Who Believes John McCain?

So, the Times has run a story that John McCain has denied, and once again we hear a leading public official saying "I did not have a romance with that woman!"

I might cut him more slack on this and see where the chips fall (the Times has been wrong before) except for the breadth of his denial. He seems to be saying he never even talked to aides about worries that there could be an appearance problem. That seems the most easily verifiable part of the story, a story that we know has been heavily vetted by the Times lawyers.

So, right now, I think he doth protest too much. How about the rest of you, including those of you who support him? Setting aside whether this, even if true, may be one of those minor personal foibles that may be of marginal substantial relevance, do you believe him?

I could care less about the sexual, or rather, romantic relationship, if such a thing exists. Powerful men have powerful appetites, and rightly so. Any romance is between McCain and his wife and the lobbyist and her employers.

The thing I find most troubling about this story is that this woman represented industries that did a considerable amount of business before the Senate Commerce committee, one of the committees McCain sits on. To me this is where any problem with this lies.

There's a lot of blah, blah, blah going on about this one. From rv: It's old news that was first rumored during the 2000 campaign. Of course the possibility of a lie makes everyone with a pulse recall the ramifications of WJC's dalliances. Now Fox News claims that the NYT sat on the story but decided to print it because The New Republic was preparing a story about the NYT's investigations. Both McCain and the lobbyist deny anything romantic, and McCain denied it was recently as December when Drudge was supposedly going to press about it. The story might end up being more about the coverage and the timing of the story than it is about the actual claims ~ which would serve McCain just fine.

if the ny times had left out the 'romantic involvement' part, there would still be questions about mccain's independence from lobbyists and whether he's learned anything from being part of the "keating 5." the article might also have mentioned the spat mccain had with obama over "ethics reform" a few years ago.

http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_...

Ironic that the times endorsed McCain in the New York primary. Do I believe him? My gut says no. Geneg is right that the ramifications of her lobbying committees that McCain sat on is very troubling if these allegations turn out to be true. McCain's denials of any past wrongdoing also seems to blithely pass over his role as one of the Keating 5 senators. One also wonder why the Times would print it if not true because the legal ramifications for a paper with declining subscriptions could be huge. So let's see how McCain really responds or not in a legal sense. If the story does have legs this could take the wind out of sails of the GOP just after it has found its nominee.

More on the FCC element of the scandal here.

I'm inclined to give McCain the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't literally in bed with the lobbyist. However, it does seem that (as is more typical than not of politicians) he was accepting money (directly or indirectly) from people who had an interest in legislation he was helping to shape and vote on.

He claims, as anyone in that situation would, that the money didn't influence the way he wrote bills and/or voted. Frankly, whether he thinks it influenced him or not, it probably did. Influence like this is as likely (perhaps more likely) to be subconscious as conscious.

This kind of thing looks worse when McCain does it, precisely because he's become such a high-profile champion of rooting out these kinds of influence on the governmental process. I think he should know better. I don't think he's crooked, but he may be naïve. And naïveté could be as worrisome in a President as being crooked.

Here's an analysis of the story that seems pretty rational to me, from Newsweek.

The McCain camp sent a many-page document listeing all the votes he made AGAINST the clients of this lobbyist. The NYT didn't use any of it in the story. Shocker.

Also, I heard he took $85,000 in campaing funds over 8 years! That's a pittance in political dollars.

This is a non-story that is reminding conservatives that we share common enemies with McCain: jihadism and the NY Times.

> Also, I heard he took $85,000 in campaing funds over 8 years! That's a pittance in political dollars.

i think the point was about the other forms of payment he may or may not have received. ;-)

> The McCain camp sent a many-page document listeing all the votes he made AGAINST the clients of this lobbyist. The NYT didn't use any of it in the story. Shocker.

This may be a good point. An obvious question would be about the percentages and how much money the client stood to make from each vote. For example, if McCain voted against 99 initiatives from which the client would have gained $10k, but then voted for 1 initiative from which the client gained $500 million, then a statement that McCain voted against the clients' interests 99% of the time means a lost less.

>This is a non-story that is reminding conservatives that we share common enemies with McCain: jihadism and the NY Times.

so when will the NY Times be renditioned?

I understand that the right has trouble figuring out the difference between terrorists and Muslims in general, but surely they can figure out the difference between al Qaida and the NYT?

Better add the Washington Post to the enemies list, as well as the (Republican) FEC Chair:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141....

Has the Straight Talk Express gone down that Doubletalk Spur?

>11 theoria: More importantly, will Kristol and Brooks flip or will they have to be waterboarded?

14
Why give 'em the choice?

Let's go surfin' now, everybody's learnin' how!

Come on this safari with me.

Just couldn't resist. Sorry.

I don't want to listen to the Republics spend four more years whining like babies over all the imaginary stuff the next non-Republic president is supposed to have done, be doing, or about to do. I can't imagine anyone wanting to relive the nastiness, the slander, and the out and out partisan bull crap that poured forth from the Republic s#it machine during the Clinton years. Boy, there is no bigger baby in the world than a Republic out of power. Pissin' and moanin', whinin' and cryin' when they are out of power, arrogant and foolish when in power. I'm amazed they manage to fool so many "educated" Americans time after time.

From the Washington Post today, on one of McCain's chief advisors:

"But even as Black provides a private voice and a public face for McCain, he also leads his lobbying firm, which offers corporate interests and foreign governments the promise of access to the most powerful lawmakers. Some of those companies have interests before the Senate and, in particular, the Commerce Committee, of which McCain is a member.

Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus."

Set aside the idea that McCain keeps a lobbyist as a side-kick on a day to day basis, right on his bus. Lots of people get involved in campaigns out of self-interest.

But how do hire people to run your campaign who are dumb enough to advertise to the Washington Post that they are using the campaign bus as a lobbying office?

More on Black: he is apparently the bitter foe of Weaver, McCain's other longtime political supporter.

Time to add Newsweek to the enemies list:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505

Apparently McCain gave a sworn deposition five years ago that contradicts some of his denials in the Iseman matter. It looks like he did protest too much, and the denials will get him in more hotwater than whatever happened or didn't happen with her.

>19 A_musing: "It looks like he did protest too much"

Indeed. I can't wait to see how this plays out tomorrow.