Apparently John McCain's Keating adventures weren't the only time his personal connections became risky business for his political career:
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.
It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.
But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.
McCain strikes me as a fundamentally honorable guy . . . so honorable that he doesn't realize when he's getting himself in a mess. Most politicians would do the risky things, but take more care not to get caught. I'm not sure whether this is a feature or a bug.
For more on McCain's erstwhile iconoclasm, I highly recommend you watch/listen to Will Wilkinson interview Matt Welch, the editor of Reason magazine and the world's greatest living libertarian expert on John McCain. His book on the topic is a highly interesting read.
Update: The McCain campaign is apparently responding. It's a pretty wan non-denial denial, but I hear there's more substantive rebuttal to come. CNN notes "This may end up being a story about the New York Times as about John McCain." One does kind of wonder why they're breaking an eight year-old story now.
OK. So the story is that McCain might have wanted to have an affair but didn't?
Go NYT! Way to really nail the guy.
The NY Times should focus on the really important stuff....like why Michelle Obama hates America and her husband won't wear a flag pin.
Meghan,
Didn't McCain dump his first wife (the one who waited for him while he was a POW) for some young heiress? Oh, just checked - he did... That doesn't sound too honorable to me.
Jmo:
McCain dumped his first wife after she was in some kind of accident. In fact, he married his present wife a month after getting divorced from his first. Also, there is his little Keating Five problem. So no, McCain isn't honorable at all. He's your typical sleazeball politician.
"One does kind of wonder why they're breaking an eight year-old story now."
Ever hear of the New York Times and something called Whitewater? That went on for sixteen years. How about Hillary's cattle future trades which were so old when the story "broke" that there were no records still kept.
Finally, it's eight-year-old, not eight year-old. Learn basic grammer!
The big game in this upcoming general election:
Which meme takes over:
Obama is an American hating, liberal who is in over-his head:
McCain is a too old, hypocrite who does not actually not talk straight and has anger management issues.
Me-thinks that with Faux News and the Right-Wing Talking heads (trust me - they will come around), Meme # 1 will take over.
McCain strikes me as a fundamentally honorable guy . . . so honorable that he doesn't realize when he's getting himself in a mess.
WOW!
That may the most naive comment in the entire history of the Internet.
I read the article twice.
I don't get it. What exactly warrants the article.
"So no, McCain isn't honorable at all."
This is the kind of hyperbole that can get me.
A person can be honorable in some areas and dishonorable in others. People are rarely all or nothing. As much as I dislike her I'm sure I can think of something honorable about Hillary Clinton. For example I think her care about children and animals is probably for real. The only area I found where she came out noticeably different than Obama is on animal protection.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3489
I don't personally believe in animal rights, but I can see it as sort of honorable to be on board for some principle that's virtually meaningless in elections.
McCain strikes me as a fundamentally honorable guy . . . so honorable that he doesn't realize when he's getting himself in a mess.
Maybe he doesn't realize it when he's getting himself into a mess, but that is something that makes him dishonorable and not a "fundamentally honorable guy."
Did he realize it when he cheated on his wife before with a much younger woman before? Did he realize it when he took bribes from Charles Keating, including several vacations to the Bahamas and 100K+ in campaign contributions?
McCain has been dishonorable in the exact two areas alleged by the NYT before.
One does kind of wonder why they're breaking an eight year-old story now.
Megan, you know dang well why they are breaking this story right now ...
... people are beginning to pay attention to the man behind the (rhetorical) curtain, who leads thousands by portraying himself as the Great and All-Powerful Wizard of Change ...
... and what they are seeing is McGovern/Carter myopia that, if implemented as policy, will do far more damage to this nation than anything McCain has been accused of.
The last-gasp attempt to Save the Legacy of Woodstock Nation is being threatened by the truth ... so it is time for the Best and Brightest at the NYT to change the narrative.
Megan. Go here and read an intelligent response to the NYTimes hit-piece"
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/017051.php
Okay I’ll ask the question, which of her clients (click on my name for her client list) did McCain write letters on behalf of and what was the content of the letters?
Learn basic grammer!
Heh heh heh ...
One does kind of wonder why they're breaking an eight year-old story now.
Why is there a political statute of limitations for such things?
To be fair, the NYT should report on the overall record of McCain's dealings with this lobbyist's clients. Did he also vote against some of her clients?
This election is the first where I really felt like there wasn't even a good lesser of two evils to vote against. I will vote based on who I think will do the least damage to the country but no matter who I vote for, I'll be holding my nose.
The mainstream media is heavily liberal and will be turning on McCain once he's confirmed as the Republican nominee. Fox News and talk radio are heavily conservative and will attack the Democratic nominee. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the mainstream media will fawn over the Democratic candidate but talk radio is not exactly thrilled about McCain. This won't help.
Mortimer Madler: "Learn basic grammer"
Hey Mortimer, learn basic spelling, then you can criticize the grammar mistakes of others.
Mortimer,
Thanks! That was probably the best laugh I will have all day long.
McCain is a too old, hypocrite who does not actually not talk straight and has anger management issues.
Pfft. He's not too old if he can get a girl 30 years younger than himself.
I'm not a huge fan of McCain's self-rightousness, but the lack of substance in the Times piece is absolutely stunning. So McCain, a longstanding senator, knows a Washington lobbyist? And his presidential campaign aides were concerned about appearances? Isn't that their friggin job?
REALLY? That's your story? How exactly does knowing one lobbyist (show me one politician in Washington who doessn't) in ANY way undermine McCain's credibility on ethics? Is there ANY evidence that this improperly influenced his senate votes? The answer to this is obviously no or the times would have reported it.
If you actually read the piece, there is no way for any rational human being to avoid the conclusion that the Times was grasping at straws in attempting to find something, anything to undermine the Republican nominee. Of course, by the time the rest of the press gets through with it, all most of America will know is that there is some story about McCain and a lobbyist out there.
Especially if you put this in the context of the hagiographies of the Democratic candidates that the Times has published as part of the same series, he Times should be ashamed of itself.
Not to be crass, but I disbelieve the story on the sole grounds that his wife is way, way more attractive than the alleged mistress.