# NYT to air McCains affair with Lobbyist tomorrow. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2008, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513 "2008-02-21T04:24:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/81 "2008-02-22T09:13:49Z")
Anyone else think McCain’s camp might have started this scandal themselves, to prove that he’s not too old after all? Nobody in their right minds could have thought starting this rumor would help McCain’s enemies in any way. The story is goofy on its face. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/82 "2008-02-22T12:02:12Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] Anyone else think McCain’s camp might have started this scandal themselves, to prove that he’s not too old after all? Nobody in their right minds could have thought starting this rumor would help McCain’s enemies in any way. The story is goofy on its face. [/QUOTE] And the alleged affair was ten years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/83 "2008-02-22T17:56:55Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] Chris Matthews said that the NYT violated their own policy by publishing this story. Their policy is not to publish a story using anonymous sources unless they give a reason for using anonymous sources. [/QUOTE] Chris Matthews is full of shit. He is either lying or never reads the Times because he can’t make out the big words they use. The Times clearly stated policy is to prefer named sources (and there was one in the article,) and that when anonymous sources are used the reason they wish to remain anonymous is given, along with background showing possible bias. About half the political stories in the Times have anonymous sources. Those rules were followed in the story. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/84 "2008-02-22T19:08:48Z")
Right, that misses the point. There’s no reason to doubt that the story comes from two real former McCain staffers. The problem is that they didn’t have any good, factual reason to believe there was an affair going on, only that they had some suspicions that other staffers pointedly dismissed. And even if it happened, it’s nobody else’s business. This “story” (yes, I read it) was crap - belonged on Drudge, not the nation’s “newspaper of record”. One focused instead on his record of what we can call “constituent services”, including his attempted use of influence as the story mentioned on the side, might have been useful. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/85 "2008-02-22T20:58:03Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Right, that misses the point. There’s no reason to doubt that the story comes from two real former McCain staffers. The problem is that they didn’t have any good, factual reason to believe there was an affair going on, only that they had some suspicions that other staffers pointedly dismissed. And even if it happened, it’s nobody else’s business. [/QUOTE] The Times story only touched on their reasons - that she traveled with him, that she was always around. But it clearly gave it as their opinion. Who knows if they had other reasons not mentioned. 99.8% of the story was about his interaction with lobbyists, which is a significant news story. She came up because she was a lobbyist who seemed to have particularly good access to him. Do you think the Times should have not run that one line (which helped explain why she was told to buzz off) or not run the full article? It would be nice if people’s possible sexual activities were kept out of the news, but that horse is out of the barn. Whether there was an affair, or she just batted her eyes at him as part of her job, or there was nothing at all, the aides were worried and wanted to protect him. Isn’t it better to have this come out now than when he is in office - especially if there is something to it? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/86 "2008-02-22T21:05:28Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] The Times story only touched on their reasons - that she traveled with him, that she was always around. But it clearly gave it as their opinion. Who knows if they had other reasons not mentioned. [/quote] If they did, it was the Times’ obligation to pass them on. They were keeping their anonymity, so there would be no reason to withhold any information that would support their credibility. > [@](#): > > 99.8% of the story was about his interaction with lobbyists, which is a significant news story. She came up because she was a lobbyist who seemed to have particularly good access to him. Do you think the Times should have not run that one line (which helped explain why she was told to buzz off) or not run the full article? The affair topic, sure - it wasn’t based on anything, just scandalmongering. Certainly the editors must have known that’s what would get the attention nationally, but they just didn’t have a story. Influence-peddling is a legitimate and necessary topic, but that too needed to be based on not only facts but on a relative comparison with the conduct of other high-seniority members. But it wasn’t. It would have been newsworthy to show that McCain is either dirtier \*or \* cleaner than average, or that matter just typical. We were not presented any such information, though. > [@](#): > > It would be nice if people’s possible sexual activities were kept out of the news, but that horse is out of the barn. It only works because so many people are willing to \*let \* it work. We have the power to make that stop. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it better to have this come out now than when he is in office - especially if there is something to it? Isn’t it better yet \*not \* to have this (whatever it is) come out, especially if there is \*not \* something to it? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2008, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/87 "2008-02-22T22:45:15Z")
Looks like McCain’s denial might be [beginning to unravel](http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/22/mccain_deposition/index.html): > [@](#): > > Wednesday night and Thursday, John McCain’s campaign pushed back – hard – against a New York Times story suggesting that McCain might have had a romantic relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman and worked for special treatment for her and her clients. As part of the McCain camp’s pushback, it issued a sweeping denial of the Times story and many of the facts contained therein. One of the elements of that denial, though, now appears to be false. > > One of the facts the McCain camp challenged regarded two letters McCain sent to the Federal Communications Commission, asking it to decide a question important to Paxson Communications, one of Iseman’s clients. In a statement, the McCain campaign said, “No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay [Iseman’s employer] personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC.” > > But Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff – who had been reported to have been chasing the Iseman story after initial rumors came out on the Drudge Report, and who was an early reporter on the Monica Lewinsky scandal – says he has proof that what the McCain campaign said isn’t true. And he’s pretty convincing. Isikoff obtained a copy of a deposition McCain gave in 2002, during a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance statute McCain cosponsored. During that deposition, he said, “I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue … He wanted [the FCC’s] approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint.” From the deposition transcript: > [@](#): > > Abrams: 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. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/88 "2008-02-23T01:06:06Z")
Anyone notice how much better looking McCain’s conquests are than Clinton’s? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/89 "2008-02-23T01:30:00Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] If they did, it was the Times’ obligation to pass them on. They were keeping their anonymity, so there would be no reason to withhold any information that would support their credibility. [/quote] Not without a second source. What if one of the people said that he saw them nuzzle? What if he said he thought they went to a hotel together? If there was no confirmation, it might support the contention, but the Times shouldn’t print those particular accusations. The two aides who said this did so independently, and other parts of their stories were independently confirmed. > [@](#): > > The affair topic, sure - it wasn’t based on anything, just scandalmongering. Certainly the editors must have known that’s what would get the attention nationally, but they just didn’t have a story. Scandal mongering by former aides? We have the main story, in which this woman gets told my McCain’s staff to back off. She is around all of the time, but I bet lots of lobbyists visit often. Why would she get special attention? The belief of the aides gives a reason. Otherwise there is a big hole in the story. That they had this belief was supported - the Times never said that there was any reason to think it true. Whether true or not, it led to this interesting interaction with her. Your gripe is with the aides, not the Times. > [@](#): > > Influence-peddling is a legitimate and necessary topic, but that too needed to be based on not only facts but on a relative comparison with the conduct of other high-seniority members. But it wasn’t. It would have been newsworthy to show that McCain is either dirtier \*or \* cleaner than average, or that matter just typical. We were not presented any such information, though. McCain has based a lot of his image on being clean, so it makes sense for him to be scrutinized more than someone who doesn’t pretend to be against lobbyists. That’s why Barney Frank screwing some guy isn’t news while Larry Craig doing it is. > [@](#): > > It only works because so many people are willing to \*let \* it work. We have the power to make that stop. Good luck in getting every blogger in the country to play along. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/90 "2008-02-23T01:35:30Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] Anyone notice how much better looking McCain’s conquests are than Clinton’s? [/QUOTE] Funny you should mention that. I did notice that she was pretty hot, but keep in mind that Monica wasn’t the only Clinton dalliance. Jenifer Flowers probably looked pretty good, back in the day, and that \*Highlander \*chick was Miss Arkansas (or some other state). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/91 "2008-02-23T02:38:31Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Not without a second source. [/quote] Huh? The entire affair story had no second source. Get real. > [@](#): > > The two aides who said this did so independently, and other parts of their stories were independently confirmed. And this particular part was independently \*denied \* - even by fellow staffers. > [@](#): > > Scandal mongering by former aides? No, by the Times. > [@](#): > > We have the main story, in which this woman gets told my McCain’s staff to back off. Didn’t you just get finished saying the main story was about iinfluence peddling? I believe you said “99.8 percent”? :dubious: > [@](#): > > She is around all of the time, but I bet lots of lobbyists visit often. Why would she get special attention? There’s a sliding scale: more money = more access. How much was Paxson paying McCain? And for what? > [@](#): > > Whether true or not, it led to this interesting interaction with her. Your gripe is with the aides, not the Times. Both actually, but the \*former \* aides can be ignored as pathetic story-peddlers. The Times is expected to know better and act accordingly, for one thing, and for another they have the power to spread a story while the former aides do not, not without the media’s collaboration. > [@](#): > > McCain has based a lot of his image on being clean, so it makes sense for him to be scrutinized more than someone who doesn’t pretend to be against lobbyists. Of course. That’s why I agreed with your earlier statements that the story should have been only about influence-peddling, not scandalmongering. > [@](#): > > That’s why Barney Frank screwing some guy isn’t news while Larry Craig doing it is. You have the names reversed. Frank got in trouble mainly for allowing a hooker to work out of his home, Craig mainly for being hypocritical about his moralizing. > [@](#): > > Good luck in getting every blogger in the country to play along. The bloggers only matter because there are people willing to read them. _That’s_ who has the power to make this shit go away. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/92 "2008-02-23T02:40:09Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] Anyone notice how much better looking McCain’s conquests are than Clinton’s? [/QUOTE] Whose _aren’t_? That’s what disappointed me most about Clinton’s conduct - he actually \*preferred \* swine. Seems you can take the horndog out of the trailer park, but … ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/93 "2008-02-23T02:40:34Z")
Apparently every candidate deserves the benefit of extreme doubt except Obama, who can be dismissed for one off-hand comment during one debate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/94 "2008-02-23T02:42:03Z")
And that has what, exactly, to do with the McCain lobbyist story? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/95 "2008-02-23T02:49:49Z")
Just keeping you honest. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/96 "2008-02-23T02:54:41Z")
Either you’re missing a smiley there or you are simply cluttering up the board with petty personal spite. Either stay on topic or change to an appropriate thread, m’kay, amigo? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/97 "2008-02-23T03:00:07Z")
[http://www.alternet.org/election08/77496/](http://www.alternet.org/election08/77496/) Lobbyists ,lobbyists we have lots and lots of lobbyists. His campaign is run by lobbyists. Sadly who can run without lobby money when you have to waste over a billion dollars to run for president. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/98 "2008-02-23T03:00:46Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Either you’re missing a smiley there or you are simply cluttering up the board with petty personal spite. Either stay on topic or change to an appropriate thread, m’kay, amigo? [/QUOTE] I can wonder in this one about your baffling lack of consistency. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/99 "2008-02-23T03:30:24Z")
Bill Keller, Executive Editor of The Times, and other editors and reporters on the story, have put out a detailed responses to the questions raised [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/media/21askthenewsroom.html?ex=1204347600&en=c36834297bc3ea70&ei=5070&emc=eta1). ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/100 "2008-02-23T14:13:08Z")
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy] Looks like McCain’s denial might be [beginning to unravel](http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/22/mccain_deposition/index.html) [/QUOTE] [Another ravel:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid=topnews) > [@](#): > > Broadcaster Lowell “Bud” Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson’s behalf. > Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters in 1999 to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson’s quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station. So we have McCain’s own court deposition, and the word of the guy he claimed he didn’t talk with, versus McCain’s own statement yesterday. Is [straight](http://www.straighttalkamerica.com/) now a synonym for crooked? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513.md?page=6)