Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Maverickology
Because of the New York Times' shoddy execution, and the fact that the real underlying story (not the evidence-lite romantic speculation) is an A27 jobbie at best, the McCain-lobbyist "scandal" 30 hours later has become largely a debate about journalism and even a textbook example of political damage control and base-rallying.
But that doesn't mean there aren't interesting subplots that will be teasing out in the coming days. David Brooks, a longtime intimate of Campaign McCain, provides the most interesting Day Two analysis I've seen, basically laying the blame for the scandal on the longtime rift between McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, and his differently gruntled former Karl Rove figure, John Weaver.
At the core of that article that began on the front page are two anonymous sources. These sources, according to the article, say they confronted McCain in 1999 with their concerns that he was risking his career by interacting with Vicki Iseman. [...] I have no idea who those sources are. But they are bound to come from the inner circle of the McCain universe. The number of people who could credibly claim to have had a meeting like that with McCain in early 1999 is vanishingly small. I count a small handful of associates with that stature, including Davis and Weaver. There is nobody in that tight circle unaffected by the hostilities that emanate from the rift. [...]
Some closer to Weaver theorized that the sources must be former McCain campaign elders from 2000 who worked for rival campaigns in 2008.
I checked that possibility out, and it doesn't hold water. But while calling around to a dozen senior McCain friends and advisers Thursday, what struck me was the enormous tragedy of the rift. [...] [It] is like some primal sore. It affected every conversation I had Thursday, as it has infected McCain efforts again and again over the past many years.
The upshot, for the 99% of healthy humans who don't care about inter-campaign machinations? Team McCain might be getting ready to blame the formerly indispensable John Weaver, and depending on how that goes John Weaver might be poised to dig up more skeletons as the campaign season unfolds.
Oh, and there's this parting zinger
from Brooks:
Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn't just say he didn't remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over.
UPDATE: As I've mentioned before, McCain's dealings with Vicki Iseman's client Paxson Communications was a mini-scandal eight years ago first raised by the Boston Globe (McCain effectively managed the crisis, plus a related, ensuing one involving still more alleged favors for Ameritech, by producing a massive document-dump that smothered the stories with context). Anyway, the Globe story has always been hard to find online, until today.
|2.22.08 @ 8:13AM|#
Thank you for "differently gruntled."
Heh. I was going to post essentially the same comment.
Taktix®|2.22.08 @ 8:21AM|#
Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn't just say he didn't
remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If
it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting,
then his presidential hopes will be over.
I wouldn't be so sure. If McCain can get the GOP Propaganda Mill
going full-scale against the New York Times, the red-staters will
think the NYT is making up stories for partisan reasons (which they
may be).
McCain did the smart thing by deflecting the allegations to a
supposed infidelity rather than an apparent act of
corruption.
Nice move, you speech-muting douchebag.
|2.22.08 @ 8:30AM|#
In last night's debate the moderator said that McCain has never had an earmark. That sounds incredible to believe imo. Is that true?
|2.22.08 @ 8:32AM|#
I think it's also interesting how once a story becomes "old" it is therefore supposed to be totally irrelevant. On a thread yesterday fluffy said that it's a common fact that McCain committed adultery on his first disabled wife. I think this will virtually never come up among, say, the conservative family values folks, and one has to wonder why.
Matt Welch|2.22.08 @ 8:35AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy -- From what I understand (through repeated hearsay, more than personal investigation), it *is* true. His reticence on earmarks is remarkable; better than Ron Paul's.
|2.22.08 @ 8:41AM|#
Personally I don't care if the guy was banging hookers while his
firstborn was being delivered, I think he's demonstrated character
in a lot of other ways...My point is that the fundies tend to
measure the overal fitness of candidates by their personal lives,
especially anything that brings pleasure like drug use or sex
outside of conventional terms, but they also have very short
memories...
What do the libertarians here think about the meat recall? Often
here folks argue against government regulation by saying "well a
company would NEVER do something harmful to their customers for
fear of a negative public reaction that could hurt their bottom
line." That did not seem to stop that company from processing sick
cows and selling it to school kids...
|2.22.08 @ 8:44AM|#
Matt-thanks...It is amazing how one could be elected again and
again to a state without bringing home any pork via earmarks in
this day and age...Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what earmarks
entail...
btw-regarding my mini-threadjack about the meat recall, I will take
anyone's "comments off the air" so to speak so as not to worsen the
threadjack. I'm just curious as to what the answers of libertarians
here is, not in debating said answers.
Matt Welch|2.22.08 @ 8:56AM|#
You know what? I'll look into the earmarks claim more closely next week, and get back to you.
|2.22.08 @ 9:03AM|#
Thanks Matt. Careful though, if you find he has never had an earmark, I may just vote for him.
|2.22.08 @ 9:19AM|#
It's not an earmark in the traditional sense, but isn't ratcheting up military spending and warhawking his pet project special interest anyway. Just happens that's a "normal" expansion of government spending so he doesn't get called on it as earmarking. He writes all sorts of extra-constitutional legislation that actually passes. The guy is intolerable for that alone.
|2.22.08 @ 9:39AM|#
If the NYT was actually trying to hurt McCain, would they have released such a poorly developed story at a stage of the game where it would have little effect on the republican primaries? No. They endorsed him, didn't they?
|2.22.08 @ 10:22AM|#
What do the libertarians here think about the meat recall?
Often here folks argue against government regulation by saying
"well a company would NEVER do something harmful to their customers
for fear of a negative public reaction that could hurt their bottom
line." That did not seem to stop that company from processing sick
cows and selling it to school kids...
what are the facts of the case? I haven't read anything about the
meat recall and I wouldn't say a company wouldn't do this, but
there are plenty of definitions of "sick cow" that I may be a bit
skeptical of.
|2.22.08 @ 10:22AM|#
They endorsed him, didn't they?
Only in the primary.
For all practical purposes, he is now the candidate in the general
election, and you know they'll endorse the Dem in the
general.
The reason this came out now is that their hand was forced by the
TNR story. If they were neutral and/or pro-McCain, they would have
just said "look, we've dug into some rumors, and can't come up with
anything new that isn't anonymous innuendo. There's just not a
story here." But they didn't; they published a mish-mash of old
news and gossip. What does that tell you?
Brian Carnell|2.22.08 @ 10:38AM|#
"What do the libertarians here think about the meat recall?
Often here folks argue against government regulation by saying
"well a company would NEVER do something harmful to their customers
for fear of a negative public reaction that could hurt their bottom
line." That did not seem to stop that company from processing sick
cows and selling it to school kids..."
Whoever would say "a company would NEVER do something harmful to
their customers for fear of a negative public reaction" would not
be very bright, libertarian or otherwise.
The It Girl|2.22.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Why have a meat recall? Why not just market it as possibly
tainted meat and let the consumer decide?
What is it about the McCain candidacy that reminds people of
tainted meat? Hmmmmmm
|2.22.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Lost in translation
The cows were "downers", couldn't stand on
their own, and were moved along with a
forklift.
They're not supposed to process downers
because they're probably sick, and moving
them with a forklift is "cruelty."
The company was pretty clearly out of bounds.
|2.22.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Actually, this post is more 'sword-of-Damocles' ominous about
McCain's 'scandal' than the original Brooks piece is, which mostly
praises McCain with faint damns. Fact is, considering that it's an
NYT column, it's pretty amazing that it's so toothless--and makes
me wonder if the whole thing wasn't a fake concocted by the 'darkly
creative' Weaver just to ensnare the Times and bullet-proof McCain
in the coming months. After all, he's 'desperate' to get back in
with his old boss, according to Brooks--how better than with an
Atwater-style sting like this using a completely safe target? My
guess is that however culpable McCain may be on other issues (he
was clearly lying when he said he'd never betrayed the trust of the
American people--he's a moral man and obviously feels he has at
times), he was flat-out telling the truth about La Affair
Iseman.
Time will tell, of course, but I can usually tell when a guy's been
cheating. And I'm guessing, so can Cindy.
Incidentally, I noticed a nasty new meme circulating among my
liberal friends along with this story--that being tortured as a POW
had made McCain incapable of recognizing morality and that he is
thus slightly insane. This is a talking point I've noticed on
several liberal (and far-right) blogs, too--and it constitutes a
slander more divisive and pernicious than any racist or sexist slur
directed against a Democrat candidate, because it strikes at the
very root of all patriotic actions. I had initially felt the
Democrats were tearing themselves in half and would emerge from
their convention with a McGoverite minority. Now I'm beginning to
wonder if their true intent--and that of their rightist evil
twins-- is not an outright Balkanization of American politics
through mass demonization, leaving behind five or six deadlocked
identity-group mini-parties to preside over the formation of a New
World version of the EU. No wonder patriotism has to go.
|2.22.08 @ 10:50AM|#
The cattle entering a slaughterhouse are required by federal regulation to enter under their own power. The recall is based on video showing a few downer cattle being pushed into the place with heavy equipment. Being unable to walk makes them more susceptible to ecoli contamination from laying in filth. It can also be a symptom of mad cow disease. As far as i've seen, no contamination was found, just a higher likelihood. 143 million pounds of meat since 2006 are affected. Most went to schools and a few burger joints.
Matt Welch|2.22.08 @ 11:00AM|#
I noticed a nasty new meme circulating among my liberal
friends along with this story--that being tortured as a POW had
made McCain incapable of recognizing morality and that he is thus
slightly insane.
I hadn't noticed that, but I hear stuff like that all the time, and
you're right -- it's pernicious, inaccurate, and pathetic. As far
as I've been able to ascertain, there's not a single personality
trait McCain has now that he didn't have before Vietnam,
except for maybe a mild mellowing and an articulated philosophy (as
opposed to an inarticulated philosophy) of National
Greatness. Before being tortured McCain was a hard-partying
seat-of-the-pants flyboy maverick sonofabitch with an oppressive
pedigree, mean temper and taste for booze, strippers and
cigarettes. He's mellowed, but that's at the root of his
personality.
I\'m gonna be an actor!|2.22.08 @ 11:57AM|#
What happens if McCain gets rocked by a live-boy/dead-girl
scandal (and springtime events reveal that the blessed surge he's
been pimping is a good-money-after-bad clusterfuck) before the
GOP's national convention? Could the party get cold feet and do
something to ward off a McCain stain?
Suppose he withdraws from the race prior to the convention, what
happens then?
|2.22.08 @ 12:08PM|#
...McCain was a hard-partying seat-of-the-pants flyboy
maverick sonofabitch with an oppressive pedigree, mean temper and
taste for booze, strippers and cigarettes.
Are trying to get me to vote for him? That is a somewhat
complimentary description of his youth. Or so it seems to this
reprobate, anyway,
T|2.22.08 @ 12:12PM|#
I hadn't noticed that, but I hear stuff like that all the
time, and you're right -- it's pernicious, inaccurate, and
pathetic.
I'll accept inaccurate, but pernicious and pathetic? I've been
saying he's batshit nuts for years. I think he's borderline
certifiable in his refusal to accept reality and his anger
management issues. He's also bought into his own hype, which ties
back into his world view and the lack of connection with reality. I
can't say for sure it dates back to his POW days, but that's always
been my guess. Being tortured by the NVA wouldn't have done happy
things to my psyche.
Matt, you've spent more time digging into his background than I
have, so if you tell me he was always like that, I'll grant you the
benefit of the doubt and stop attributing it to his captivity. But
I'm still going to say he's nuts because he demonstrates that on a
regular basis.
Geotpf|2.22.08 @ 12:19PM|#
"R C Dean | February 22, 2008, 10:22am | #
They endorsed him, didn't they?
Only in the primary.
For all practical purposes, he is now the candidate in the general
election, and you know they'll endorse the Dem in the
general.
The reason this came out now is that their hand was forced by the
TNR story. If they were neutral and/or pro-McCain, they would have
just said "look, we've dug into some rumors, and can't come up with
anything new that isn't anonymous innuendo. There's just not a
story here." But they didn't; they published a mish-mash of old
news and gossip. What does that tell you?"
That they didn't want to get scooped on their own story, so they
published it before it was ready?
Look, what happened here was the following:
1. Times reporters have good info that a lobbyist was so chummy
with McCain that she was banned from the office by McCain's staff
for his own protection.
2. There are rumors that the two had an affair, but nothing even
remotely resembling proof.
3. The editors at the Times know that a good sex scandal is a
better story than just some random crap about somebody being kicked
out of an office eight years ago, and sit on it until their
reporters can prove the sex angle.
4. The Times can never nail down the sex angle (either because it
wasn't true, or because McCain hid his tracks well).
5. The Times is about to be scooped on the story by TNR.
6. The Times doesn't want to be scooped on a their own damned
story, and they had spent to much time on it to kill it.
7. So, they publish what they had, which was the apparently good
info that the lobbyist was too chummy with McCain and was banned,
plus the whisp of the rumor that the two were an item.
What they should have done was publish the good info and left the
sex BS out. However, that was, as Matt Welch said, probably a back
page story at best. So they published everything they had and
looked stupid for doing so.
Geotpf|2.22.08 @ 12:31PM|#
"I'm gonna be an actor! | February 22, 2008, 11:57am | #
What happens if McCain gets rocked by a live-boy/dead-girl scandal
(and springtime events reveal that the blessed surge he's been
pimping is a good-money-after-bad clusterfuck) before the GOP's
national convention? Could the party get cold feet and do something
to ward off a McCain stain?
Suppose he withdraws from the race prior to the convention, what
happens then?"
Then we get Huckabee as the nominee?
If he withdrawals (or dies-he is kind of old) before the
convention, the delegates are free to vote for anybody else. They
ain't going to vote for Paul. So, that leaves Huckabee, unless
somebody like Romney gets back in.
Now, the real question is what happens if he dies (or whatever)
AFTER the convention but before the election. Probably that merely
means Obama wins; it would be too late to get his name off the
ballot, although the exact laws vary wildly from state to
state.
Matt Welch|2.22.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Matt, you've spent more time digging into his background
than I have, so if you tell me he was always like that, I'll grant
you the benefit of the doubt and stop attributing it to his
captivity.
He was basically always like that. Later (especially after 1998 or
so), he added some new flavors to his
personality/ideology/worldview, through the exercise of
interpreting his Vietnam experience (and running for
president, and burying Barry Goldwater, and discovering National
Greatness) ... much, in fact, of what you probably don't like about
him was cemented around this era.
But the biggest single impact of Vietnam on John McCain's psyche,
in my view, was that it temporarily (for a quarter-century,
actually) shook him from his faith in America's default
righteousness in waging war. This was very, very traumatizing for
him, so alien was that thought to his essentially
benevolent-imperialist clan, that he made as the single biggest
cause of his political career to "put Vietnam behind us." Only
after doing so -- by normalizing relations, wrapping a bow
on the POW/MIA controversy, winning a few wars, and applying a
12-step style redemption narrative on his own Vietnam experience --
did he regain the essential faith in American righteousness and
power.
But personality-wise, he's basically the same dude, only with more
experience. Friends commented that he was basically just a bit more
serious after coming back, but otherwise not a lot different. And
people I know who have read all his medical documents tell me
there's no there there (granted, they are sympathetic to the
man).
|2.22.08 @ 2:38PM|#
...McCain was a hard-partying seat-of-the-pants flyboy
maverick sonofabitch with an oppressive pedigree, mean temper and
taste for booze, strippers and cigarettes.
Other than the oppressive pedigree, booze, cigarettes (and
strippers - I preferred actual dancers) that's me. ...er...
was me ...
But if I was a Presidential candidate I'd have to grit my teeth
hard, and vote for me if the only other choice was a Socialist, or
a Clinton ...
T|2.22.08 @ 5:04PM|#
But personality-wise, he's basically the same dude, only
with more experience. Friends commented that he was basically just
a bit more serious after coming back, but otherwise not a lot
different. And people I know who have read all his medical
documents tell me there's no there there (granted, they are
sympathetic to the man).
I'm not sure which idea I find more unpleasant. Either way, I'll
accept that he's always been an ass and move on. I wasn't voting
for him in any event.
|2.22.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Who is the NY Times supporting in this Presidential election? Bet I know!!!!!!!!!
|2.22.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Remember a William Jefferson Clinton who was reportly President
of thye USA?? He was such a holy man and never was in any
scandals!!!
I woulkd trust John McCain 10 times faster than either
Clintons.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245