|
Is John McCain
a Liar?
One of the pressing questions for American voters as they look
toward the formal nomination of McCain as the Republican
presidential candidate is whether he is a phony who’s long been
protected by his gilded reputation or whether he suffers from
severe – or at least convenient – memory loss
By
Robert
Parry.
29/02/08 "MEO"
-- -- In journalism, it’s a
safe bet that if you write a story with the suggestion that a
prominent male politician is bedding an attractive female
lobbyist, whatever other point you hoped to make will be
overlooked.
That appears to have been the case with the New York Times
article on Feb. 21, which led with suspicions held by some
McCain staffers that the Arizona senator had gotten too cozy
with lobbyist Vicky Iseman. The Times story then veered off into
a historical examination of McCain’s over-confidence about his
own moral rectitude.
Yet, despite the Times’ best efforts to explore this
complicated history of McCain as both ethics sinner and ethics
reformer, the public and pundits never got much past the sex
angle, an insinuation that McCain, 71, and Iseman, 40, both
adamantly denied.
Thus, McCain succeeded in deflecting the story’s more
significant question: Is McCain’s reputation as a
straight-talking politician a sham?
Put differently, is the presumptive Republican presidential
nominee – like Colin Powell – a media darling whose reputation
for honesty is largely undeserved? The question is not an
insignificant one.
In 2003, Secretary of State Powell exploited his sterling
image to help mislead the nation into the Iraq War. [For details
on Powell, see our book Neck Deep.] Now, McCain hopes his
“straight-talk-express” appeal will help keep US troops in Iraq
indefinitely.
So, there’s urgency for Americans to know whether John McCain
is a sanctimonious phony and a self-assured liar, who’s just
masquerading as the guy who tells it like it is and disdains the
self-serving ways of Washington.
Evidence of Lies
Though no new evidence has surfaced about McCain and Iseman
as a romantic item, McCain’s blanket denial about assisting
Iseman and other lobbyists is fast disintegrating.
As we noted in an article on Feb. 21, McCain’s assertion in
response to the Times article -- that during his quarter-century
congressional career, he “has never violated the public trust,
never done favors for special interests or lobbyists” -- just
isn’t true.
For instance, the Times story recalled how McCain helped one
of his early financial backers, wheeler-dealer Charles Keating,
frustrate oversight from federal banking regulators who were
examining Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan Association.
At Keating's urging, McCain wrote letters, introduced bills
and pushed a Keating associate for a job on a banking regulatory
board. In 1987, McCain joined several other senators in two
private meetings with federal banking regulators on Keating’s
behalf.
Two years later, Lincoln collapsed, costing the US taxpayers
$3.4 billion. Keating eventually went to prison and three other
senators from the so-called Keating Five saw their political
careers ruined.
McCain drew a Senate reprimand for his involvement and later
lamented his faulty judgment. “Why didn’t I fully grasp the
unusual appearance of such a meeting?” he wrote in his 2002
memoir, Worth the Fighting For.
But some people close to the case thought McCain got off too
easy.
Not only was McCain taking donations from Keating and his
business circle, getting free rides on Keating’s corporate jet
and enjoying joint vacations in the Bahamas – McCain’s second
wife, the beer fortune heiress Cindy Hensley, had invested with
Keating in an Arizona shopping mall.
In the years that followed, however, McCain not only got out
from under the shadow of the Keating Five scandal but found a
silver lining in the cloud, transforming the case into a
lessons-learned chapter of his personal narrative.
McCain, as born-again reformer, soon was winning over the
Washington press corps with his sponsorship of ethics
legislation, like the McCain-Feingold bill limiting “soft money”
contributions to the political parties.
However, there was still the other side of John McCain as he
wielded enormous power from his position as chairman of the
Senate Commerce Committee, which helped him solicit campaign
donations from corporations doing business before the panel.
Pressure on the FCC
The Times story suggested that McCain did favors on behalf of
Iseman’s lobbying clients, including two letters that McCain
wrote in 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission demanding
that it act on a long-delayed request by Iseman’s client,
Florida-based Paxson Communications, to buy a Pittsburgh
television station.
In the furious counter-offensive against the Times article,
McCain’s campaign issued a point-by-point denial, calling those
letters routine correspondence that were handled by staff
without McCain meeting either with Paxson or anyone from
Iseman’s firm, Alcalde & Fay.
"No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally
asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," his campaign
said.
But that turned out not to be true. Newsweek’s investigative
reporter Michael Isikoff dug up a sworn deposition from Sept.
25, 2002, in which McCain himself declared that “I was contacted
by Mr. Paxson on this issue. … He wanted their [the FCC’s]
approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that
Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint.”
Though McCain claimed not to recall whether he had spoken
with Paxson’s lobbyist [presumably a reference to Iseman], he
added, “I’m sure I spoke to [Paxson],” according to the
deposition. [See Newsweek’s Web posting, Feb. 22, 2008]
McCain’s letters to the FCC, which Chairman William Kennard
criticized as “highly unusual,” came in the same period when
Paxson’s company was ferrying McCain to political events aboard
its corporate jet and donating $20,000 to his campaign.
After the Feb. 21 Times article appeared, McCain’s spokesmen
confirmed that Iseman accompanied McCain on at least one of
those flights from Florida to Washington, though McCain said in
the 2002 deposition that “I do not recall” if Paxson’s lobbyist
was onboard.
First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who conducted the
deposition in connection with a challenge to the McCain-Feingold
law, asked McCain if the benefits that he received from Paxson
created “at least an appearance of corruption here?”
“Absolutely,” McCain answered. “I believe that there could
possibly be an appearance of corruption because this system has
tainted all of us.”
Sticking to the Story
When Newsweek went to McCain’s 2008 campaign with the seeming
contradictions between the deposition and the denial of the
Times article, McCain’s people stuck to their story that that
the senator had never discussed the FCC issue with Paxson or his
lobbyist.
“We do not think there is a contradiction here,” campaign
spokeswoman Ann Begeman told Newsweek. “It appears that Senator
McCain, when speaking of being contacted by Paxson, was speaking
in shorthand of his staff being contacted by representatives of
Paxson. Senator McCain does not recall being asked directly by
Paxson or any representative of him or by Alcalde & Fay to
contact the FCC regarding the Pittsburgh license transaction.”
That new denial, however, soon crumbled when the Washington
Post interviewed Paxson, who said he had talked with McCain in
his Washington office several weeks before McCain sent the
letters to the FCC.
The broadcast executive also believed that Iseman had helped
arrange the meeting and likely was in attendance. “Was Vicki
there? Probably,” Paxson said. [Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2008]
A day earlier, the Post also noted the discrepancy between a
central tenet of McCain’s campaign – his denunciation of
lobbyists and the corrupt revolving-door ways of Washington –
and his reliance on lobbyists for his congressional work and his
campaign.
“When McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic
Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign,
virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture
he has long decried,” the Post reported on Feb. 22.
In its article about McCain and Iseman, the New York Times
also noted that in 2001, McCain helped found a non-profit
organization called the Reform Institute supposedly to advance
McCain’s signature cause of political ethics.
But the institute drew much of its funding from companies
trying to ingratiate themselves with McCain and his Commerce
Committee. Though denying any impropriety, McCain severed his
ties to the Reform Institute in 2005 because of the “bad
publicity.”
So, one of the pressing questions for American voters as they
look toward the formal nomination of McCain as the Republican
presidential candidate is whether he is a phony who’s long been
protected by his gilded reputation or whether he suffers from
severe – or at least convenient – memory loss.
McCain also may have learned some tricks from watching his
former rival, George W. Bush, whose tendency to lie grew
increasingly brazen after 9/11.
As Commander in Chief for a nation at war, Bush brushed aside
questions about his statements not squaring with the facts: From
his insistence that waterboarding is not torture to Saddam
Hussein not letting the UN inspectors in. [See, for instance,
Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Favorite Lie.”]
Since McCain as Commander in Chief would ensure that the
United States remains at war for the foreseeable future, he
might expect a Bush-like pass when his words diverge almost 180
degrees from the facts. Endless war will justify endless lies.
Or maybe he just believes his own press clippings – that he
is such a straight-talker that whatever comes out of his mouth
must be the truth.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in
the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest
book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush
, can be ordered at
neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy &
Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq
and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project
Truth' are also available there. Or go to
Amazon.com.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|