Redstate

Basically, McCain would have to show actual malice on the NYT's part in publishing a false article. First, its not clear to me the article is false (i.e., they never actually said he had an affair they just said there may have been an "inappropriate relationship" which is really a statement of opinion not fact). Second, proving actual malice is a pretty, pretty tough standard to meet. In any event, in the middle of political campaign, its pretty dumb to get bogged down in a legal fight with a newspaper. It looks petty and it just gives more attention to the story.

I think McCain did as much as he could. He made himself available to the press, yet he is also basically signalling that this is a non-story that is not worth any more of his time. Given the utter lack of newsworthy items in the article, I would agree with him.

NC

But it is a little crazy to think this article is the result of an elaborate conspiracy between the NYT and the McCain. Though, I take you other point, which is that after the dust from this non-story clears, I think McCain is tremendously helped not hurt by the NYT's attack.

NC

A few points:

--On the Keating 5 scandal, Bob Bennett, the Democratic counsel to the Democratic controlled Senate Ethics Committee recommended that McCain be dropped from the investigation because there was no credible evidence of wrong-doing on McCain's part. Bennett contends the only reason the Committee refused to drop McCain was political (he was the only Republican in the Keating 5).

--Out of curiousity (and I am asking a sincere question, as I am ignorant about the background of all of his advisors), who are the specific lobbyists on McCain's campaign that you are referring to?

-- In any event, whats so wrong about lobbyists. They are simply people paid to represent the interest of a particular group. The issue is does a lobbyist engage in quid pro quo activity with a candidate. Based on the Times article, its not clear at all to me there was any unethical quid pro quo behavior involving McCain and the lobbyists client.

--Is McCain as pure as the driven snow? No, but who is? He is relatively clean and honest by Washington standards, by all accounts he appears to be. Does McCain oversell his image of integrity sometimes? Probably.

All that having been said, there appears to be very, very little to this story. Were McCain not running for President it would never have been published.
NC

Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon, Campaign Manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications and Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JP Morgan and U.S. Airways.

The point was not to attack lobbyist - not really related to the thread - just to suggest that if you're going to make a strategic decision to base your campaign as the daddy of ethics reform it seems a little unseemly, no, to surround yourself with the very same people you attack for corrupting the system. (Same goes with Mark Penn for HRC - which would explain her poor campaign performance thus far in my humble opinion.

It's a little hard to repsond to all - I'm at work - but will try to respond a little later, k?

First, I don't think McCain is basing his compaign on the fact that he "the daddy of ethics reform". I think he has made honesty an issue in his campaign. But I don't think working with lobbysts from time to time is the same thing as being dishonest.

Second, if you want to run a campaign would you hire people experienced in politics or not experienced in politics? I think I would go with Door No. 1. Chances are pretty good that if you are experienced in politics but you are not currently in office, and you need to pay the bills, working for a lobbying firm is not a bad way to go.

So the fact that McCain may have former lobbyists working for him is neither troubling, nor terribly inconsistent with his campaign messages.

But, hey, I'm just sayin . . .

NC

about McCain's first wife and his relationship with Cindy.
For one, that was a literal lifetime ago and the man had been incarcerated in a POW camp for 5+ years. People change during that kind of trauma.
And really, given that Bubba let interns blow him while he was on the phone with foreign leaders, I highly doubt the dems want to tread down that road.

...given that Bubba let interns b**w him while he was on the phone with foreign leaders, I highly doubt the dems want to tread down that road.

Beautiful.

In politics, you have your word and your friends; go back on either and you're dead. (Rule #11 of the public policy process)

particular talking point, but anyone who deliberately picks the username "paris" these days and then points fingers at a candidate for moral hijinks has quite the sense of irony--or no awareness at all.

NC

n/t

Admitting to a gross ignorance on Senator McCain's personal life, I did a quick Wikipedia search on him to find out about his first marriage.

I simply don't see anything shocking in reference to his first marriage. From the account I read, he owned up to his immaturity and he did right by his former wife. If anything, based on my brief read of the Wikipedia entry, his reponse to that situation makes his denials of the NYT story more credible, not less credible.*

*According to Wikipedia, in reference to his divorce, McCain felt that "[m]y marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." Having been married myself for 10 years, it can be a challenging thing at times, and you do your best to slog through it on occassion. I can't judge someone who found that they couldn't slog through it anymore.

NC

People under duress do bad things. But in all fairness bringing Clinton into is a little tired, no? He's not running for President. My point is that McCain always seems to be on the precipice of bad judgment by associating himself with people who on the one hand corrupt the system but who on the other he seems to benefit from. And in politics it's all perception. This is how the Democrats will frame their message.

So from an ethics standpoint, yes, I would feel much more comfortable with McCain in office than Ms. Clinton.

With respect to Mr. Obama, I simply do not know enough about him to say whether there are any potential ethical issues there. Though from a strictly appearance standpoint, the Rezco situation seems more troubling than McCain's relationship with Ms. Iseman.

The question I would pose to you Paris is whether you think there is something in McCain's relationship with lobbying firms or Ms. Iseman that would cause you to question his ability to be a good President? I can certainly understand if you disagree with his policies and would vote against him on that basis, but the fact that he met with a representatives of a lobbying firm and rode their plane, does not strike me as problematic if that was a then accepted practice at the time those events occurred.

NC

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!