McCain Two-fer

Presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ) is facing two serious issues today. The first involves his attempts to get around public financing rules for his campaign. This is a sticky situation for the candidate for two reasons. The first is because violation of the rules can bring stiff monetary fines and up to five years in prison. The second is because McCain is known as Mr. Campaign Finance Reform in the Congress. Attempting to get around such laws, or even such a perception, may undermine that image.

The second is the New York Times story detailing possible corruption issues with McCain himself. Now, let me start by saying that I think the Times made a mistake by including the possible affair with the lobbyist in this piece. Without a smoking gun, it gave the Right the opening it needed to defend McCain not by refuting the allegations, but by shooting the messenger. (This, by they way, is exactly the tactic that both McCain's campaign and the Right generally has taken.) The allegations of possible corruption, on the other hand, are on much firmer footing.

The Washington Post also wrote a story that followed the Times piece. And here, btw, is the original boondoggle that was at the heart of this whole mess.

Most folks forget -- I had -- that McCain was one of the so-called Keeting Five, a group of Senators who were censured by the Senate for interfering with the investigation of the illegal activities of Charles Keeting by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board during the S&L collapse of the 1980s. McCains efforts were both immoral and illegal. It was political favors in return for personal and campaign favors. It also certainly blows the lid off of McCain's current statements that he's never acted inappropriately in relation to a lobbyist or to those who hire the lobbyist.

Getting back to the "shooting the messenger" reaction of the Right against the Times for a moment, you should remember that there was very little in the Times article that had not previously been reported elsewhere. The Drudge Report had previously reported the sex angle -- last December, I think -- and the Boston Globe had reported the lobbyist links from 1999 -- the links at the heart of the Times story -- back in 2000. McCain didn't go after those sources because neither is a bugaboo with the Right; The New York Times is. Hell, they are using the story as a rallying cry both for fund raising and to solidify the far-right of the Republican base for McCain. It is astonishing indeed that the allegations are ignored, but the attacks themselves are seen as positive. /boggle

Finally, there have been late additions to this story reflecting that McCain and/or his campaign have put out false information in response to the Times story since it broke. See the following:

1. He did hire a very expensive lawyer to try to kill the same story at the Times last December, although he said his office made not attempt to do so.

2. That he doesn't "do business" with lobbyists, although they are counted among his personal his friends. The Post has a story on McCain's close ties with lobbyists and indeed, several of his top campaign aids ARE lobbiests... who are still doing work from the Straight Talk Express for Pete's sake! (Big-time lobbyist Charlie Black is the best example of this.)

3. McCain seems to have contradicted information he gave during sworn testimony in which he was a witness under oath.

More likely to come.

22 February 2008