters actually listened to "conservative radio talk show hosts", they'd know that said hosts have been saying for many months that the "mainstream media" backs McCain for the GOP nomination (as the Republican most acceptable to liberals), but will drop on McCain once he becomes the Republican nominee and faces off against an actual liberal (the Dem nominee).
Which has been proven true by the NY Times article.
Posted by: Bruce | February 21, 2008 10:16 AM
One line in this story is soild gold " People are tired of sex scandals" YES particularly when they are 1. vague to the point of non existant and 2. completly beside the issues in the campaign.
Come on folks. These are adults. What happened to "Casting the First Stone?" Remember, We had a president who was as close to a completly moral man as you are likely to find, Jimmy Carter, and we pretty much laughed him out of office. Partly because he admitted that a person can have lustful feeings no matter how committed they are to their moral code.
To those who would say that it's an indication of character; there ia no evidence there was any actual activity. I have A LOT less trouble with a president who would bed a lady than one who destroys a country for no good reason
Posted by: Quercus | February 21, 2008 10:23 AM
If there is anything here, then I wish The Times would just come out with a direct claim. The facts are either there or they aren't. Publishing mere implications is either very spineless (if true) or very harmful (if untrue). This is uncharacteristically poor journalism by The NYT. I'm disappointed.
Posted by: Josh | February 21, 2008 10:23 AM
That's why the newspapers are losing readership. They don't appear to have any ethical or moral back bone any more! Check the real facts out before printing!
Posted by: Dean Carlson | February 21, 2008 10:28 AM
Since Cindy McCain decided that she wanted to tell us about how she has always been very proud of her country, then we should now ask, should her country be proud of Cindy. Read the following report from Salon laying out Cindy McCains' sordid past.
salon.com > News Oct. 18, 1999
URL: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs
How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction
When an attempt to get tough with a whistleblower backfired in 1994, the McCain spin machine went into overdrive, and the candidate's wife confessed to problems the media was already poised to reveal.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Amy Silverman
GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.
It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.
It was also vintage McCain media manipulation.
I had d�j� vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.
I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The local press cooed over her hard-luck story. One of the four journalists spoon-fed the story -- Doug McEachern, then a reporter for Tribune Newspapers, now a columnist with the Arizona Republic (and, it must be added, normally much more acerbic) -- wrote this rather typical lead:
"She was blonde and beautiful. A rich man's daughter who became a politically powerful man's wife. She had it all, including an insidious addiction to drugs that sapped the beauty from her life like a spider on a butterfly."
What McEachern and the others didn't know was that, far from being a simple, honest admission designed to clear her conscience and help other addicts, Cindy McCain's storytelling had been orchestrated by Jay Smith, then John McCain's Washington campaign media advisor. And it was intended to divert attention from a different story, a story that was getting quite messy.
I know, because I had been working on that story for months at Phoenix New Times. I had finally tracked down the public records that confirmed Cindy McCain's addiction and much more, and the McCains knew I was about to get them. Cindy's tale was released on the day the records were made public.
But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts. The irony is that Cindy's secret would have stayed secret if John McCain's heavy-hitting lawyer, John Dowd (of D.C.'s Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; his most recent claim to fame was serving as co-counsel for fellow partner Vernon Jordan during impeachment) hadn't heavy-handedly pulled out all the stops to protect the McCain family.
Dowd tried to get back at the man on Cindy McCain's staff, Tom Gosinski, who had blown the whistle on her drug pilfering to the DEA. But in the course of trying to get local law enforcement officials to investigate Gosinski -- Dowd and the McCains considered him an extortionist; others might call him a whistleblower -- Dowd set in motion a process that would eventually bring the whole sordid story to light. When that maneuver backfired, the McCain media machine went into overdrive to spin the story.
It's a story of unintended consequences. It's also a story of power politics and media manipulation that's very un-McCain-like -- if you believe his national media hagiography.
But both of Cindy McCain's staged, teary drug-addiction confessions have been vintage John McCain. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want.
McCain did it with the Keating Five, and with the story of the failure of his first marriage (Cindy is his second wife). So what you recall after the humble, honest interview, is not that McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, but instead what an upfront, righteous guy he is.
Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished. John McCain shoots from the hip -- but only after carefully rehearsing the battle plan, to be sure he won't get shot himself.
This is the story of a time that strategy backfired, and yet the McCain machine still managed to contain the damage.
In the early 1990s, Tom Gosinski was the director of government and international affairs for the American Voluntary Medical Team, which did relief and medical volunteer work in third world countries.
Hired by Cindy McCain in 1991, Gosinski enjoyed his job, but he began to notice McCain's erratic behavior in the summer of 1992. In his journal, he wrote that he and others suspected the boss was addicted to painkillers and might have been stealing them from the organization.
From Gosinski's journal, July 27, 1992:
I have always wondered why John McCain has done nothing to fix the problem. He must either not see that a problem exists or ... not choose to do anything about it. It would seem that it would be in everyone's best interest to come to terms with the situation. And do whatever is necessary to fix it. There is so much at risk: The welfare of the children; John's political career; the integrity of Hensley & Company [Cindy's parents' business]; the welfare of Jim and Smitty Hensley [Cindy's parents]; and the health and happiness of Cindy McCain.
The aforementioned matters are of great concern to those directly involved but my main concern is the ability of AVMT to survive a major shake-up. If the DEA were to ever conduct an audit of AVMT's inventory, I am afraid of what the results might be ... It is because of [Cindy McCain's] willingness to jeopardize the credibility of those who work for her that I truly worry.
During my short tenure at AVMT I have been surrounded by what on the surface appears to be the ultimate all-American family. In reality, I am working for a very sad, lonely woman whose marriage of convenience to a U.S. Senator has driven her to: distance herself from friends; cover feelings of despair with drugs; and replace lonely moments with self-indulgences.
In his journal-writing over the next few months, Gosinski would alternately complain about Cindy McCain and express concern for her well-being.
In January 1993, McCain fired Gosinski. She told him that AVMT was having financial problems and couldn't afford him.
Gosinski had already come to suspect that Cindy McCain had gotten volunteer doctors with AVMT to sign prescriptions for her, and had used employees' names to fill them. Worried his own name had been used (he would eventually learn that it had), Gosinski approached DEA agents in the spring of 1993 to report McCain's suspicious behavior. The DEA launched an investigation.
Almost a year later, with the statute of limitations about to run out, Gosinski hired a labor attorney and sued Cindy McCain for wrongful termination. He intended to claim that she fired him because she suspected he knew about her addiction, but the lawsuit never got that far. Instead, Gosinski's attorney wrote to the McCains, asking for a settlement of $250,000.
Rumors about the untold details of the lawsuit hit the cocktail-party circuit that spring, but the story was locked up tight. As a federal criminal investigation, the DEA probe was completely secret; none of it was public record.
The entire story would likely have gone unreported if attorney John Dowd hadn't entered the picture. He wrote to Maricopa County attorney Richard Romley, a political ally of McCain, and asked him to investigate Gosinski for extortion.
"We believe that Mr. Gosinski is aware that in the past Cindy had an addiction to prescription painkillers ... Given Cindy's public position, exposure of this sensitive matter would harm her reputation, career, the operation of AVMT, and subject her to contempt and ridicule," Dowd wrote on April 28, 1994.
Thus began the inadvertent outing of Cindy McCain. Although the federal investigative materials were not public, the county investigative materials were. Romley launched an investigation, and one of the first things his people did, naturally, was ask the feds to turn over their investigative materials.
New Times finally got hold of the county investigative materials and we did our own story. So did the Arizona Republic, which was uncharacteristically aggressive, perhaps because the McCain machine had left the paper out of the loop on the story of Cindy's addiction.
Among the questions asked: Did Cindy McCain get preferential treatment by the feds? True, Cindy was a first-time offender, which partially explains the fact that she did no prison time; instead, she entered a diversion program. But at the time, defense lawyers told New Times that if Cindy McCain had been a poor minority and not married to a U.S. senator, she likely would have been locked up.
Did Gosinski intend to blackmail Cindy McCain? He told New Times he didn't. Other AVMT employees told county investigators that he did. But the time line makes extortion hard to believe, since Gosinski had already gone to the DEA before he brought his lawsuit against the McCains.
In any case, Tom Gosinski didn't out Cindy McCain. John Dowd did, and then Jay Smith was called in for the clean-up.
A few postscripts: Tom Gosinski left town shortly after Cindy McCain's story broke. By that time, his lawsuit had died, ignored. The county did not pursue the extortion investigation against him.
John Max Johnson, the doctor who had written the prescriptions for Cindy McCain, surrendered his medical license.
Cindy McCain still does relief work and raises the McCains' four children.
John McCain, of course, is running for president.
And only a handful of people remember the details of Cindy McCain's 1994 "outing" for drug addiction and drug pilfering, and the work of the McCain machine to protect her.
salon.com | Oct. 18, 1999
Posted by: Liam | February 21, 2008 10:32 AM
So I’m sure everyone is dying to know what I think. So here it is. McCain is taking a hit on this old, recycled crap so Obama can be inoculated against his own scandal that will hit the MSM late next week. I’m as liberal as it gets and wouldn’t dream of voting for McCain, but this stinks. This election has me all sorts of paranoid. But everything seems so orchestrated—at least much more than usual.
Posted by: Angie | February 21, 2008 10:34 AM
Even though I am not a republican, I am astonished by the way certain people in the republican party just hate John McCain. It seems so like the conservatives are just throwing the election and destroying their chances by trying to smear John McCain.
While I lost alot of respect for McCain when he cozyed up to Bush, I think that it is his time to lead the republican party back to respectability and towards the center instead of far right.
Its amazing how they are eating their young.
Posted by: Nora | February 21, 2008 10:48 AM
heard Jill Sutton who covers McCain campaign for the Tribune say this morning that she felt the story had no basis and that it was bad reporting by the Times. 'nuff said
Posted by: sean | February 21, 2008 10:52 AM
The contemptuously partison behavior of NYT should surprise, but alarm no one as the veracity of their reporting has long since sunk it to irrelevancy.
Posted by: Dan | February 21, 2008 11:03 AM
Don B.,
McCain needs to be protected from himself?
Posted by: Doug Zook | February 21, 2008 11:03 AM
I like McCain. Always have, always will.
I'm a Dem but glad he's the nominee because if a GOPer has to win in November, I'd rather it be him than any other Republican.
However, he has to ditch the wife on TV except for the nights he wins primaries.
She looks borderline ghoulish standing next to him with that on-again, off-again glazy-eyed grin. The first thing that comes to mind is The Stepford Wives.
I hate to even draw this equation, but it's reminiscent of Pat Nixon, sitting there transfixed on her husband as he rambles on and on and on, as if in a drug-induced trance.
Stuff like this is going to lose him votes. Especially among women.
Posted by: Carl | February 21, 2008 11:05 AM
an affair would make mccain seem more human. and, more importantly, it might foreclose his inevitable lurch to the value-voter right. it would keep an independent like me on his side.
Posted by: carl | February 21, 2008 11:07 AM
I think some of you are missing the point. The New York Times would not print a story like this if there wasn't enough evidence from sources or what have you to protect the paper from anything that could be construed as libelous. There may not be the "smoking gun" which will allow McCain to continue to deny, deny, deny. But there's something there or they wouldn't have gone with the story. And don't give me that "liberal bias" crap.
Posted by: Yeah! | February 21, 2008 11:12 AM
"I did not have fix regulations with that lobbyist, Ms Iseman" Senator John Without Stain McCain
Posted by: Liam | February 21, 2008 11:24 AM
That is all McCain has to do is wrap himself in the American Flag, and Smile. And of course, have his wife standing by looking 25 years younger than he in all her expensive showering of diamonds and pearl. I agree with the first responder. Republicans always act "self-rightous" like they are the only patriot's. Like Liberal is a foul-mouthed bad word. Yet, the sleaziness of Nixon; Bush, and yes Reagan with Nicauragua, selling arms for drugs to fund his secret Contra Wars; now, Bush, and his Cabal of Cheney, his fired secretary of defense, so many of them lie then stand in front of the American people surrounded by large flags. Didn't Hitler use to do that? Anything to fool the "common" American Public.
Posted by: American First | February 21, 2008 11:35 AM
I am tired of stories like this that allege personal sex scandals. Even if they are true , they are irrelevant. I was going to write in Ron Paul's name and not vote for Mclain . However if this story or stories like it persist , I am going to switch my vote to McClain. Yes i am being reactive, but stories alleging sexual indiscretion are boring and meaningless to the election.
Posted by: ejhickey | February 21, 2008 11:38 AM
If the NY Times cares so much about family values, why did they wait until now to run with rumors that are 9 years old? Had they truly felt this a matter of great importance (front-page news), they would have endorsed the Republican candidate who has never been divorced and built a beautiful family - Mitt Romney. This smacks of sensationalism.
Posted by: Steven | February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
I sure HOPE that Barack Obama doesn't CHANGE under pressure and start snorting that cocaine again. Barack admits to doing coke and there is no record of Bush doing it yet when Barack admits it, it is no longer a big deal? You liberals are such hypocrites. It is hard to believe we may end up with a cokehead as President of the U.S. rather than a war hero like John McCain. I think in the end the American people voting will be smart enough to not elect an inexperienced crack head. You have to wonder if this is the real reason Barack is interested in meeting with crooked leaders like Chavez. I am sure Chavez and others would be a good source of some coke huh? That makes sense.
Why aren't public officials subject to the same drug tests other employees are subject too? This is ridiculous.
Posted by: Siouxperman | February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
From today's Washington Post article:
"Three telecom lobbyists and a former McCain aide, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Iseman spoke up regularly at meetings of telecom lobbyists in Washington, extolling her connections to McCain and his office. She would regularly volunteer at those meetings to be the point person for the telecom industry in dealing with McCain's office."
Posted by: Liam | February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
Mainstream?
The New York Times?
The Bible of the liberal Left?
Mainstream?
It is to laugh.
And, Angela, great point.
Posted by: DaveB | February 21, 2008 11:44 AM
Some of the commentors on this site don't seem as enlightened as tose of the NYT. site. Have any of you people read the NYT story? Did you bother to read the fact sheet that is published above? As the author states, it should definatly be read!
Thanks for the great reporting Tribune.
Posted by: john | February 21, 2008 11:53 AM
Is it just me or does Cindy McCain look like a Stepford Wife? Maybe John is part of a bigger conspiracy where they are manufacturing women for the rich old republican beaurocrats.
Posted by: dave1law | February 21, 2008 11:54 AM
Don B.,
McCain needs to be protected from himself?
Posted by: Doug Zook | February 21, 2008 11:03 AM
Maybe Doug...You know what they say, better safe than sorry. I would venture to say a lot of politicians have aides and advisors that do exactly that.
Posted by: Don B. | February 21, 2008 11:56 AM
This is proof that Mr. Obama is correct. Mr. McCain is more if the same--a Bush light--and the country needs to move forward to face the challenges of the 21st century
Posted by: Carlos T Mock MD | February 21, 2008 12:01 PM
The people shouting hatchet job seem to miss a key point - Jack Ryan ran on family values, and McCain has run on ethical politics for years. These are issues they brought to the fore, so it is fair to look at how they walk their own talk.
Sure, the NYT piece is minor news, tho it does include a lot of interesting history. And if you read the piece, (which I doubt most of the posters here have done) you will see that its point is primarily that McCain has a history of engaging in behavior that has the appearance of a conflict of interest, including some things he has since helped to make illegal. And it really is not particularly negative in tone.
Will it hurt McCain? I doubt it. The NYT does have its own image problems. Will it make it harder for McCain to attack Obama on ethics? Probably. But that was going to be difficult anyway.
When the NYT does a detailed piece on how much change Obama's platform really includes, I trust the same posters will rage about what a hatchet job that is.
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
Posted by: dd | February 21, 2008 12:08 PM
This is about money, if it was about sex it would be a man in an airport somewhere. This is the GOP we're talking about.
Posted by: Joe | February 21, 2008 12:10 PM
A bimbo lobbyist eruption! Let's see how Mr. 'straight talk' explain yet another lie.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | February 21, 2008 12:22 PM
I can't wait to see the articles about Obama using cocaine and the press using it against him
Posted by: Yooper | February 21, 2008 12:27 PM
It's funny reading the dilusional comments from conservatives.
Hillary & the Rose law firm comments ... Didn't the government spend untold MILLIONS investigating that story already when Bill was in office? And if after all that money they couldn't prove anything wrong, then of course it must be a liberal bias.
I'll judge McCain by his policies, not by his personal life.
Posted by: urbaneddie | February 21, 2008 12:35 PM
Is Iseman more connected to RNC Presidential politics?
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/02/21/did-vicki-iseman-steal-honor-in-three-presidential-elections/
Posted by: Tom - Chicago | February 21, 2008 12:41 PM
no wonder the times had to get rid of 100 employees.
Pos