NY Times reports on relationship between McCain and female lobbyist
The New York Times has dropped a bombshell into the 2008 presidential campaign:
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, in his offices and aboard 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. ...
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
Two former staffers appear to be the unnamed sources for the Times story:
A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
Discuss.
|
February 20, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (79 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 20, 2008 5:49:55 PM
The Straight Talk Express has made so many U-turns it looks like it's going around in circles.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 20, 2008 6:32:15 PM
If it's in the NYT now, there is nothing the Democrats need do. The media will either ignore it or descend like vultures. Who will make the decision? The managers of the editors - or, in the case of Fox, likely Rupert himself.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 20, 2008 6:39:39 PM
I don't see either Clinton or Obama being inclined to jump on this.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 20, 2008 7:00:10 PM
Hey, at least she's female.
Bwah hah hah hah hah hah... ROTFL
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 20, 2008 7:05:45 PM
CNN is so inclined.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 20, 2008 7:11:31 PM
The MSNBC website is carrying the NYT piece
Fox is covering rape, murder, drunk driving, and kidnapping.
Posted by: jeremy | Feb 20, 2008 7:11:46 PM
The NY Times bashing McCain with unnamed sources and alleged facts? Let's try a little investigative reporting, guys.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 20, 2008 7:29:09 PM
It is common for presidents and people in Congress to have affairs so if McCain was having one that really is not the business of anyone other than the two involved in the affair and their families. However, the point voters should be concerned with is McCain's judgment which is brought into question in this story. The NYT story notes that McCain was warned that a liaison with Ms. Iseman might jeopardize his career, but if this story is accurate it appears McCain's proclivity for indulging his emotions took precedence over acceptable public conduct and sound judgment. I recently flipped through his book "Faith of My Fathers" and noted a similar pattern of behavior in his childhood and youth. Then there are reliable reports about McCain having a violent temper. For me this latest story is a sign it is time to put another bar across the door to keep him from getting to the phone that sends the military off to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran or some other country that upsets him.
The media will either ignore it or descend like vultures. Who will make the decision? The managers of the editors - or, in the case of Fox, likely Rupert himself.
If Murdoch sees he is likely to make more money off this story than sitting on it, then McCain is relegated to being just a footnote in some history book. On the other hand, Murdoch might decide to make a deal with McCain with the hope McCain might show some sign of appreciation for Murdoch's "discretion" after McCain is in the White House. But that scenario is looking less likely each day.
Posted by: Garlynn -- undergroundscience.blogspot.com | Feb 20, 2008 7:34:35 PM
Why should the Republicans be held to a lower standard than the Democrats? This issue is being pushed by the NYT, which is in fact just doing its job -- reporting a story. If the same story were to appear about Obama or Hillary, I'd expect the same.
Furthermore, if the Democrats do decide to jump on this issue, more power to them. The Republicans have been fighting dirty for so many years, it's about time that the Dems respond in kind -- especially if it allows them to kick the R's out of power in November. This is just blowing a whistle on unethical behavior. Yes, it's kind of like fighting dirty, but it's not by any stretch in itself unethical behavior.
Posted by: Oregonian37 | Feb 20, 2008 7:43:16 PM
It is common for presidents and people in Congress to have affairs so if McCain was having one that really is not the business of anyone other than the two involved in the affair and their families
If true, I'd also be worried about the affair being with a lobbyist dealing with the committee McCain was heading.
Posted by: LT | Feb 20, 2008 7:46:39 PM
Thanks, Sal.
Last night we went to the local community college to see John Frohnmayer talk about the intersection of law, religion, and politics. Great presentation where he challenged the audience to answer questions and didn't just speak at us.
One of the topics was whether there is a universal moral code, and the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) was mentioned.
Here is where we should draw the line. One of 2 things is true:
1) Any member of the "other party" is fair game, and if voters don't like that attitude they can just register Independent.
2) Fair is fair no matter who is involved. If Democrats were outraged by what the Bushies did to Max Cleland in 2002 and offended by the Swifties and other attacks on Kerry in 2004, why is it OK to do that kind of attack on a former POW who you may not like but is a war hero?
I always thought it was a sign of character that no matter how Democrats disagreed with Bob Dole, there were never the attacks by Carter/Mondale supporters in 1976 or Clinton supporters in 1996 on certified war hero Bob Dole.
Making fun of someone's personal life does not house a homeless vet or get health care for kids or otherwise help people who are financially struggling. This is a test of what kind of people Democrats are.
The mother who is worried that her son on his 3rd tour of duty (without a year at home between the 2nd and 3rd tours) is wearing himself down is not going to get any comfort (or respite from worry about her son) from a story like this. It seems to me that adults in politics worry more about that Mom, or the mothers of young infants, or the homeless vet, or the people financially just barely scraping by than about this kind of story.
Laughing at a story like this in times of trouble for many Americans just makes someone look like a juvenile.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Feb 20, 2008 8:00:24 PM
Exactly, LT. How many people taking these shots at McCain would feel the same way if this was Obama we were talking about? How did we react when it was Clinton?
This idea that if the other side does it it's wrong, when we do it, it's fair game, has gotten out of hand.
I was pretty embarrassed by the way that both parties have handled the very reasonable idea of making it against the law for school districts to knowingly pass child abusers on to other districts.
We need a hell of a lot less grandstanding, or blocking good ideas just because the other side thought of it and we don't want to give them anything to hang their hats on in the next election.
Both sides do it. If Barack Obama is really about a different kind of politics, let's listen to the man and embrace that idea right here in Oregon.
Posted by: Jerry | Feb 20, 2008 8:32:22 PM
NYT editors are merely softening the blows coming our way concerning Obama's indiscretions. The blows may also come directly from the NYT to attempt to resurrect Clinton.
Posted by: Chet | Feb 20, 2008 8:37:32 PM
The GOPers are just getting some of there own style of politics. This will be a huge blow to the straight talk express.
Posted by: anon | Feb 20, 2008 8:37:47 PM
Hopefully this will at least put a damper on mean-spirited Cindy McCain's enthusiasm to attack Michelle Obama and snidely demagogue her remarks.
Posted by: Jerry | Feb 20, 2008 8:38:23 PM
Sorry, but I am still a demo that makes some judgements on morality.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Feb 20, 2008 9:23:51 PM
I am in agreement with the sentiments of those who have already posted that we should not seek to exploit this for political purposes. We win in 2008 on the merits of the critical issues facing our country. And if we can do so, it will be a precedent that can be followed in the future.
This applies to the Dem primary as well. Someone above said something to the effect of "if Hillary goes negative...". Huh? I think we crossed that bridge weeks and weeks ago and look at the results. She's lost 25 of the 36 contests and is now 14 points behind in the national polls.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 20, 2008 9:31:53 PM
This is a somewhat old story. I am inclined to think that it was resurrected by the right wing as a last ditch to stop the McCain march to the nomination. Limbaugh will be all over it.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 20, 2008 9:40:37 PM
Josh Marshall at TPM has a good take on this story:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179402.php
Apart from the carnal aspect of this we know John McCain is no angel when it comes to doling out the goodies in Washington. Remember the Keating 5 scandal. Also here's a post at Daily Kos which fleshes out some of the lobbyist/influence peddling part of this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/02419/4767/786/460926
Posted by: ws | Feb 20, 2008 9:48:43 PM
The lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, is certainly attractive, and probably smart too. No doubt, any number of people would be, and are attracted to her. As others commenting before me have noted, this kind of allegation raises the greater concern about the integrity of McCain's judgment and trustworthiness rather than his moral integrity. Clinton was a lowlife for having sex with intern Monica Lewinsky in the White House, and then denying it to the public. Doesn't McCain make the more damaging error in judgment when he allows assumptions to be made that a possible romantic affair with a lobbyist might lead him to offer political favors to her clients in exchange for that relationship?
Posted by: Francis Kal | Feb 20, 2008 10:06:07 PM
Bravo NYT. "It's the first time in my adulthood life to be very proud with OUR NYT".
Posted by: Rose Wilde | Feb 20, 2008 10:16:25 PM
eeeeewwwwww! The man is seriously OLD to be boinking a gal not 10 years older than me.
But squeamishness aside, affairs are very silly things to get upset about (unless it's YOUR marriage getting ruined, that is). McCain would never get my vote because of his policies and past votes.
I don't see what is so interesting about another old man making a fool of himself with a much younger woman.
Now if Hillary pulled it off, that would be sweet revenge (and just desserts), but she's far too clever to get caught.
Posted by: darrelplant | Feb 20, 2008 10:19:09 PM
If Democrats were outraged by what the Bushies did to Max Cleland in 2002 and offended by the Swifties and other attacks on Kerry in 2004, why is it OK to do that kind of attack on a former POW who you may not like but is a war hero?
While I could really care less about McCain's personal life, this has nothing to do with his status as a former POW or member of the armed services. Or his patriotism. Cleland was attacked as a traitor (with some people suggesting he had blown his own limbs off) and Kerry's service record was challenged. Nobody's calling McCain unpatriotic or saying he really spent his years in Hanoi in a a luxury hotel.
Frankly, I hope whoever the Democratic nominee is takes him apart on the issues in the campaign. Gore and Kerry were far too easy on George W. Bush. The ideas and worldview he represented should have been ground into the dirt by the Democratic candidates.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Feb 20, 2008 10:21:44 PM
Anything and everything within the law should be used to take down John McCain's candidacy.
This strikes me, though, as akin to the Bush drunk driving revelation. It probably won't go far.
Posted by: Holierthanthou | Feb 20, 2008 10:38:44 PM
Is it just me or is Sal the indicative of the very grandstanding that he is so appalled by. He reminds me of the guy who sells insurance door to door. If I have to read one more post about how he something is beneath his high moral standards I might lose my top.
How is the Frohnmayer campaigning going anyway - up to 1 1/2% yet? Please re-register as an independent or better yet a Green so you can truly be more superior to all of us. I'm sure LT could be your campaign chair or manager....she's always right too.
If you actually read the NY Times McCain story it's more about ethics and special favors for the very interests that he claims to be so against. It's appropriate to take the alleged relationship into consideration if it resulted in a violation of the public trust.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 20, 2008 10:42:49 PM
Matthew,
Who is the "we" who would not seek to exploit? And what control does one individual or group have over another that has an interest in who becomes president? If a Democratic presidential campaign decided to exploit McCain's possible indiscretion, I doubt we would find out that they were behind the effort, at least not before election day. Then there are the hundreds of groups and wealthy individuals who could do their own campaign. The news media could keep it alive themselves if they can make it sound juicy [seems unlikely with McCain].
There is no "we" in this situation. As the Swiftboaters showed, anyone with sufficient media access can become a player in a presidential election.
Posted by: Harry K | Feb 20, 2008 10:47:57 PM
LT: If we are to gain the confidence and respect of the world community, we must get past the military worship. McCain's plane was shot down over Viet Nam for the same reason a foreign invader's war ship would be shot down if it were threatening Portland. McCain was not a "hero" for participating in an illegal, immoral war.
Under the War Crimes Act, a breach of the Geneva conventions that results in the death of civilians is a capital offense. No one deserves to be tortured, but the fact of McCain's torture does not in and of itself make him a hero.
Posted by: anon | Feb 20, 2008 11:58:10 PM
What does Gordon Smith have to day about this lobbyist kerfluffle? McCain's his man, right?
Really, the worst part is what is being reported at dailykos right now - the improper letters McCain sent which appear to be for the purpose of strong-arming federal agencies to act in favor of clients of the lobbyist.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Feb 21, 2008 12:03:30 AM
Holierthanthou - If you don't like what I have to say, don't read my comments. I'm sick of the negative campaigning and the unneeded divisiveness, but mostly, I'm sick of the of blatant hypocrisy needed to revel in these kinds of attacks when directed at one's enemy, but that requires us to be shocked! shocked! when they do it to us.
You seem well-suited to it, but then you are also posting anonymously because you wouldn't want your own named associated with what you've got to say.
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Feb 21, 2008 12:47:26 AM
The majority of the NYT article, and even the parts about the particular female lobbyist, are about McCain's behavior in his official capacity; the nature of his relationship with her is an unnecessary side note. The headline: "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk" describes the central concern of the article much better than the headline used here.
McCain's defense seems to be that he's not corrupt, just a bit tone deaf to the niceties of ethical behavior. As if that helps.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Feb 21, 2008 12:53:23 AM
One other point ...
I'm not saying that candidates should not go after each other's record or ideas. What I object to is the sense that some folks truly seem to think that it's okay, even desirable, to destroy the other person in the context of a political campaign.
I don't take that position lightly, but I take it as someone who has been asked to do that to my opponent, and who has had these kinds of attacks directed at me.
Politics is a full-contact sport. I'm fine with that. I just happen to believe that if we want to actually work together after the campaign season is over - something that we have a poor track record of in Oregon -- that it should have more in common with boxing than with drive by shootings.
YMMV.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 21, 2008 4:06:46 AM
Yeah, I'm with Sue on this one. I don't particularly care if John McCain is getting some nookie. It's the nookie with a lobbyist with business before his committee that bothers me.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 21, 2008 5:14:28 AM
The key point in the NY Times story and later in Wash. Post is the tie between the lobbyist and using undue influence on public policy. The real story here isn't about McCain's sexual issues. It's about the corruption of politicians and private interests over the public interest, and the role of campaign funding. A case in point was the intervention by McCain on behalf of Isleman's client, Paxson Network, on the FCC, in 1999, and tried to intimidate the chairman into stating ahead of time what the vote would be on Paxson so he could bring the full pressure of the Senate on him. Paxson in turn funnelled many thousands of dollars into McCain's campaign.
This is exactly the kind of dynamic that Obama has been criticizing Clinton for. She takes more money from drug companies than all other candidates combined, and defends the role of lobbyists in making legislation. How is she going to look out for the public interest in her much touted health care plan when the drug companies are busy taking us all to the cleaners and funding her campaign? They didn't give that money for nothing. Same could be said for McCain. He talks about cleaning up Washington when he is part of the problem, and in this case "intimately" part of the problem.
Posted by: Mister Tee | Feb 21, 2008 6:56:58 AM
All the news thats fit to slime.
Posted by: joel | Feb 21, 2008 7:08:36 AM
Mister Tee would be just fine with slime and sleaze in the newspaper if it were something more about Neil Goldschmidt.
Posted by: dan | Feb 21, 2008 7:44:26 AM
The NYT is once again showing why most print media is rapidly going down the toilet. John McCain in the most honorable legislator in DC.
Posted by: karol | Feb 21, 2008 7:47:28 AM
McCain is on record as cheating on his first wife several times and meeting and hooking up with Cindy while still married - so no surprise there. As a woman, it does bother me that the man potentially cheated again and drags his wife up to the press conference to act like everything is cool. That's an annoying part of American politics that I don't get. Women! Get some backbone! Don't stand so close to your cheating, scandalous husband! He lied to you!
Political figures are powerful people which we all know leads to cockiness in ALL areas. In America, we don't jive with this. We don't live in France and the trend to accepting infidelity in our leaders doesn't seem to be catching on. In the party that McCain is in, it's doubly not acceptable. I'm just glad its their side this time.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Feb 21, 2008 8:01:38 AM
Bill R, Sue and a few others are on the point of this, and the Democratic nominee should definitely use it in the general.
Don't mention or insinuate anything sexual, but dig into the image of McCain the Man of Integrity and scourge of the much ballyhooed Special Interests.
If this lobbyist or the providers of Gulfstream Taxi Services, or any of the other Buddies wound up getting anything at all from him, it puts the lie to his entire post Keating Five White Knight personna.
***********
Let's see how smart our kids are going to be this time around.
Posted by: joel | Feb 21, 2008 8:50:12 AM
The "John McCain is the most honorable man in DC" meme is just like the "Obama voters drank the Kool-Aid" meme: some sort of goofball shorthand that the media recycle as a way to avoid actual investigation and analysis.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 21, 2008 9:00:03 AM
joel,
Get used to it. Since no Republican policies make sense, soundbites are all they have to sway voters.
Posted by: r. james | Feb 21, 2008 9:44:59 AM
YAWN...
8 years ago McCain and Iseman spent time together and both deny a romantic relationship. Two anonymous insiders resented Iseman's access to McCain. Sounds like a couple of political groupies got their little feelings hurt because McCain wasn't paying attention to them.
Some people have suggested the mere appearance of impropriety should be made an issue. Hmmmm, whatever happened with the issue of Sam Adams and his mentoring???
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Feb 21, 2008 10:17:58 AM
As a woman, it does bother me that the man potentially cheated again and drags his wife up to the press conference to act like everything is cool. That's an annoying part of American politics that I don't get. Women! Get some backbone! Don't stand so close to your cheating, scandalous husband! He lied to you!
Except in this case there is no--repeat NO--evidence that McCain did anything wrong. All the New York Times even claims is that some anonymous staffers "were convinced" that there was a "romantic" involvement between McCain and this woman.
The New York Times was originally working on this story in December--see the Drudge Report, which is linking back to the story they ran then--but scotched it after McCain challenged it. Now, just as the New Republic was about to do a story on how the New York Times buried the story, the NYT decides to run it after all.
As the New Republic says in their story, appearing now on their website, "In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair."
And today, this passes for journalism.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Feb 21, 2008 10:46:00 AM
As a woman, it does bother me that the man potentially cheated again and drags his wife up to the press conference to act like everything is cool. That's an annoying part of American politics that I don't get. Women! Get some backbone! Don't stand so close to your cheating, scandalous husband! He lied to you!
Except in this case there is no--repeat NO--evidence that McCain did anything wrong. All the New York Times even claims is that some anonymous staffers "were convinced" that there was a "romantic" involvement between McCain and this woman.
The New York Times was originally working on this story in December--see the Drudge Report, which is linking back to the story they ran then--but scotched it after McCain challenged it. Now, just as the New Republic was about to do a story on how the New York Times buried the story, the NYT decides to run it after all.
As the New Republic says in their story, appearing now on their website, "In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair."
And today, this passes for journalism.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Feb 21, 2008 10:46:06 AM
As a woman, it does bother me that the man potentially cheated again and drags his wife up to the press conference to act like everything is cool. That's an annoying part of American politics that I don't get. Women! Get some backbone! Don't stand so close to your cheating, scandalous husband! He lied to you!
Except in this case there is no--repeat NO--evidence that McCain did anything wrong. All the New York Times even claims is that some anonymous staffers "were convinced" that there was a "romantic" involvement between McCain and this woman.
The New York Times was originally working on this story in December--see the Drudge Report, which is linking back to the story they ran then--but scotched it after McCain challenged it. Now, just as the New Republic was about to do a story on how the New York Times buried the story, the NYT decides to run it after all.
As the New Republic says in their story, appearing now on their website, "In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair."
And today, this passes for journalism.
Posted by: Nathaniel | Feb 21, 2008 11:14:57 AM
When I first read this article, I was thinking "Why is the NYT publishing an article on an incident from eight years ago? Is this their screwed-up way of trying to discredit McCain?" Don't think I'm some conservative defending him, my whole family is Democrat. In any case, this story should've either been published a long time ago or not at all.
What really bothers me though is that the lobbyist was consistently following him. What did she do when she came into contact with him? Bribe him to comply with some bill the entity she represented wanted to pass? Have an affair? This kind of contact between a lobbyist and politician really pisses me off. The role of the lobbyist was, originally, to present issues to politicians and how they (the entities represented by the lobbyists) want those issues solved, not to bribe politicians, be it with money or other things.
That's all I have to say.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Feb 20, 2008 5:30:46 PM
This is the same kind of politics of personal destruction that I have come to expect from the Republicans. Here's hoping that the Democrats have the integrity to stay out of the gutter in 2008.