I got this via mathew yglesias. Without the sex angle this story may not have got the play it deserves. In fact the enire thing is somewhat hard to follow. As near as I can tell John McCain went to bat for Paxson communcations after they threw a little money and perhaps a couple of other things his way.
After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell “Bud†Paxson, finally ruined his company.
Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.
McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters – but not the great bulk of television stations – off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with “fear and trepidation†at a hearing on September 8, 2004.
Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson – and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.
This seems like influence peddling on the part of John McCain, whether he was recieving payments in the form of cash or maybe little “special time” with a certain lobbiest. He changed his position after these people were “nice” to him. In fact Mr McCain was apparetely is very popular with certain groups:
According to information compiled by the Center for Public Integrity’s “Well Connected†Project on Telecommunications and Media, John McCain is the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks and its predecessor, Paxson Communications. McCain received $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 20006. McCain’s donations edged out former Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who received $27,000, and former Rep. W.J. “Billy†Tauzin, R-La., who received $22,500.
McCain old out for $36,000 and maybe tryst? Without the tryst part people probably would not have cared. Â Now, I have a feeling people are going to start caring about everything McCain has done over his 25+ years in Washington, and it seems like at least some of it may be offensive to the average voter.
John Henke makes a good point:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=7938
McCain’s “close” ties with a lobbyist whether platonic or more raise issues about his judgement and impartiality. The hint of a sex scandal draws people to this story but the issue is bigger than that. McCain was flying on private jets that were owned that were owned by the same comapnies he claimed to be regulating. In a sense whether or not McCain was joining the mile high club while he was using these jets is irrelevant. One way or a another he was clearly accepting favors from these companies and allowing them to influence his judgement.
Especially after the “Keating five” stufff this behavior shows a pattern of a man who is happy to use his public position for personal gain, hardly someone that should be president.
John, he’s a Republican. Rove was supposedly putting his head together with the Santorum-Delay braintrust to create this one party system that would last forever…and Rove is a genius, so everyone wearing red jerseys decided to act if it had already been accomplished. Some took off their costumes from time to time…
I have to say though, that receiving sex as a bribe is a lot smarter than receiving stacks of cash that end up sitting in the freezer for too long.
Henke’s point is obvious, and he’s right.
Journalism is journalism…we don’t have to like the result of it, and it is probably our duty (along with the duty of every competitor the NYTimes has) to root out deception in a story like this one.
When that doesn’t happen, and the matter ends up being the article’s word against the politician’s…then it depends on who that politician happens to be and what they’ve done.
For instance…if the Weekly World News (RIP) published that Bill Clinton had sex with an extra-terrestrial, I’d assume a 97% rate of accuracy whether Bubba denied it or not.
I haven’t had time to think about McCain lately, but on the trading floor I notice him being up on one of the TVs in front of microphones standing next to his wife from sunup till sundown. That can’t be good.
If thier were any real journalists out there someone would ask Mr McCain how he keeps getting hot chicks?