Russert: "[T]he story about Senator McCain and lobbyists and ethics and money -- that continues" -- but not on Meet the Press
SUMMARY: On February 24, Tim Russert stated on NBC's Today that "the story about Senator [John] McCain and lobbyists and ethics and money -- that continues. It's been on the front page of several papers for the last three days. ... We have not heard the end of that discussion about Senator McCain." However, since that date, "the story" has not "continue[d]" on Meet the Press.
Commenting on a February 21 New York Times article about Sen. John McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert asserted during the February 24 edition of NBC's Today: "It's interesting, this story about sex has somewhat dissipated and will, as long as no one steps forward and publicly criticizes Senator McCain or contradicts him in a public way. But the story about Senator McCain and lobbyists and ethics and money -- that continues. It's been on the front page of several papers for the last three days. I believe it's a story the Democrats will continue to seize on. We have not heard the end of that discussion about Senator McCain." Later that day, Russert discussed the Times story -- and related stories -- on his program, NBC's Meet the Press. Since then, several news outlets have reported on stories "about Senator McCain and lobbyists and ethics and money." The Washington Post and the Times have published front-page stories on actions reportedly taken by McCain that have benefited wealthy donors and that were, in at least one case, facilitated by lobbyists with connections to McCain campaigns past and present. But despite Russert's suggestion that "the story continues," it has not "continue[d]" on Meet the Press, according to a Media Matters for America review of the program's transcripts from March 2 through May 18.
Media Matters' review of Meet the Press found only two mentions of issues related to "Senator McCain and lobbyists and ethics and money" over the course of 12 programs. In both cases, the issue was raised by one of his guests, and in neither case did Russert himself comment on the assertions. On the March 2 edition of the program, Democratic strategist James Carville said of McCain, "He has 59 lobbyists in his campaign. I mean, idea that he's going to be some kind of reform thing when this is over is, is not going to play out," and Republican strategist Mike Murphy asserted, "You ask any Republican lobbyist in town, there is no Republican senator more disliked" than McCain. On the April 27 edition of Meet the Press, Democratic National Committee chairman Gov. Howard Dean asserted, "You know, we're spending a lot of time on process, and I think most Americans care about whether they want to be in Iraq or not for a hundred years, about the economy, about health care." He added, "I think they care about John McCain's reinvention of himself after the Keating Five. Turned out he wasn't such a reformer, as it was. Those are, I think, the -- the things people are worried about." Russert responded, "Well, but the Democrats are very worried about who's going to be the nominee and whether or not the result will reflect the primary process."
Since Russert's assertion that "[w]e have not heard the end of that discussion about Senator McCain," Russert has had the opportunity to follow up on any of numerous reports, but has not done so.
For example, in a May 9 article headlined "McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer," the Post reported that McCain "championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers." The Post continued:
Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks.
When McCain's legislation passed in November 2005, the ranch owner gave the job of building as many as 12,000 homes to SunCor Development, a firm in Tempe, Ariz., run by Steven A. Betts, a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the presumptive Republican nominee. Betts said he and McCain never discussed the deal.
The Post also noted that "opponents were baffled by [McCain's] seemingly contradictory positions" on the legislation, and quoted Janine Blaeloch, founder and director of the Western Lands Project, asserting, "The bizarre thing to me regarding McCain is, we spent a lot of time with his staff, and we all seemed to be on the same page about the problems with this swap. But somehow, John McCain kept pushing it forward."
Additionally, the Post reported:
Betts is among a string of donors who have benefited from McCain-engineered land swaps. In 1994, the senator helped a lobbyist for land developer Del Webb Corp. pursue an exchange in the Las Vegas area, according to the Center for Public Integrity. McCain sponsored two bills, in 1991 and 1994, sought by donor Donald R. Diamond that yielded the developer thousands of acres in trade for national parkland.
Also, on April 22, the Times reported extensively on Diamond in an article headlined "A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain." That article reported that Diamond "was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain." The article continued:
When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain's endorsement as "a close personal friend."
Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, "You will find him as honorable and committed as I have."
Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond's team promised that he could "help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army" because Mr. Diamond "has been very active with Senator McCain," a partner said in a deposition.
The article described Diamond as "one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain's current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far."
Later, in an article for the May 19 issue of Newsweek -- posted to Newsweek's website on May 10, as dated reader comments on the article indicate -- investigative reporter Michael Isikoff noted that McCain had tapped Douglas Goodyear to run the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, and reported that "some allies worry that Goodyear's selection could fuel perceptions that McCain -- who has portrayed himself as a crusader against special interests -- is surrounded by lobbyists. Goodyear is CEO of DCI Group, a consulting firm that earned $3 million last year lobbying for ExxonMobil, General Motors and other clients." Isikoff continued:
Potentially more problematic: the firm was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Burma's military junta, which had been strongly condemned by the State Department for its human-rights record and remains in power today. Justice Department lobbying records show DCI pushed to "begin a dialogue of political reconciliation" with the regime. It also led a PR campaign to burnish the junta's image, drafting releases praising Burma's efforts to curb the drug trade and denouncing "falsehoods" by the Bush administration that the regime engaged in rape and other abuses. "It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago," Goodyear told NEWSWEEK, adding the junta's record in the current cyclone crisis is "reprehensible."
Goodyear resigned after the story appeared. On May 11, a second McCain staffer, Doug Davenport, resigned as a result of his work at DCI Group as well.
On May 16, citing The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, a post on NBC's First Read blog noted, "The other McCain news is that the campaign is paying more attention to his campaign's links to lobbyists. After two staffers had to resign because of their ties to lobbying Myanmar, campaign manager Rick Davis "e-mailed to McCain's entire staff a memo entitled 'McCain Campaign Conflicts Policy' -- Effective Today" that includes a questionnaire asking about previous professional activities." The First Read post went on to note a May 15 article by Politico's Ben Smith that reported McCain's campaign "asked a prominent Republican consultant, Craig Shirley, to leave his official campaign role Thursday after a Politico inquiry about Shirley's dual role consulting for the campaign and for an independent 527 group opposing the Democratic presidential candidates."
The New York Times reported on McCain's new "conflicts policy" for campaign staff in a May 17 article headlined "In Effort to Avoid Conflicts, McCain Issues New Rules for Staff," and noted that McCain "said Friday that his presidential campaign was beginning a new 'vetting process' intended to end the embarrassments over staff ties to private interests, foreign governments or independent political groups." Also on May 17, The Washington Post, in an article headlined "More Campaign Staffers Out Because of New Ethics Policy," reported that McCain's campaign "continued to dismiss staff members this week for violating its new ethics policy, as Democrats ratcheted up pressure on McCain advisers for their lobbying backgrounds." That article noted that McCain "dismissed two staff members Thursday after unveiling the policy."
As Media Matters noted in a February 26 item, despite the media's long-perpetuated myth of McCain as a straight-talking maverick who is feared by lobbyists and representatives of special interests, The Huffington Post reported that McCain's campaign had more current and former lobbyists on staff or as advisers than any other candidate, and Public Citizen reported that McCain had more current and former lobbyist fundraising bundlers than any other candidate.
From the February 24 edition of NBC's Today:
JENNA WOLFE (correspondent): All right. And let's quickly turn to the Republican race, and it's been a few days since that New York Times article came out alleging an inappropriate relationship between John McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. Last night, Clark Hoyt, the Times public editor, said this -- wrote this -- published a story saying, quote, "If a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than the Times was able to provide. ... The pity of it is that without the sex, the Times was on to a good story."
Tim, did this story raise some questions about McCain's association with lobbyists, in general? I mean, he's been that guy wanting to fight special interests all along, right?
RUSSERT: Yes. It's interesting, this story about sex has somewhat dissipated and will, as long as no one steps forward and publicly criticizes Senator McCain or contradicts him in a public way. But the story about Senator McCain and lobbyists and ethics and money -- that continues. It's been on the front page of several papers for the last three days. I believe it's a story the Democrats will continue to seize on. We have not heard the end of that discussion about Senator McCain.















despite the media's long-perpetuated myth of McCain as a straight-talking maverick who is feared by lobbyists
Of course the lobbyists fear McCain. They are sincerely afraid that he will stop signing their paychecks!
smearing
Interesting word choice.
Yes, that's what he asked. As if we cannot discuss the errors and omissions of Tim Russert and chew gum at the same time. Well, maybe Bobthep can't do it, but we can. As if gas price concerns have anything to do with the errors and omissions of Tim Russert.
It's a total non sequitor to bring up gas prices on this thread. How like Bobthep to try to distract from the current discussion.
Yawn
Tell ya what-- when those wonderful Democrats actually do something about it, let me know. Far as I'm concerned they are no better than the Republicans & are beholding to lobbyist as well.
Irony,
Name me one politican that claims to be the friend of lobbyist.
They all say the same crap. That includes Obama & Clinton.
False.
First, you do not need to employ lobbyists to be guilty of taking money from them. After all, thats the basis of special interest groups.
Second, Obama has taken money from them by claiming there is a difference between "lawyer advocates" and "lawyer lobbyists" which is hair splitting and untrue...there is no difference.
There's this:
"A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans"
Hillary Clinton, defending her huge lobbyist funding at YearlyKos.
McCain has lobbyist support regardless what he says, and so does Obama.
During campaign speeches, Obama frequently makes the contention that “I’m the only candidate who doesn’t take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists.”
Obama has raised nearly $14 million from lawyers and lobbyists. In October, Obama raised about $125,000 at a fundraising event in the Washington offices of Greenberg Traurig, the law firm that once employed convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Obama has sought to draw a distinction between “lawyer advocates” and “lawyer lobbyists,” but some non-partisan experts see that as “a distinction without a difference,” as they both operate as special interests.
Columbus,
Can you reference your numbers and the comment by non-partisans?
Center for Responsive Politcs and League of Women Voters to name two sources. And before you claim this is a partisan outlook, its not. There are multiple sources of this (one from his own Chicago's Tribune http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_lobbyists_no_lawyers_yes.html) as well as a three piece set of candidate falsehoods on Fox (on McCain, Clinton, and Obama):
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/trail-of-tall-tales-barack-obama/
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/21/trail-of-tall-tales-hillary-clinton/
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/22/trail-of-tall-tales-john-mccain/
Columbus,
First of all, your $14 million number is a complete fabrication (and Fox News is not a source for anything but lies).
Second, the $125,000 was raised at a fundraiser, no lobbyists contributed.
Third, according to factcheck.org, Obama has not accepted any money from any PACs or lobbyists period.
Fourth, he never said he would not take money from lawyers.
Fifth, Obama did not try to make any distinctions, he simply refuses money from lobbyists.
So, once again you were very loose with the facts.
All McCain all the time here at MMFA. Where did everyone else go?
I see they are now reaching back to February to expose some alleged misinformation of missing information by the media because someone at MMFA can't find anything more current to whine about.
Ahh the sweet stroll down memory lane and past gas. :-)
True.
Especially after what Bush and Co. did to anyone who disagreed with them in these almost brutal 8 years.
Bobthep says that we've forgotten Bush. Of course that's totally off the point and irrelevant.
Media Matters doesn't highlight any particular candidate or office holder. They highlight misinformation and omissions in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.
If there's lots of inaccurate info out there in the media about Bush, then they have lots of posts relating to Bush here. If there's inaccurate coverage, or the converse, a lack of coverage of McCain, then they cover it.
The media isn't covering Bush too much. He's not doing much, and since he'll be in office only 7 more months, then he's not a top storymaker anymore.
All McCain all the time here at MMFA. Where did everyone else go?
Seems Brock & Co. have stamped out all other Conservative mis-information ;-)
Oh Governor,
You spent that entire thread dodging credibility grenades, do you really want to back to that minefield again?
you still had your head handed to you on that thread
Really? Do tell, Tommy, when is it not sexist for a man to call a women a "b*tch"? Bet you can't do it....
When is it not? How about when the shoe fits...?
There are multiple meanings of the word first off. Most commonly referring to someones attitude. No different than a woman calling a man a "D***". Its not sexist, just a term based on attitude.
I love the pride you wiggle in for that, good for you. Too bad, however, you chose to hurl schoolyard expletives and link to genital bashing cartoons at anonymous posters here with such ease.
Keep patting yourself on the back for not being "sexist" Governor, for apparently you aren't able to do it to often.
Nice job dodging my question at 4:27:13.
Have a good weekend.
Wahhhhhh Wahhhhhhh
Gov I see you flagged my other posts to you. Baby.
What?
Oh my God you're insane.
Good bye Gov. Twerp.
Exactly Columbus.
His flag finger must get tired ;-)
What a liar. I never threatened you with violence. Seriously dude, you have some issues.
Consider yourself on my Ignore List from this day forward.
There has been more on the Castellanos thread since you left, it is rather amusing.
What's funny is that you think that you're a better authority on word meanings than a dictionary. Even accepting your assertion of the only way the word is used (which is ludicrous), you still have no point. Because then if you're dealing with a woman who thinks that she has a right to do whatever she wants but that a man doesn't, then "putting her in her place" could be putting her on an equal level with men. That would be consistent with believing in gender equality, while sexism is about A)demeaning women as an entire gender and B)asserting their inferiority to men. Part A doesn't work because you can know not all women are like that, and part B doesn't apply for reasons I've stated.
Likewise, it wouldn't be sexist for a woman to call a domineering man a prick to put him in his place. Would you really chastise a woman for that? If men can't assert their own equality the same way women can, then there is no equality. And like I said on that thread, I empathize with the historic inequality of the female gender, but that's not going to make me accept the idea that women can do absolutely anything they want to men and then cry about nasty names.
The fact that you think you can pursue this argument onto another thread indicates that you don't have a sense of humility. Established meanings of words don't matter to you, your failed arguments don't affect your attitude, you just think your opinion overrides any facts and logic whether you can address them meaningfully or not. That lends no credibility to your posts, and makes for a horrible representation of your ideology. If you can do better, you should.
Your opinion is noted, and the lack of reason behind it has been amply demonstrated. You can make the same baseless assertion over and over again until Doomsday, it won't magically make it true. I do believe I saw you express that same sentiment to someone else recently, so you should have no problem grasping that point.
The term can be chosen simply because it fits the gender, not because the insult is directly aimed at it.
How does the term "bitch" fit the gender?
It's fitting because it's gender-specific, by your own argument. "Son-of-a-bitch" wouldn't be fitting because that refers to men, for instance.
There's another part of that story, where the boyfriend physically threatened me for money since they couldn't get it through litigation. I called him an a-hole. I don't apologize for that either, they were both vile, contemptible people. I think we can agree on that.
That term is gender-specific in my usage. When I say it, it refers to a man. But obviously when I use that term I'm not insulting him first because he's my own gender, it's because of behavior and the choice of word is appropriate because it's a man. And it can't be about applying his behavior to all men, because it would be applying it to myself as well. Obviously I'm not going to do that.
But as soon as I'm talking about a woman, then I must be insulting her based on her gender first instead of her behavior. Anything else is just not possible, because apparently one cannot make a harsh criticism of someone outside of their own gender for any reason whatsoever without being sexist. Almost as if by magic, my entire set of attitudes about gender equality disappear, and I'm attributing whatever she did to every woman on earth. And this immediate and radical transformation occurs without me even knowing it!
Truly hilarious. By any standards of behavior what this woman did to me was absolutely unacceptable, but to insult her means I'm talking about her gender above anything else.
I'm sure you'll ignore the glaring idiocy of your argument and reply with a zombie-like repetition of something that's been shot down three times already, but I'm willing to be surprised by a relevant response.
Not in your mind, if you are incapable of any analysis whatsoever. I can't force you to make cogent and relevant replies. The prediction of the zombie-like reply was too easy to make.
Isn't this the same game Tommy plays so often? You can't change his mind no matter how weak his argument clearly is, then he acts as if his position is valid because he hasn't changed his mind.
Something to think about, if you find yourself capable of thinking about something.
But it's not a "sexist" term if it's used to describe behavior. If it's used to describe all women, yes, but otherwise, no. The definition of "sexism" supports this, which is something you simply refuse to acknowledge.
Really? What behavioral traits are listed in any definition of the term that are exclusively demonstrated by women? How does the term assert that all women possess these traits? The only way that argument works is if you believe all women behave reprehensibly. Otherwise, it only applies to some women.
And again, if it only applies to some women, then it isn't sexist, because sexism is the denigration of the entire gender by definition. No matter how many times you assert the meaning of that word, the dictionary trumps your "opinion". I'm sorry that objective reality is such a hurdle for your contrary argumentative whims.
Then you should be able to address the points presented to you instead of just repeating unsubstantiated assertions.
I just noticed something else as I was reviewing the original thread. When I told you about my personal use of the word, you said "I don't blame you for calling her a sexist name under those conditions." Then you said:"let’s cut the crap, that scenario was all about gender. If it weren’t then he would have called something offensive but gender-neutral." (emphasis in original)
If it was "all" about gender, then how could the conditions (which is her behavior, nothing else) possibly make my comment to her understandable? But as soon as Tommy talks to you, it couldn't be about behavior at all, because if it was I would use a gender-neutral term. What happened to change your views there, outside of someone you don't like taking issue with your comment?
That's a contrary argumentative whim. You don't like someone so you'll adjust your views to contradict them. You don't deny acts of sexism for yourself, your definition is so broad that one has to imagine that the vast majority of people make sexist comments at one point or another, and the act can be justified to some degree depending on conditions. Bearing these admissions of yours in mind, why take issue with what Jeter said in the first place?
First off, if you admit sexist comments yourself then it's not a big deal when someone else does it. You don't really have any moral high ground there, obviously, so it's not really worth pursuing the point very far. More importantly, you're not five years old, you know some women are malicious and unpleasant. My story shouldn't have been some grand revelation to you, and you indicate it's not because you admit you have your own stories to tell. So even though you surely realize there are times when you can't blame people for using the term because of some women's behavior, you say Jeter is a sexist for saying that some women "deserve" the title. As I said elsewhere, if you can't blame someone for using the term, then the term is obviously deserved.
All of this strongly indicates that you were acting on your personal dislike, not on any principled disagreement with what he actually said. That's an opinion, but you see that I can back mine up.
I eagerly await your one-sentence disagreement.
To continue from that thread, since the text boxes are getting so thin:
"A man calls a women that word first because she is a woman and second to put her in her place, You've done it, I've done it. It's sexist."
Here's another issue I have. If every single person who's called someone of the opposite gender a gender-specific name is sexist, that's an awful lot of people. Everyone who's been cheated on, stolen from, lied to, abused, had their children abused or molested or murdered, whatever, they're all sexists. Men and women alike. At some point the charge loses its impact. It's like chastising someone for drinking a beer, at least half the world's population has consumed alcohol at some point or other so it doesn't mean much. The frequency of the behavior defines the social acceptability of it. If we all do it, then it's "so what?" when it's pointed out.
Now I, personally, think sexism is a terrible thing. Men and women should be treated equally because they are equal. If you change the definition of the word to encompass all of those people then you dilute the term for those who really do think that one gender is inferior. You equate two completely different levels and types of behavior by consolidating them into one term.
Geez, AA, you know what would really help the cause of the rightys around here?
If there could be one single item where none of you insisted on posting a comment that had no other purpose than to prove that you completely missed the point.
MMFA didn't reach back to February for misinformation.
You are right about one thing;February was quite a while ago. It's also when Tim Russert assured his audience that he wasn't done with the stories on Grampy's ethics problems.
As of May 18, although some other sources have been reporting on Mccain's less-than-savory dealings, Russert has largely ignored it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll check some of the other threads and see who need a "helping hand"with the fundamentals.
-- All McCain all the time here at MMFA. -- anotheramerican
Here's some info on one very plausible explanation:
-- Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock...quietly assumed the chairmanship of what's expected to be the main vehicle for independent Democratic attacks on McCain, now called Progressive Media USA. -- Politico
-- Progressive Media USA, the group organized to be the main soft-money advertising vehicle for Democrats in the fall, will dramatically scale back its efforts in deference to the wishes of the party's presumptive nominee...Those familiar with the group's decision cast it as largely the result of the stated desire of Sen.Barack Obama's campaign to not direct funds to outside organizations in hopes of better controlling the Democratic message in the fall. -- Huffington Post
-- Progressive Media USA ...is responsible for a strikingly large number of the anti-McCain stories to appear in the national press over the past six months.
However, at the behest of the Obama campaign senior leadership,it has now been decapitated and decommissioned by Barack Obama's uber-wealthy donors. -- openleft.com
Look at the bright side. MMFA did a study a while back documenting the fact that Democrats were underrepresented on the program so now Meet the Press is correcting that mistake by concentrating on the Democratic race for the nomination. Geez, you guys are never happy.
Would it be possible for Timmie Russert to ask a Democrat...
about the lobbying and cronyism issues of John McBush?
Oh,no, no, no!!!!! They might attack St. John McCain.
Or would he prefer to focus on Rev. Wright and flag lapel pins, and who "really" loves America, etc. ad nauseum?
Aw, come on you guys...
Russert is eventually going to get to this stuff. Around January, February '09.
Columbus,
A racist like ytou should not discuss racism.
Seems like quite a lot of John's party are beginning to be unhappy with him.
It does seem strange that he's their candidate. I take it as evidence that the previous kingmakers in the GOP have lost influence and/or motivation in this election cycle. Its also possible many are in jail or are fighting to stay out of it.
Barring taxes, conservative judicial appointments, and emperor sized executive powers, I don't know how much of the neocon ajenda he has aligence to.
McCain is a hypocrite. Seems that he hasn't changed since the time he was caught with his hand in " Keating Five S&L scandal" cookiejar. We have to listen to him preach ethics and about how he hasn't taken a pennies worth of pork money while he's been gaming the system by securing millions in federal funds for large land developers.
I'm still waiting to hear anyone in the MSM talk about this!!!
Here's an article reported by Reuters on 18 May 2008:
http://www.truthout.org/article/mccain-secured-federal-funds-aiding-developer
Other news organizations have had no trouble finding the time and the data and the interest to cover the lobbyist ties McCain has. For Meet the Press to have not covered it is news. For them to have not covered it since February when Russert himself acknowledged that it's a story that should be covered is really offensive.
His failure to cover that on a major Sunday morning talk show helps forward the conservative agenda that McCain not have his blemishes covered. McCain tries to be the maverick. The news media helps promote that image, but reality shows us that he is not a maverick now if he ever was before.