This is the killer story that the New York Times has been arguing over for months whether they should publish? It really is a nothingburger of a story all wrapped up with the sexual innuendo that McCain has been having an affair with an attractive lobbyist. But they can't say that because they have no evidence of an affair. All they have is a couple of anonymous aides saying that they were concerned about the inappropriate appearance of this lobbyist showing up around the McCain offices and appearances. Then they rehash the Keating scandal and how McCain responded by becoming dogmatic about campaign finance reform. As Rich Lowry says, the whole campaign finance implications are just wrapping for the innuendo.
The Times doesn't have the goods—at least from what's in the story—and shouldn't have run it. Let's be honest: this story is all about the alleged affair, and all the Keating Five and campaign finance reform re-hash is window dressing.
The anonymous sources say that they confronted McCain and he agreed that he'd behaved inappropriately. But that could just mean that he acknowledged that he shouldn't have gotten that close to a lobbyist, not that he was having an affair with her. But that is the whole implication about starting the story with the woman and pointing out the 30 year difference in their ages and their denial that they had a relationship. But they have no proof, just the juxtaposition of what the sources said they were worried about and then the tallying up of the supposed favors that McCain did for the clients of the lobbyist. As Michael Goodwin writes,
The long-winded article The New York Times dropped on McCain Wednesday night falls between an impeccable investigative project and the "hit-and-run" smear job his campaign calls it. It is a meringue of tantalizing hints and innuendo about the steamy nexus of sex and power. It's all there - except a clear and firm direct allegation, let alone proof.
It suggests McCain had an affair with an attractive young lobbyist and used his Senate office to do favors for her clients. But it never actually says either of those things directly, relying instead on the worries of his aides that he was risking his reputation and career by being so close to the lobbyist and her clients. Said aides are, unfortunately, mostly anonymous in the article.
Both McCain and the woman denied an affair, The Times reported. And the support McCain gave to her clients had been previously reported. And, oh, did I mention that this happened, if it all did happen, eight or nine years ago?
Based on my long career in journalism, including 10 years as a writer for The Times, I am surprised the newspaper published the article in its current form. Clearly, the reporters and the editors involved believed they are onto something. But that isn't the test for publishing such a devastating article this late in the political calendar.
The bar of proof gets raised when we're in the late innings of a presidential primary and your subject is closing in on his party's nomination. You either have the goods, or you don't. And if you don't, fairness and the professional requirements say you don't publish. The consequences deserve no less.
Iseman and her firm, which includes high-profile Republicans and Democrats, have also represented a number of other companies that have had issues before McCain and the commerce committee, including Univision, a Spanish-language television network. Iseman clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.
Freddoso responds,
Hang on a second. Eighty-five grand? Over eight years? That's it? He was the chairman of the committee!
If McCain is an extortionist, he's a pathetic excuse for one. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) shook down the hedge fund industry for ten times that amount in a single month. That's how you take advantage of people under your purview.
There are plenty of reasons to have qualms about McCain's sanctimony on issues he's passionate about like campaign finance reform, but this story isn't one of them.
