# 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:** 6
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/101 "2008-02-23T16:04:04Z")
[QUOTE=Billdo] 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). [/QUOTE] How lame was\* that\*? > [@](#): > > And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story…The point of this “Long Run” installment was that, according to people who know him well, this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation. Yes, it’s “surprising” indeed how anybody could misinterpret the point of a story that starts like this: > [@](#): > > 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. They \*might \* have credibily claimed they simply did an incredibily poor job of both writing and editing by burying the lede back in the fourth graf. But instead they’re blaming the _readers_. Pathetic. ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/102 "2008-02-23T18:18:14Z")
If he wasn’t in bed with this lobbyist he certainly was in bed with lobbyists. They run and fund his campaign. ---
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/103 "2008-02-23T18:26:20Z")
To a markedly different degree than other Senators? You would never know that from the Times’ reporting. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/104 "2008-02-23T18:43:43Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] To a markedly different degree than other Senators? You would never know that from the Times’ reporting. [/QUOTE] Way to miss the point, **Elvis**. If you’ve built your entire reputation on your honesty and being above reproach when it comes to lobbyists’ influence, the stories, your denials, and your denials’ immediate exposure as falsehoods do not redound to your benefit. It’s similar to Hillary vs. Barack. Which one of _them_ would be hurt more by a story that they did favors for a lobbyist? ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/105 "2008-02-23T18:47:42Z")
Nope, the point is that the Times is supposed to be doing objective reporting, not campaign advocacy. An objective story would do the comparisons I suggested. A campaign press release would not. This story did not. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/106 "2008-02-23T19:11:21Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Nope, the point is that the Times is supposed to be doing objective reporting, not campaign advocacy. [/QUOTE] Whose campaign were they advocating? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/107 "2008-02-23T19:58:49Z")
Merely showing that lobbyists are ‘hanging around’ a Senator is completely meaningless. EVERY Senator has lobbyists hanging around. Every Senator gets a good chunk of campaign funding from various organization and lobby groups. This is the way Washington works. And in fact, that’s the way it \*should work. One man’s ‘lobbyist’ is another man’s ‘representative of the people’ or ‘representative of the state’s industry’. These people have every right to be heard and to attempt to convince politicians that certain policies are right or wrong. What you need to show before you can slime someone as dirty is that a quid-pro-quo has taken place - that a Senator changed his vote or pushed for some policy because he was _bought_. It’s not even enough to show that a Senator votes the way the lobbyists around him want him to vote, because it’s entirely possible that the cause and effect is backwards. For example, let’s say Senator Bob believes that there should be no drilling in ANWR. Senator Bob receives 100,000 from an environmental lobby group. Did that Senator get paid off? Or is that lobby group simply providing funds to a Senator that they see as being a fellow traveler, in order to help him get re-elected? Showing true corruption and conflict of interest is not easy, because the nature of power and the relationship of lobbyists is very complex. Usually, you actually have to catch someone in the act of taking cash in exchange for a vote or something like that to prove anything. A quick note about the Keating 5 - John McCain has said that he was disappointed in himself for his (minor) role in it, but McCain (and John Glenn) were both victims of politics. It was really a ‘Keating 3’. McCain and Glenn were absolved by the special counsel, who recommended that they both be dropped from the investigation before it went public. But that would have left only Democrats in the Keating scandal, so there was much pressure to keep McCain in the bunch. And since the Democrats kept McCain, the Republicans demanded that Glenn also be kept in the investigation. Those two guys got screwed over. So while he may have violated his own sense of honor, he broke no laws and what he did was probably commonplace among other Senators. Here’s what the [Special Counsel in the Keating Investigation](http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWE1YWNiN2UxYWVmYWUyYmY5N2U2MjQ3ZDY1NTc3NGQ=) says, in a new book about McCain: > [@](#): > > At the completion of my investigation, I filed my report with the committee. I recommended that no further action be taken against Senators McCain and Glenn principally because once they learned that there was a criminal referral, they stopped aggressively doing Keating’s bidding with the regulators. However, I also recommended that the committee proceed with ethics charges against Senators Cranston, DeConcini, and Reigle and hold a hearing to look into their conduct. I believed that the evidence showed clearly that these three had violated Senate Rules and should be held accountable. My recommendation that the only Republican in the group, John McCain, be exonerated caused a big political problem, but my recommendations were based on evidence and not politics. Perhaps those who knew me to be a Democrat thought I would act differently, but they did not know me very well. … > > ``` > This was perhaps the first time the recommendation of a special counsel not to charge a senator was rejected. This was pure politics as the Democrats on the committee did not want to cut McCain loose so that only Democrats would remain in the proceedings. If Senator McCain was not going to be cut loose, in retaliation the Republicans were going to keep Senator Glenn in the proceedings. McCain was the victim of politics, and poor Glenn, he was held captive to the decision on McCain. So much for nonpartisanship. > > ``` The Special Counsel was none other than Bob Bennett, who is now defending McCain against the NYT (Bennett is a Democrat). He seems satisfied enough with McCain’s honor. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/108 "2008-02-23T20:09:25Z")
I think that’s basically right **Sam Stone** , but I also agree with McCain when he said, “[Q]uestions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics.” To my mind, the influence of lobbyists is pretty much an unknown for all the reasons you expressed above, especially the difficulty in accounting for causality. But I have a hard time believing that they spend millions of dollars only to gain access to politicians with whom they already agree. It would be good for our political system to avoid even the appearance of impropriety because it rests so heavily on citizen involvement. That doesn’t mean kicking lobbyists out of government, or whatever euphemism is used. It does mean more transparency, less lobbyist cash in campaigns\*, and avoiding some of the things McCain was criticized for in the article. - The problem isn’t the lobbyist and PAC cash _per se_. Rather, some causes are inherently more well-funded than others not because of the popular support for those causes, but because they are simply more lucrative. ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/109 "2008-02-23T21:49:29Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Huh? The entire affair story had no second source. Get real. And this particular part was independently \*denied \* - even by fellow staffers. [/quote] So was Watergate. No, by the Times. Didn’t you just get finished saying the main story was about iinfluence peddling? I believe you said “99.8 percent”? :dubious: [/quote] Her influence peddling, which would be over the top even without an affair. > [@](#): > > There’s a sliding scale: more money = more access. How much was Paxson paying McCain? And for what? Have a cite that Paxson was paying so much more than anyone else? In any case McCain is the guy saying he doesn’t play that way. > [@](#): > > 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. So they’re pathetic because they say something you don’t like? David Brooks had an interesting column about how there was a war in McCain’s staff about who would love him the most. Brooks, who is not privy to the sources, thought it plausible this had something to do with this struggle. That explains why they would reveal it, not that they made it up independently. > [@](#): > > Frank got in trouble mainly for allowing a hooker to work out of his home, Craig mainly for being hypocritical about his moralizing. I wasn’t talking about the hooker scandal. I’m talking about day to day gayness. You are right, it is the hypocrisy which is what is important here, in this case McCain going on about never doing anything for a lobbyist, when he wrote a letter to the FCC chair saying that unless they found that Paxon’s loophole was operative, he’d have to think about using his committee to restructure the FCC. We don’t know for sure that McCain wouldn’t have written this anyhow, but it sure smells. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/110 "2008-02-23T22:01:51Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Nope, the point is that the Times is supposed to be doing objective reporting, not campaign advocacy. An objective story would do the comparisons I suggested. A campaign press release would not. This story did not. [/QUOTE] I’ve never been to journalism school, but I’m pretty sure that objective reporting doesn’t involve throwing away things that are uncomfortable for the supporter of a candidate to swallow. Keller also goes into why they ran the part about the aides’ concerns. ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/111 "2008-02-23T22:08:10Z")
**Sam** , the level of proof you talk about is required for charging someone with influence peddling in a court, but rightly or wrongly not for mentioning it in a newspaper. The story itself might bring out additional evidence of wrongdoing, if there is any. Don’t you think we should know about impropriety even done by those smart enough to maintain plausible deniability? That is how US libel laws work. In all the ethics classes I’ve taken you are told not only not to do anything wrong but avoid the appearance of doing something wrong. It certainly doesn’t sound like McCain did anything out of the ordinary, so there would be no story if he hadn’t claimed to be cleaner than anyone else. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/112 "2008-02-23T22:14:15Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Whose campaign were they advocating? [/QUOTE] I think you know who McCain’s opponent is likely to be, or at least from which party. > [@Voyager](#): > > I’m pretty sure that objective reporting doesn’t involve throwing away things that are uncomfortable for the supporter of a candidate to swallow. Did anybody say it did? > [@](#): > > Have a cite that Paxson was paying so much more than anyone else? Don’t know - I was offering a possible answer to your question as to why he might have been spending so much time with Paxson’s lobbyist, if not as part of an affair with her. > [@](#): > > So they’re pathetic because they say something you don’t like? Nope, for tawdry scandalmongering and refusing to accept responsibility for it when caught out. Did I not make that sufficiently clear? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2008, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/113 "2008-02-23T22:19:31Z")
So who is McCains opponant most likely going to be **Elvis**? I just had to ask when I saw that. 😃 ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/114 "2008-02-23T22:22:02Z")
A Democrat. ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/115 "2008-02-23T22:53:16Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] I think you know who McCain’s opponent is likely to be, or at least from which party. [/QUOTE] Sure, but the Times never actually advocated for Clinton or Obama or Huckabee or Paul or Nader in the story now did they? Seems to me that it’s unfair to accuse the paper of doing something it did not do. Don’t you agree? ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/116 "2008-02-23T22:56:59Z")
You don’t think undermining one candidate helps the other realistic candidates? But you \*do \* think Huckabee or Paul or Nader \*are \* realistic candidates? Right. Whatever. ---
**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, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/117 "2008-02-23T23:45:32Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] You don’t think undermining one candidate helps the other realistic candidates? [/QUOTE] Yeah, and when you say we screwed the pooch in in Iraq, you’re advocating the terrorists! You’re making a logical connection that isn’t there, **ElvisL1ves**. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2008, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/118 "2008-02-24T00:09:44Z")
That made no sense whatever, **Squink**. Not even grammatically. I’d respond to you if I had any idea what you meant. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2008, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/119 "2008-02-24T00:25:00Z")
[McCain: The 'Anti-Lobbyist' Who Works With Lobbyists | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/mccain-the-antilobbyis_n_87941.html) We have a dispute. Bud Paxson says they had a sit down meeting .He disputes the straight shooting McCain. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2008, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513/120 "2008-02-24T00:40:43Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] That made no sense whatever, **Squink**. Not even grammatically. [/QUOTE] Does dissing Microsoft make you an Apple advocate? Does dissing apples make you an advocate of papayas? Of course not. It is quite possible to suggest that one thing sucks, without even referencing the quality of other things, much less implicitly _advocating_ other things. Show me where the New York Times _advocated_ one of the other candidates in their story, or admit your error. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-to-air-mccains-affair-with-lobbyist-tomorrow/438513.md?page=7)