I hate this. I really hate this. I think we all do.
I mean, there was a 6.3 earthquake today near Elko, Nevada. Now THAT’S “news.” But this?
Jill Hazelbaker, a spokesperson for the presidential campaign of Sen.John McCain, has it right when she says, in a statement released by the campaign today..”Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics.”
I am speaking, of course, about the story last night from the New York Times alluding to the possibility of an inappropriate relationship at one time between Sen. McCain (R-Ariz) and a professional lobbyist on Capitol Hill, Vicki Iseman.

The Associated Press reports today that “The New York Times quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to stay away from McCain.”
The AP report continues, “Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting after ‘a discussion among the campaign leadership’ about Iseman.”
So here we go again. We just can’t leave it alone. We insist on holding our political figures to a higher standard than few of us could ever hope to meet. And this is not to say that the veiled suggestions about McCain are true. This is to say that the fact that even the thought that they may be true is enough to make the New York Times is sad. I find myself wanting to ask: Why should this be “news”? Who decides these things?
And if we are going to make this kind of thing “news” in a campaign for president of the United States, can we at least be fair?
The suggestion here in the stories by the Times and, later, the Post, is that Senator McCain took actions (the writing of letters, it seems) on behalf of a firm (it owned television stations) that had hired the female lobbyist in question to pursue its interests on Capitol Hill. The implication is that McCain wrote those letters because of his friendship with the lobbyist.
Yet the Associate Press report today says that “Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, said McCain’s staff provided the Times with ‘approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist’s clients and her public relations firm’s clients,’ but none of the examples were included in the paper’s story.”
(Boldface mine.)
This is what I mean by fairness. Why did the Times not report, in fairness, that while McCain apparently did write letters favorable to a client of Ms. Iseman, he also often took positions unfavorable to her clients? Why not also point that out? Would that take the “shine” off the story just a little, do you think? Would that make us all stop and think, so what’s the problem?
For his part, McCain said in a news conference today that he and Ms. Iseman are friends, and have never been partnered romantically.
And here is the entire statement released by the McCain campaign today through Hazelbaker:
“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”
I don’t know whether John McCain had a dalliance with a female lobbyist years ago or not. I am betting not…but I admit I could be wrong. Yet there is a larger question here. Dare I even ask it?
So what????
If this kind of thing was made “news” in the coverage of an election for president of France, everyone would be laughing. Not at the candidate…at the pressfor making such a hullabaloo about nothing.
There’s much more to say about this, which we will continue to discuss tomorrow. But for now I must ask again…if we ARE going to make a Major Big Deal out of this in our provincial, sexually uptight, prudish country, can we at least be fair to the man? Can we at least be accurate and complete in reporting that McCain took positions in opposition to the interests of Ms. Iseman’s clients on several occasions? Can we at least bring some balance to this “news”?