The Beginning of the End of John McCain
Last Wednesday evening, The New York Times posted a now infamous story on its website, claiming that John McCain may have done favors for a lobbyist with whom he was romantically involved. The article, built on an unstable framework of unnamed sources, quickly became the top political headline. But rather than focus on the potential damage the story could cause to McCain's already shaky chances in November, the narrative settled on the Times' story itself, questioning the veracity of its sources and the motives of its publication.
The same conservative talk show hosts who had shown palpable disdain for the Senator were suddenly rallying to his defense, accusing The New York Times of a "hit job," a willful attempt to influence the outcome of the election. Instantly, the mainstream punditry reacted in unison, proclaiming that the Times story had helped McCain to unify his base in ways that he, himself, could never have accomplished. On the other side of the unfolding events, McCain had come out on top, they argued.
In the short term, they may be right. McCain has, after all, raised more money off the incident than at any other time in the election cycle. But there is little evidence, if any, that the long term impact of these events will be beneficial for McCain, or that radio hosts who love to disparage him will continue to stand by his side.
It is impossible to imagine that before publishing the piece, Bill Keller, editor of the Times, didn't anticipate what would come next. Having printed a top-of-the-fold, front page story insinuating adultery and corruption, and having failed to provide documentary evidence or the names of sources, Bill Keller must have expected a backlash. Is it really possible that Keller would gear up for a fight he couldn't win? It seems far more likely that though he couldn't offer the information publicly, there was confirmable off-the-record information that had guided his willingness to ultimately go to print. There is now great incentive for The New York Times to continue their investigation, with hope of gathering evidence that will eventually vindicate their decision. There is also incentive for reporters everywhere, who can smell the potential, an earth-shaking story, there for the taking. If the information that The New York Times published is right, the story will not stay hidden. And already, McCain's air tight explanation is starting to leak.
In a full-throated defense Thursday morning, Senator McCain adamantly denied a romantic relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, and denied having met with anyone at Paxson Communications, the company she represented. But, as Newsweek uncovered, in a 2002 deposition, McCain admitted the opposite, that he had spoken with Lowell Paxson himself. Shortly after the meeting, McCain sent two letters to the FCC urging a decision in an issue involving the company, all while Paxson executives were contributing $20,000 to McCain's campaign. When asked about his dealings with Paxson, the Senator who has staked his entire mythology on a battle against lobbyists, acknowledged that "the taint affects all of us." Indeed.
McCain's footing with the conservative chattering class is also far from steady. In the wake of a half-hearted defense of McCain by Limbaugh and others, the bulk of the punditry class assumed that McCain's biggest enemies on the right would line up behind him. That notion has been widely accepted, but seems misguided. Even when defending McCain, Limbaugh criticized him for cavorting with liberals, exclaiming his hope that McCain had learned his lesson. All that was uncovered about their rocky relationship is that, generally speaking, Rush Limbaugh likes John McCain more than he likes The New York Times.
But even if John McCain were able to muster a peace with the conservative elite, he still faces an enormous challenge with the real conservatives he needs: evangelicals. By wide margins, they are the largest piece of the Republican base and have been credited with helping ensure eight years of President Bush. That they will mobilize to the polls in November is far from assured, however. In the 2006 election, one in four white evangelicals voted for Democrats, with corruption as their top concern. The New York Times story has the potential to echo through this most crucial part of McCain's winning coalition, with evidence of government corruption and a rejection of "family values." If the narrative continues, and it very likely will, McCain might find consolidating his base to be impossible.
The scrutiny will continue, as will the story, and the damage will be gradual, but steady. John McCain's entire appeal is his straight shooter persona, a man with integrity who stands up for clean government, even if at odds with his party. But with lobbyists running his campaign, lobbyists as, at the very least, his good friends, and with evidence mounting that he used his chairmanship to do favors for the very people he has publicly admonished, McCain is not as he appeared.
The footprint this story will have on the election is very real, possibly fatal. Come November, McCain may arrive with neither the right, nor the center - truly, a man alone.
**For more from Dylan Loewe, visit Loewe Political Report.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Robet Scheer-"The revelation never came, because the annoying reality is that McCain was one of the rare Senate opponents of the telecom bill that Iseman was pushing--as opposed to the New York Times, which like every other major media outlet pushed for the legislation (in the case of the Times, without ever conceding its own corporation's financial bias in the matter). McCain was one of five senators (and the sole Republican) who, along with Democrats Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Paul Simon and the great Paul Wellstone, voted against the atrocious legislation, which President Bill Clinton signed into law."
I agree. He's dead in the water. Romney should re-enter.
Scandal-mongering is in.
The age of true political discourse is out!
And that's that.
Does anyone else in the entire political world wonder if John McCain is "showing" his age?
There have been three critical "corrections" of his memory about what must have been recently reviewed events, starting with his incredible failure to remember that he had recently spoken to Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, about which he was reminded by a reporter during his "lance the boil" press conference the day after the story broke.
Since then, The Washington Post reminded him - contrary to McCain's original statement - that in fact he had met and spoken with broadcaster Lowell "Bud" Paxson before writing his FCC letters.
Then Newsweek exposed a 2002 deposition in which McCain describes a Paxson conversation that his campaign now says did not occur.
All of which, of course, should send a shiver down the spines of the Far Right denizens who rallied to his cause. [Or, more accurately, his situation but their cause: attacking the Liberal Media Medusa.]
All of this has been temporarily subsumed by the initial penumbra of scandal involving the third-hand suggestion of sexual impropriety. In the absence of sexual "reminders", these more mundane but still serious issues are already percolating up into the media and mass consciousness.
Beneath all of this, however, is a question that many average people are likely asking: is McCain just plain forgetting really important things?
His stunningly flat denials of each of those later-confirmed realities does not suggest an effort to conceal. After all, the first contradiction (the conversation with Keller) was revealed in the first minute of his having made his statement.
It seems that he just forgot.
Oh boy...
If, as some suggest, Sen. McCain is the GOP throwaway candidate for an election they calculate they can't win, can anyone guess what their strategy in opposition to a Democratic administration might be?
My guess: Articles of Impeachment for the Democratic President, whomever that might be, as their first order of business in the 111th Congress. Grounds for impeachment, TBD.
The very first act will be to show up with a dump truck of cash to try to convert the new President to secret Republicanism. Barring that, and depending on the structure of the new Legislature, they'll adopt intransigence for four years and only roll impeachment out after reelection. To be seen to be impatient would be unseemly.
Our Congress and our president in 2009 will be democrats. If not, it will be due to the republicans fixing the elections as they did in 2000 and 2004, or them removing Barack Obama from this planet.
They still have nasty tricks up their sleeves, and a lot to lose. I don't think committing murder or major criminal activities will be seen as excluded behavior.
It's simple............if you want no end to the war, vote for McCain. If you don't care that the President may say something today and something totally opposite tomorrow, vote for McCain. If you don't care that your candidate will say anything to anybody to get their vote, vote for McCain. It's not difficult at all.
veracity
No matter how much McCain flip-flops, he retains the defense of age, much as Bush has the defense of being a moron. As George Costanza put it, it's not a lie if you believe it. When McCain misspeaks, it's his age. When Bush misspeaks, it's his lack of eloquence. When Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, or any other intelligent person misspeaks, they're lying. That's how the Republicans spin the situation every time. Now that the extreme right has decided to back the Republican candidate, we can expect to see a lot of that in the months to come.
But, not to be too darn optomistic about it, aren't the very rules of which you speak finally becoming apparent to the general electorate? We know that 18% is unreachable, but maybe some of the rest?
Kenji, I am sorry to deflate your optimism, but the simple fact is people are idiots. It's been true for thousands of years and I doubt a single election cycle will change that. Remember, the National Enquirer was once the nation's most popular periodical and it remained at the top until... no, not until people wised up, but rather until it got hit by a ton of competition at its level, including competition from several reputable periodicals turned rag.
They seem to have an absence of good, decent people to run on the repub. side. Look at Bush, the lowest I.Q. of any president, and it is painfully clear, now. Unfortunately, the so called "liberal media" helped Rove shield him from any close scrutiny and he was ushered in. The worst president in the history of this country. He is an embarrassment to this country. As a representative of this nation, he meets leaders overseas who make better speeches than he ever could, even with English as their second language. He acts like the overgrown "frat boy" that he has always been, and always will be. A total BUFFOON. After him, any repub. feels that the job can be theirs, no matter how unethical they have been.
bush has been the best... uber ceo for oil and war profiteers that could possibly have been imagined in anyone's wildest dreams.
he was never intended (by his puppeteers) to be a president. only a thieving greedy ceo.
they could give a shit about the real and reputational damage he has done to this country.
and they never will give a shit.
i say we throw them all in prison and take the things they love most away from them - money and power and the freedom to use them.
Look into McCain's history. FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM AT THE NAVAL ACADEMY! A very poor pilot trainee, he trashed at least two aircraft in training, but was allowed to continue the program because his daddy was an Admiral. He has never shown any interest in, or any talent for, learning. McCain is NO SMARTER than Bush, and considering how Bush outsmarted him in 2000, maybe HE'S NOT AS SMART AS BUSH. The idea that Senator McBomb-Bomb could get elected in November sends shivers down my spine.
McCain is a scapegoat. Even before the lobbyist story appeared, the Republican party had set up McCain to take the fall in November for all of them. When he loses, they will all claim that it was because he was not a 'real conservative', whatever that means(Ronny Reagan was not a 'real conservative' by the current definition, he raised taxes and cut and ran from Lebannon). They will point to all the chatter from their pundit classes and pronounce it justified. John McCain lost the race, not the wonderful 'conservative policies' that have set the world on fire these last 7 years. Everything they do is a con, even the craven sacrifice of their own presidential nominee.
McCain always only ever was a throw away for BUSHCO. 2008 was always only a throw away. If some Rep somehow gets lucky and wins, that's fine. But the reality is that BUSHCO has already moved the country too far to the right too fast and is paying a price for its "successes" both domestically, and, more importantly, internationally. They're content to let someone from the left come, patch things up a bit, and then move back into the Whitehouse at a more propitious time.
The snake doesn't swallow the rat in one gulp and the power that BUSCO ultimately seeks must be stolen slowly and cautiously to maximize available profit making opportunities.
the pure and simple truth.
These are people with a 20, 50 even a 100 year agenda. They have no problem waiting 4 years to continue. Or perhaps the plan is to get a Dem in place with so may problems that in 4 years we will be in such a bad state that they will be able to sell the public on a Repug to bring us back from the brink. The Right Wing is so far sighted and unscrupulous that I have to worry that anything that happens is according to plan or at least easily spun.
Viva la Revolution.
McCain, who is described as Bush3, advocates the "hundred years war", which reinforces his medieval mindset, has but one thing going for him and that's his supposed straight-shootin' enemy of the lobby. So much for that.
Anyone who knows the life story of John McCain knows he's not the right man for president. Anyone who knows his recent history knows his temper, alone, disqualifies him from being near the 'football'. McCain is the worst choice the Republicans could have made, and they will have to live with that choice, come November.
Loading comments…
Posted February 25, 2008 | 09:18 AM (EST)