Black Box Report

Blogswarm Alert! All hands on deck!

John McCain in a lobbyist sex scandal!

WASHINGTON — 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.

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.

Uh-huh. Anonymous sources...

"To publish, or not to publish?" That is the question that's been facing the New York Times for last 2 months, ever since John McCain and Vicki Iseman lawyered up and convinced the Times to spike the story. That decision was obviously only temporary. As for the question "why now?", the short answer is, "because they didn't want to get scooped":

Michael Isikoff of Newsweek and Michael Calderone of Politico were two of the reporters at rival publications who were chasing the Times story. Calderone was particularly well informed about the details of the Times investigation.

On top of that, The New Republic was primed to run a story about the story, detailing the infighting between reporters and NYT editor Bill Keller over whether to run it or not, and seemingly forced their hand (they are in the business of selling papers, after all). Of course conservatives, who think even the Sports page and Macy's ads are signs of liberal bias at the Times, believe the timing of the piece was calculated to damage McCain's campaign now that he's the presumptive nominee. But really, is there any time the Times could've run this without angering the right? Damned if they do, damned if they don't:

If they leak it earlier, it looks like they're trying to knock McCain out. If they leak it later, it looks like they're trying to influence the general. Now, however, is the best time, both because the general is a long time away and because it theoretically lets the GOP select a new nominee if these stories hold up.

Another good question besides "why now" is "why...period?":

Lots of people will be asking why now? but my first question upon reading the story was different: why endorse? The New York Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination on Jan. 25, when it was clearly working on this story and had the basic facts in hand...If the facts in today's article were not enough to make the Times re-think its endorsement, then why were they good enough for the front page of the paper, eight years after the events in question?

And about those "facts." The re-hashing of McCain's improprieties with lobbyists, while certainly relevant to his presidential ambitions, there's not much there that's new (for more meat on that score, see here). And the innuendo of his affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman is a little thin, to say the least:

If you merely evaluate the words that are on the page of The Times, when it comes to the question of any affair you can't help but conclude...that they just didn't have or couldn't share the goods on an alleged romantic relationship and thus shouldn't have gone there.

On the other hand, the Times had to know what kind of reaction this would get. They had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons, and decided that it was safe to stick their neck out. The Polk Award-winning TPM thinks this may be just the first shoe dropping, and there may be more to come:

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.

Bottom line: Unless they have another shoe to drop, the Times' bombshell may just blow up in their own faces.

But in the meantime...

John. McCain. Lobbyist. SEX. SCANDAL!!!

Exciting!

And, ew, while I'd rather not think about John McCain having sex, whether the New York Times story holds water or not, it's release has already begun to affect his campaign. First off, there's the question of how conservatives would react:

The story does put conservatives in an awkward position. Many hate McCain, but they despise The New York Times. So what do Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and the others do? It's like choosing between Stalin and Hitler.

Oh, c'mon...Was there ever really a question? Stalin, of course!

This forbidden-lobbyist-love scandal is a stroke of good fortune for John McCain. Revelations that he may have landed a sizzling hot blonde half his age have brought a new aura of virility and sex appeal to the Spanish-American war hero’s ancient carcass. He is also being hailed by Christian conservatives for having the good taste to conduct a heterosexual extramarital affair. And now we learn the scandal has brought conservative talk radio’s most lovable personalities flocking to his bosom. According to Politico, “they have a common enemy” now. Meaning, of course, the terrorists. At the New York Times.

As all this was developing this afternoon, I noticed this on a CNN chiron (sound off):

Limbaugh: The Story is the “Driveby Media” Trying to Take the Maverick Out

"The Maverick?" Bygones are, apparently, bygones.

Limbaugh: The Media Picked This GOP Candidate

Um, no. Republican voters picked this GOP candidate. Against your explicit instructions, might I add.

But while Rush Limbaugh's newfound love for the Maverick may help him with conservatives, McCain's history of being in bed with lobbyists - figuratively, if not literally - won't do him any favors with independents and moderates:

In exchange for money and freebies, McCain sought to intervene in a federal regulatory process in favor of a company that had provided him with tens of thousands of dollars in cash and services. He could try to plead naiveté, but in light of the hot water he got into with the Keating Five affair, which had the exactly same structure, he clearly knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong.

A lot of people don't remember - or didn't know in the first place - about the Keating Five affair, and this will give a good primer to those unfamiliar. And whether or not McCain got busy with Iseman (shudder), it's also a reminder to social conservatives that this would not be his first case of adultery. So given, at this point, McCain's potential opponent in November, expect all of this to have at least some staying power:

This story has the potential to be quite damaging, especially if he ends up facing off against Obama, who has a visible, and seemingly quite stable, marriage and is running against lobbyists.

And countering the Times piece with more Straight Talkitude won't help things any:

At a townhall meeting in New Hampshire last November, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the audience that he’s never allowed himself to be corrupted by lobbyist money:

Everybody says that they’re against the special interests. I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has taken nearly $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the telephone utility and telecom service industries, more than any other Senator. McCain sides with the telecom companies on retroactive immunity.

McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks — formerly Paxson Communication — receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006.

Somewhere Mitt Romney is sitting with his checkbook in one hand and today's Times in the other, shouting "Why now?"