Gabriel Sherman of The New Republic has a long piece on the background to the Times' reporting and publishing of their McCain "scandal" involving the FCC and a comely young lobbyist for Paxson. However, a key bit of info is omitted by TNR - Times reporter Stephen Labaton, who has a byline on the outrage du jour, mustered a couple of front-pagers reporting in numbing detail on the McCain-Paxson connection back in Jan 2000, although that attempt at scandal was quenched by a McCain document dump. Consequently, this latest hit piece is Mr. Labaton's second bite of the apple; if the Times story slides past the Paxson details (as noted by Megan McCardle and others), it is not because the Times reporters were unaware of them, but rather because they quit on the ethical "scandal" eight years ago.
Some flavor:
McCain Urged F.C.C. Action On Issue Involving Supporter
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: January 6, 2000
Senator John McCain, who has made fixing the
corrosive influence of money in politics the cornerstone of his
campaign, twice demanded in recent weeks that a regulatory agency take
action in a matter that ultimately benefited a major contributor to his
presidential campaign.
Or the next day:
January 7, 2000
Issue for McCain Is Matching Record With His Rhetoric
By STEPHEN LABATON
Eleven years ago, Senator John McCain
defended himself against ethics accusations for his ties to a corrupt
savings association and a campaign contributor by saying that he had
performed a legitimate constituent service when he met with regulators
who were preparing to seize the institution.
And eight years later, here we go again.
Mr. Kleiman, evidently unwise to the ways of Washington, asks this:
Is it routine for a Senator from Arizona to pressure regulatory agencies on behalf of companies based in Florida?
Let's see what Mr. Paxson himself had to say about this, as quoted by Stephen Labaton on Jan 6, 2000:
Mr. Paxson said he had given money to many politicians, and was
involved in one fund-raiser in Florida that was the largest ever for
Democrats in that state.
''I'm a political person,'' Mr. Paxson
said. ''Why? Because I happen to be in a business that politics is very
heavily involved in.''
My FEC search on Lowell Paxson shows many donations; the tilt is Republican but I notice donations to Democrats John Dingell, Charles Rangel, Ed Markey (House Dem and Telecom Subcommittee Chair), Bob Graham, Harry Reid, Bill Nelson, Daniel Inouye, Mark Foley (oops!), Max Cleland, and Ernest Hollings, as well as many Republicans. Gee, is it normal for a Florida businessman to make so many contributions to politicians of both parties from around the nation? Sure, if his business is politically sensitive, as Mr. Paxson averred.
Back in 2000 McCain defused the issue with a document dump, as James Risen reported on Jan 9:
January 9, 2000
Responding to Criticism, McCain Releases Letters
By James Risen
Senator John McCain of Arizona released
hundreds of letters today that he has sent to federal agencies under
the jurisdiction of his powerful Senate committee, including more than
a dozen involving the businesses of contributors to his campaign for
the Republican presidential nomination.
Mr. McCain said he was
acting to defuse criticism of his interventions before the Federal
Communications Commission on behalf of companies regulated by that
agency, one of many supervised by the Commerce Committee, which he has
headed since 1997.
In sheer volume, the release of more than
two years of committee correspondence was both a remarkable display of
openness and an effort to show that there was nothing unusual in what
Mr. McCain has done by writing to agencies that regulate the companies
whose employees have supported his campaign.
''If people view
them in their entirety, they will see that I have acted on one
fundamental principle, to protect the consumer,'' the senator said
today while on a campaign swing through South Carolina. ''The
overwhelming majority of these communications are: 'Please act, please
act.' ''
...
The letters to the Federal Communications Commission show that in
several instances, Mr. McCain sought help for companies in
telecommunications and related fields that have also given to his
presidential campaign.
But officials from both the McCain
campaign and the Senate committee stressed today that the letters were
sometimes sent without prompting from lobbyists and contributors, and
that they reflected Mr. McCain's longtime policy positions. Some were
also written jointly with other members of the Commerce panel,
including Democrats.
Risen didn't brandish a smoking gun, and a month later the Times kissed and made up with a McCain The Maverick piece:
February 13, 2000
THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE SPECIAL INTERESTS; McCain Broke With His Party in Licensing Flap
By JOHN M. BRODER AND DON VAN NATTA JR.
I'm surprised that Gabriel Sherman of TNR missed all this backstory to the backstory. Here is how Stephen Labaton is presented in the current TNR story:
The McCain investigation began
in November, after Rutenberg, who covers the political media and
advertising beat, got a tip. Within a few days, Washington bureau chief
Dean Baquet assigned Thompson and Labaton to join the project and,
later, conservative beat reporter David Kirkpatrick to chip in as well.
Labaton brought his expertise with regulatory issues to the team...
And a bit later:
Of the reporters in the room, Bennett knew Labaton the best. In the
1990s, Labaton had covered the Whitewater investigation, and Bennett
viewed him as a straight-shooting, accurate reporter who could be
reasoned with.
I would be shocked if Bennet was not also aware of Labaton's early work on the Paxson-McCain story.
So, let's try for a Big Finish - the Times dropped these torpedoes in the water in 2000 and misfired then; now they are back, with a piece heavy with innuendo and padded by chit-chat about the Keating case. But eight years ago they gave up on the ethical scandal, and their sourcing for the sex scandal probably would not pass muster at the National Enquirer.
Props to
Greg Sargent, who correctly notes that if the Times wrote this thin a story about a Democrat, lefties would leap from tall buildings.
Voter --
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;--
Thou art thyself, though not a real Hussein.
What's Hussein? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Obama would, were he not too Hussein call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title:--Obama, doff Hussein;
And for Hussein, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.
Obama.
I take thee at thy word:
Give me your vote, and I'll be new baptiz'd;
Henceforth I never will be not Hussein
Voter.
What man art thou that, thus bescreen'd in night,
So stumblest on my counsel?
Obama.
With Hussein
I know not how to tell thee who I am:
Hussein, dear saint, is hateful to myself,
Because it is an enemy to thee.
Had I my ID, I would tear the word.
Voter.
My ears have yet not drunk a hundred words
Of that tongue's utterance, yet I know the sound;
Art thou Obama and yet not a Hussein?
Obama.
Never Hussein, if my pollster dislike.