McCain’s “Favors” for One Special Lobbyist: The Bob Bennett Angle
If I’m not mistaken, NYT’s blockbuster detailing McCain’s inappropriate relationship with a telecom lobbyist is the matter in which Bob Bennett was representing the good Senator (no, I’m not–Bennett’s out working this story hard tonight). If you haven’t already read about this on every other lefty blog, here’s the jist:
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.
Now, there are many angles to this story. The "McCain in charge of Senate oversight of telecoms" angle. The "McCain dalliance with a torture lobbist" angle. The "why does this woman look just like McCain’s wife?" angle. But for now, I’m just interested in the Bob Bennett angle.
Bennett’s been out pitching his new book; as part of that, I heard him on Diane Rehm. Bennett said he was representing McCain in a matter in which he allegedly gave a lobbyist special "favors."
Hmmm.
But that’s not the part I’m a bit stunned by. Actually, there are three parts I’m stunned by, just off the top of my head:
- This story broke in the NYT. The last time we saw Bennett (before he was giving Jose Rodriguez’ story when Rodriguez refused to do so himself, I mean), he was standing in a hallway in the Prettyman Courthouse accepting Max Frankel’s thanks … "you did a good job for us today." Meaning "us," the NYT. In some twisted way, Bennett only recently rescued the NYT from its embarrassment named Judy Miller. But here his next big client save one is, having his Presidential aspirations seriously rocked by the same NYT. If I’m Bob Bennett right now, I’m bitching about those ingrates at the Times.
- And let me remind you, this is the Bob Bennett who set the standard for working the press. When you hire Bob Bennett, you hire him to work the press for you. How well did that work out for John McCain? Maybe Bennett let his McCain guard down in favor of his book tour… but Bennett is frantically trying to work the press to put this genie back in the bottle.
- And what about Bennett’s most famous client before that? No, I don’t mean Cap Weinburger. I mean Bubba Clinton, in the Paula Jones matter. Either McCain is just an idiot, or he didn’t think twice about the optics of having a guy who represented his potential opponent’s husband in a matter that erupted (sorry) into the biggest political sex scandal of all time. You want to bury the story of the pretty blond lobbyist, you don’t hire Bob Bennett.
Only that’s precisely what John McCain did.
Update: From the NYT article:
Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries.
First, "never" (which the campaign has repeated tonight) is an awfully long time. It seems that McCain has always admitted to showing favoritism to Keating. Which makes "never" kind of vague, huh?
And Bill Keller? Right in the middle of this? Ooh boy.
Bennett might have been chosen precisely because of his ties with the NYT – the NYT has been “sitting” on this for months, and Bennett may well have been able to keep this under wraps until McCain was the presumptive nominee.
Bay Buchanan is on AC360 playing concern troll – she lambastes the NYT for a ’smear job”, but then says that McCain has to come out and deny any impropriety that he was disloyal to his wife and kids, since this is expected of any Republican nominee – feel the Mittmentum!
Yeah, well, as I am consistently more than happy to point out, McCain has always been one enchilada short of a full combo plate in the IQ department; so I am throwing my lot in with the “just an idiot” option. I kind of figured that you would not be able to pass on the shiny twofer of CACI/torture AND telco lobbying angle.
Gotta come back to that–I was already obsessing about Bennett. Give it a day.
I think politics, and the inside the beltway issue stew, are good campaign fodder. But the personal attacks are tabloid fun. Perhaps something like this is what the Bennett facet of the post imparts. I wish Clinton had more opportunity to exercise the constitutional law prof expertise he brought to the office, rather than his credentials as somewhat of a pronounced moderate within his own faction of his political party. I worry plenty about McCain’s lax attention to important crises in US government structure, and even some doubts about precisely what his G14 nukeMOU was intended to do, i.e., whether he really would preserve and protect congress, or, say, restore independence to AG or even at the micro level olc. There is plenty to argue policywise about McCain, but the personal stuff is only gloss. If the former generations want to conduct the kind of reverse praise that constitutes scandal of a private sort, that is their hungup way of trying to join the modern world. But we need to get to issue politics, a realm in which McCain cannot hold a candle to either Democratic party candidate, and certainly he pales before the promise of BarackObama on the full gamut policy. What did McCain really plan to do in the tussles over MCA and DTA…but I like the Bennett material as germane, even if it is inside the Beltway
ladies and gentlemen, can we all agree that the Good Senator is going to be a TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT for a few long months ???
who knew that the “P” in GOP stood for PINATA
Bahahaha.
I’m am stealing that one so fast . . . but I will give you credit.
so we got shenanigans telecom immunity, torture, lobbyists and infidelity
what the fuck is this, a SPOOF campaign ???
is the repuglitard platform supposed to be the latest comedy by National Lampoon ???
The NYT conceals the age issue. When the McCain/Iseman relationship began, it is a good guess that the ages were more like 60 and 29. For me, at least, the NYT version hints that sexual relations were less likely than the real life version.
Well, okay. That kind of gets into the “why does she look exactly like McCain’s wife?” question.
Only 10 years younger.
Hmmm….
William: a pic w/Bush PLUS a friendship w/Rudy??!!
Looks like you hit the trifuckta!
Since McCain’s senior campaign advisors in 2000 were “convinced the relationship [between St. John McCain and Vicki Iseman ‘90] had become romantic”, I don’t think it’s out of turn to highlight this unfortunate phrasing.
He doesn’t say here that he wouldn’t betray his wife’s trust.
Which one? The one with, or the one without, the fortune?
For the record, Cindy Hensley was an extremely nice (if very slightly wayward) and fun girl in college. She deserved none of what McCain has brought to her life.
Sounds like a less extreme version of Paris Hilton, complete with prescription-drug abuse and rehab stints.
I did not know her well, and it was a long time ago, but the girl I saw was pretty cool and very nice. I think the Paris Hilton comparison is not accurate and a little unfair. If you were married to fucking John McCain, you might seek the escape of medication too; he is an extremely ill tempered asshole that cares only about himself.
That’s the impression I got. He dumped his first wife when she was no longer pretty, then hooked up with Cindy to get at her money as well as her body.
“For the record, Cindy Hensley was an extremely nice (if very slightly wayward) and fun girl in college. She deserved none of what McCain has brought to her life.”
So, can you tell me what has happened to her eyes? They’re the creepiest thing about her when I see her on TV. Is it some special kind of contact lenses? Or is she channeling the Daleks, or what?
Bob in HI
No clue Bob; but she has had that hollowed out Stepford look for a long time now. Kind of there in 2000 too, but I don’t remember it being quite so pronounced. I haven’t seen her in person in a long time, not sure, maybe 10 years or so. I know she had a hard time with all the public exposure of the campaigning in 2000; she really didn’t take to it well or enjoy it. May be some kind of medication, I dunno, but she does look zombied out eh?
I think it’s the contacts, Bob.
Damn, LooHoo wasn’t kidding about the pins. Those things on her turtleneck should have knocked her over.
Cindy’s best interests have never been much of a concern to McCain unless it was affecting him. McCain is, and always has been, all about himself and only himself.
He says the relationship wasn’t “romantic”. That doesn’t mean they weren’t fucking. Or something else.
hey, Bill Clinton said oral sex wasn’t sex
didn’t work for Bill, but …
Well, I’m going to miss Cindy’s colorful get-ups for a while. Dang, that woman likes to shine.
But Vicki has always been proud of her country, too. And where’s a flag lapel pin on her teddie, and sceams like an eagle while faking orgasms.
(Excuse me, I have to go confess my hypocrisy to a pantyless nun.)
Did you know her, bmaz?
A little, socially; through mutual friends.
But she screwed around with a married man…
‘wears’, not ‘where’s’.
It seems to me that the NYTimes story uses the suggestion of an adulterous affair as a ‘hook’ to air a rather detailed description of McCain’s long history of questionable relations with corporate privilege and cozy relations with lobbyist over the last twenty years. It will work if readers will find out about the Keating Five which otherwise might stay below the radar.
Trust me, there are people laying in the weeds to pound the Gluehorse on that one; including, notably, Charlie Keating himself, who remains livid at how two faced McCain was in turning his back on him. There is a lot of animosity there, it will be interesting to see how much Keating lets fly. He is old and fairly broken after all the criminal mess (I might note that as detestable as I have always thought Keating was, the criminal case against him was bogus) finally played itself out; but he may have enough left to take a last parting shot.
“Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic…”
Okay, so there was no romance. How about sex? Any sex?
I’ve never understood why the media always lets people get away with these non-denial denials.
Maybe this is all about showing that McCain is not just some old fart, but has Vim and Vigor, and can lead the country for Four More Years?
Bob in HI
Not entirely serious
Apparently the NYT has been sitting on this story for months, which is how long the McCain people have been trying to kill it:
http://www.salon.com/politics/…..index.html
TNR’s saying that the only reason the NYT published is that TNR was working on a story on what chickenshits the NYT folks are:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..911/460825
Anyone know how to track down McCain’s floor speech during the Clinton impeachment trial?
Add Holy Joe’s too for good measure. After all, they are BFF’s.
I wonder why NYTimes endorsed McCain knowing that this story was in the works?
The cynical answer is “To sell papers!” But my guess is that the folks who make the endorsements either didn’t know about the story or didn’t think it mattered enough when you look at who he was running against.
Here’s Iseman’s client list from Center for Responsive Politics.
I think a few of these companies had business before McCain’s committee.
I’ll give mccain credit, he’s more fun than hillary
the dimwit who we got ON TAPE singing “Bomb Bomb Iran” is now twisting Obama’s quote about Pakistan
if we take the “good” senator at his word, it’s okay to joke about attacking a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11
but actually catching or killing Osama Bin Laden, that would be preposterous
HONEST, I wouldn’t lie to ya …
I heard some schmuck on chicken noodle network saying that “all mccain has to do is repeat hillary’s smear tactics”
yeah, look how well it’s working for hillary. She’s lost, what, 10 straight elections ???
Is there a doctor in the house ??? could I suffer any permanent damage from this ??? I been laughing REALLY HARD lately
some days, they’re so stupid it burns …
one immediate effect is that this story kills the Cindy McCain/Michelle Obama debate over pride in country.
This, perhaps?
Robert S. Bennett at NYTimes. Keating5 stories start Sept. 1990.
Interesting how this sucks up all the air instead of HRC’s floundering.
Timing is everything, isn’t it?
BTW, anybody got data on how HRC would fair if pitted against the Huckster in the general election?
Actually, it may well backwash onto Hillary due to the sex-scandal aspect and the Bob Bennett connection that emptywheel mentioned.
Actually, I expect HRC to play the “woman wronged” card here.
A subtle whisper campaign about voting for a strong woman who stands by her man and overcomes his cheating ways, versus voting for a cheating liar…
I don’t see this hurting Obama, or even TOUCHING Obama in any way
so I can’t see hillary gaining much traction in a primary over this (maybe a few points, but a few points ain’t gonna help now)
and hillary NEEDS something from outside her campaign to save her at this point, she can’t save herself now
I told ya mccain was funnier than a rubber crutch (what, you guys don’t think a rubber crutch is funny ??? Hummm, different strokes, I guess)
anywho …
member how bush tried to pack the Federal election commission, and then that went to shit, so bush tried to appoint a wingnut, and refused to budge.
now the federal election commission doesn’t have a quorum, so they can’t take any actions
guess who got BIT IN THE ASS by this lack of oversight ???
senator john PINATA mccain
tpm has the goods josh is on fire lately, huh ???
make them stop, I can’t laugh any more
and I can handle more laughter than your average bear, Boo Boo
anybody wanna borrow my crutches ???
This is what is called irony.
I prefer to call it “Disaster Accomplished”
come on
this stupid fucker was trying to score political points on this topic YESTERDAY
today he looks like a hypocrite on his pet issue
and tommorrow, he’s fucking BROKE till AUGUST (if the article is right)
it’s like slamming into a police car, while you’re smoking the crack pipe, with a body in the trunk
it takes real skillz to fuck up on multiple levels like this
and this is totally outside the “Mistress-Lobbyist” story
that one’s got some sex appeal, so the talking heads will be chewing on that for a while
it’s like watching two trains crash, and then seeing two more trains crash into the first wreck
some of the comments on the times page are PURE GOLD
consider this “informed” reader:
uhm, so sorry dear reader, the ny times disagrees with mccain so much that the ny times ENDORSES HIM (look at your FUCKING SCREEN you idiot)
and if you read my post from above, you know this guy is gonna have to wait a long time:
and I love this guy too, judyjudyjudy didn’t bug him, but the times questioned saint mccain so the relationship is off:
the repuglitards must be in full meltdown mode
all I waana know how mccain voted on impeachment
this guy may have a HYPOCRISY HAT TRICK here
which would give him a DOUBLE HYPOCRISY HAT TRICK this week (see my off topic comment above)
Ask and you shall receive. He voted guilty.
http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00017
thanks
but
UPON FURTHER REVIEW …
I’ve consulted with the scorekeepers, and they say this is a “Double Double”, not a hat trick
and about that term; “In Bed With A Lobbyist”
does that qualify as a “double entendre” ???
the repuglitards ain’t gonna like learning the meaning of that one …
Right! And that would make it a Double Double double entendre?
I have a little juxtaposition for you since our players are currently down in Texas (campaigning) and we are talking about something that took place in New York (The Times). Roger Clemens v. John McCain.
McCain is a political star and has a long and well known history of adultery; established beyond any doubt and admitted by McCain himself. He also has a substantial, if largely forgotten, history of being influenced by lobbyists and big money interests (Keating). The general facts of the NYT (although not the implication as far as adultery) story are confirmed on the record by a known and very credible source, John Weaver, and there are other unnamed sources. The greater implications of the story are serious and could affect not only how his entire career is perceived, but may cost him the crowning achievement from that career, the Presidency. Despite his history of this kind of conduct, McCain is being given almost every benefit of the doubt by the chattering classes and masses. Congress and it’s critters have been mum, in spite of the fact that the implications go right to the integrity of Congress and one of it’s leading chairmen/members.
Clemens is a baseball star and had no history whatsoever of improprieties with substances or steroid use. There is only one source, after all these years, of information against him and that source has a long established history of lying to investigators and law enforcement and has very little credibility. The greater implications of the story are serious and could affect not only how his entire career is perceived, but may cost him the crowning achievement from that career, the Hall of Fame. Clemens is being given no benefit of the doubt by the chattering classes and masses, and in fact, is being presumed guilty by everybody. Congress and it’s critters have sprung into action and have taken multiple days of depositions, not to mention televised full committee hearings; and on top of that, every federal law enforcement agency in the country is on the case in spite of the fact that they have nothing to do with the private business of baseball.
Whats wrong with this picture?
You mean besides the fact that the issue steroid abuse has sucked up hours and hours of air time and congressional attention — all for a SPORT?
How classically American. Over-the-top excess, spent on the useless.
But don’t let me forget to say how really proud I am of my country…
Professional Sport is a cancer on the culture, state funded disease.
pick up the latest issue of Sports Illustrated, bmaz
clemens has admitted to using illegal drugs (lydocaine), injecting illegal drugs, that his WIFE used HGH, and that Andy Pettit is an honest man
SI makes it QUITE CLEAR that clemens is GUILTY, and currently is hiding behine his wife, because clemens can’t admit what EVERYBODY ELSE knows
I knew clemens was a liar BEFORE the article came out
now I know that he has a hard core case of cognitive dissonance. so bad that the man is willing to blame his WIFE along with everybody but himself
lower than george bush ???, you make the call
My point is not about ultimate guilt or innocence (although I imagine both may well be guilty in the final analysis); my point is about the relative credibility of the initial reporting and sources, and the reaction of the commentariat and Congress. Not to mention, as Rayne correctly points out, the relative disparity in the seriousness of subjects. By the way, no I wouldn’t put Bush and Clemens in the same boat. Clemens has actually been very good at something in his life, maybe the best at what he did, and that was well before any possible PED allegations. Bush has never done anything on his own, has been a failure at everything and everything he touches turns to shit.
Actually, hasn’t Andy Petitte now confirmed the allegations?
Maybe; but I am not so sure that is truly the case. I haven’t read the entire transcript, but the best out of Petitte that I have seen is that he says he discussed HGH/steroids with Clemens at some point; that is a far cry from direct evidence/testimony that he saw or otherwise knows Clemens actually used. Again, my real beef and interest in the Clemens case is the way it has been ginned up and handled vis a vis parallel prosecution tactics; especially the Congressional part. And my comment only really went to the posture when the reports initially came out and it really has no application here, just kind of an interesting comparison and contrast.
One thing, that McCain has been given the benefit of the doubt, repeatedly and inspite of mea culpa.
Petitte admitted wrongdoing and will end up a hero. Clemens insisted on a hearing to clear his name. Who thought that would, or even could possibly, happen? Clemens should sue for ineffective counsel. That is his only cause of action.
Heh, I will guarantee you one thing, and that is that Clemens’ counsel is not ineffective; he is one of the best going anywhere.
You would know better than I would.
I believe it was a mistake to allow him to think that testifying in front of the Oversight Committee would be a good opportunity to clear his name.
Clemens spent the day on national TV looking like he was lying; about his wife’s HGH injection, the boil on his ass, the letters from Mitchell, the party in Miami, never having discussed HGH with McNamee, etc etc. Clemens testified as if ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ was the standard and the rules of evidence were the same as the court of law. They were not. This hearing was held in the court of public opinion and Clemens was the loser, even as shady and compromised as McNamee proved to be.
Look at where Pettite ends up and look at where Clemens is; both guys were fingered by the same trainer. One is a hero for telling he truth and the other has a cloud over him.
Yeah, but this is a long way from over. Petitte doesn’t look that great to me; on the day of the hearing, it had to be announced that he had already lied about how often and how much HGH he had used and now he has his father and friends from high school involved. I can flat out guarantee that the reason Petitte was scratched from the hearing is that they were afraid of too many holes being punched in him too early and they did not want him exposed. He is no hero and has not told the truth; or at least he is modifying it along the way. Of course that doesn’t fit with your or the media’s narrative though; but in a court of law that will be very germane. There are no heros in this case irrespective of the popular narrative; the whole pile reeks from top to bottom. Curiously, in spite of the fact that he is probably lying, the only person who has maintained a consistent story (and again, I am not saying it will end up believable or true) is Clemens.
Couple of more points now that we are trolling a mostly dead thread. Understand that I have a weird take on this. I could really give a lick about Clemens personally, but I am somewhat sympathetic to the position he is in because I, along with my old law partner, have represented several people in very similar circumstances (not the Congress part, that is way over the top). There is also a giant chunk of the underlying steroids investigation that took place with acts and actors, with lawyers I am quite familiar with, right here in Phoenix. This whole investigation has produced some results on the surface, but it is a rotting festering mess in the way it has been conducted.
Secondly, don’t buy into the pitched story on Clemens demanding the hearing. The committee demanded the hearing and they threatened to subpoena everybody (they actually did Knoblauch, but never got him served before he agreed to come on his own). But Clemens affirmatively said no need for any subpoena, I’ll come any and every time you want and I look forward to it. Just before the hearing, the committee, and Waxman, suddenly wanted to scuttle the whole deal and tried to get Clemens to be the one to request that it not proceed, but he refused because he wanted to maintain his position that he was ready to testify. That is the “demand” that Waxman bellows about; somewhat disingenuously if you ask me. I still like Waxman a lot, and I will give him a pass here; but I don’t like, nor approve of, how he has handled all this one bit. I would just be much happier if he stuck to the stuff that is critical out there right now, and that ain’t Roger Clemens.
Lastly, haven’t seen you much for a while; glad you are back.
CACI is one of the clients on VI’s 2007 client list, provides interrogators for the Iraq War, McCain changes his vote in re torture
after years of opposing it… NYT goes with “old news” and unconnected dots
as usual… could get interesting.
OT — sorry, just thought I’d share that Blackberry had yet another outage.
http://blogs.techrepublic.com……ag=nl.e019
This telecomm disruption stuff is looking so fishy.
Aw, gee, who could have predicted this? From the NYT:
David Corn deconstructs Bob Bennet’s wednesday night email to journalists rebutting assertions made in the NYT article about Saint John McCain, concluding:
make that “as shady and compromised as Dr. McNamee proved to be”
Bob Bennett Scadden Arps
VerizonCommunications Lobbying Spending
It’s good to be back here with you and the emptywheelers bmaz. I was visting family in happy valley – western mass – and celebrating a couple of birthdays.
You’re making me rethink some of my positions on this one.
Back to EW’s question: Doesn’t Pettite’s disclosure – that McNamee is telling the truth about Pettite’s HGH use – compromise Clemen’s credibility?
Maybe a little, but only indirectly through the fact that it does bolster McNamee’s credibility a bit (Knoblouch too it would appear). Now, is that enough to make MacNamee credible: Not in my book. This whole thing is a pile. Mitchell, MLB and, it is my understanding Bush too, really did a little pushing (probably didn’t take much) to get Congress involved. But the handwriting was well on the wall; Congress and Waxman should have known better than to get involved; not to mention that they have much more important things to do.
well, yeah, that’s ONE compromizing aspect
then you gotta wonder why clemens’ wife would need to use HGH
basically, there AIN’T NO REASON for clemens wife to be using HGH
HGH is a SCHEDULE TWO NARCOTIC
un-perscribed use is a felony
so why would he admit his wife is a potential felon
but the thing that destroys clemens credibility the most was his intial statement
once you learn that clemens admits to ILLEGALLY INJECTING VITAMIN B-12 AND LYDOCAINE, you can kinda figure out where clemens would get the syringes to inject HGH
clemens got the syringes he used to inject HGH at the same place that clemens got the syringes he used to inject the B-12 and Lydocaine
is that so hard to figure out
clemens was a fine pitcher, and he’s a very stubborn man, as well as a very STOOOOOPID man. He is also a morally bankrupthypocrite and liar, as well as a cheater and a drug user
and a man so LOW that he is willing to hide behind his wife and slander former friends rather than admit the truth
and they don’t come much lower than that