Posted: February 21, 2008 3:19 PM
New York Times Article Ignites McCain-Lobbyist Controversy
 Email This
Arizona Sen. John McCain held an impromptu news conference Thursday morning to address an article published by the New York Times suggesting he had an inappropriate relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist eight years ago.
“I’m disappointed in The New York Times piece,” the Republican front-runner said in Toledo, Ohio, flanked by his wife, Cindy. He called the article a “hit and run smear campaign.”
The article, published on the Times Web site Wednesday night, cited “several people involved in the campaign” who spoke anonymously about lobbyist Vicki Iseman and her close friendship with the senator. “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,” the Times reported.
Controversy over McCain’s dealings with Iseman — as well as the Times’ representation of the story — have since circulated across media sources.
Although the article was published Wednesday, Times reporters have reportedly been battling with McCain lawyer Bob Bennett over the story since late December, according to media reports.
“I reported on the first hints of this in December, when the Arizona Republican hired criminal attorney Robert Bennett to help handle the Times inquiry. ‘What is being done to John McCain is an outrage,’ Bennett told me then,” Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz wrote in his Media Notes Web column Wednesday.
The delayed publication has enraged McCain supporters and raised theories about the paper’s motives.
“They range from generous — the paper could simply have thought it unfair to publish the story on the eve of a slew of presidential primaries — to the nefarious — the Times was waiting to unload on McCain only after he secured the nomination,” wrote the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein.
Times Executive Editor Bill Keller released a statement Thursday saying that the article was published when it was “ready.”
McCain aide Charlie Black charged that the Times ran its story because of a New Republic investigation into internal strife at the paper over when and if to run it, Politico.com reported.
“What’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: the new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain’s former staffers to justify the piece — both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady,” the New Republic’s Gabriel Sherman wrote Thursday in an investigation of the Times’ investigation.
Outside of the media questions surrounding the article, McCain aides are fighting hard to make sure the controversy does not hurt the senator’s chances to capture the GOP nomination.
“The McCain campaign is using a two-pronged attack to push back against the story. First, they’ll argue it was a thinly sourced piece of innuendo journalism. But McCain aides also will strike at the source, using the Times’ liberal reputation as a means of self-defense to draw sympathy from the GOP’s conservative base,” Politico.com reported.
-- By , NewsHour with Jim Lehrer | Comments | Link
|
Vote 2008 Subscriptions 
I too am disappointed at the News Hour spending time on this story. It is certainly not a matter of critical interest even if accurate. And it appears that the News Hour relies far too much on the Times for practically everything. This is a story that could use some impartial consideration, especially since it has been around for a while and the source has accurately described itself as distinctly on one side of the political spectrum. Ignoring the Presidents trip to Africa seems curious in this light.
The gist of what the pundits (on all of the outlets, but especially on msnbc)had to say last night seemed to be that after the first few paragraphs there was nothing new in the NYT article. They seemed to be puzzled that the Times printed all "this old stuff that everyone knows." (My paraphrase.) I have just had a chance to read the whole story as it was printed (paper, morning edition) this morning. I think the "old stuff" is so old that ordinary folks (non-pundits) had forgotten it or had forgotten the details or never really understood it at the time. I suspect most of us did not know about that little tid-bit tucked in between parentheses about the McCains' pre-nup, and that is something that probably is of great interest to social conservatives (if indeed any of them read the NYT). So I think there was a purpose in printing the story as it appears -- it is intended for all of us who only sit up and take careful notice during presidential campaigns.
The NY Times story on candidate McCain's association or tryst with a lobbyist I think there's a "apple of discord" that he isn't the perfect executive by his past history of his political career for the presidency. But in my opinion he puts his pride behind him when comes to solving the problem of growing socialism in Latim American countries and fighting a War and knowing its not because American Imperialism but it is to stand toe to toe as we did in the Esienhower era with countries wealthy than us smarter than us but not as free and honest in the care of its people.
I am not interested in the private affairs of public officials. President Kennedy had a terrible reputation in this respect, but it did not interfere with his political decisions. As long as the two are separate, I do not think it is significant to report on. It doesn't matter to me if it's a Republican or a Democrat who's being publicly embarrassed, it's simply not pertinent in my opinion. What I want to know about is where the politicians stand on major political issues. I want to know how they will fix the problems we face. Give me the information I need. I don't care about the other stuff, it's just pointless gossip, an ugly sordid bit of trivia.