Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

McCain Torture Endorsement Lost Amid Media Sex Scandal Frenzy

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted February 22, 2008.


The media missed a damning story that has actual implications for American democracy.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Upon being confronted with The New York Times' "bombshell" report of his too-cozy relationship with a "lady lobbyist" during his last presidential campaign, GOP contender John McCain took a page from the Bush playbook and blamed the media.

His spokesperson, Jill Hazelbacker, called it "a hit-and-run smear campaign." McCain invoked his service to his country and issued a blunt denial: "Obviously I am very disappointed in The New York Times article," he said. "It's not true." And in what might be her second public utterance since she piped up to say that she is very proud of her country, would-be First Lady Cindy McCain -- who bears an eerie resemblance to the lobbyist in question -- joined her husband at a press conference to say that she, too, was "very disappointed in The New York Times."

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics," Hazelbacker declared in an official statement.

Maybe so -- but you can't say the same for the media. Just when it looked like McCain was comfortably, boringly, settling into his role as GOP nominee, a sexy front-pager broke that would not only spice things up, it would give the press a chance to drop everything and indulge in a little journalistic naval-gazing.

Hours after the Times posted its story Wednesday night, The Washington Post followed with its own version of a politician-meets-lobbyist tale told amid fundraising venues and inside private jets. AlterNet's Joshua Holland provides the sordid summary:

"The heart of the Times (and Washington Post) story is that staffers became concerned that McCain, the Patron Saint of Straight-Shooterdom, was overly cozy with a lobbying hottie -- a lobbyist whose clients had business before a committee McCain chaired -- and warned her off of the Senator's campaign. That comes from a named source, John Weaver, who says he was personally present at a meeting with (Vicki) Iseman, and personally warned her off."

The blogosphere lit up overnight, and following McCain's 9 a.m. press conference, every talking head on television was weighing in on the McCain "sex scandal" -- a scandal that ultimately has precious little to do with sex, given that the Times fell short of proving anything actually happened between McCain and Iseman.

In some ways, McCain is right: The media should be blamed -- but not just for shoddy reporting of a rather sexless scandal. They should be castigated for ignoring a much more important and damning story about the so-called principled maverick -- one that has actual implications for American democracy.

Mere hours before The New York Times broke its story on Wednesday, McCain made a totally unrelated -- and apparently un-newsworthy -- statement to reporters, in which he called for President Bush to veto the Senate's anti-torture bill. He talked in support of "additional techniques" for interrogation, sounding ever more in line with the White House's official stance. McCain, the "war hero" who has been an outspoken opponent of torture, voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to some 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: torture, new york times, lobbyists, john mccain, mccain sex scandal

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I don't know how
Posted by: bitsfick on Feb 22, 2008 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
true it is but someone wrote that when McCain was tortured they cut off his penis, so perhaps he is not having sex with that woman, because everyone knows eating ain't cheating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I don't Posted by: Lauren
Attack McCain for the right reasons
Posted by: Democritus on Feb 22, 2008 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The New York Times did McCain a big favor by trying to titillate the electorate with a nothing story that they'd been sitting on for weeks. This effectively takes the heat off McCain for flip-flopping all over the place in a desperate grab for the social conservative votes. When all the smoke clears, social conservatives will probably agree that he's been smeared and flock back to his cause.

It's that cause that should worry voters. Not only did McCain flip-flop on torture, he's flip-flopped on abortion rights and immigration reform, as well. He's talked out of so many sides of his mouth lately that he should have dislocated his jaw by now. It's clear that the man who rode the "straight-talk express" is now riding the "forked-tongue express." In less than a year McCain has turned into a Bush clone.

If Americans want more excessive defense spending, worse health care, more killings in Iraq, the possible bombing of Iran, more harsh interrogation, more kissing up to the moguls of Wall Street (remember his role in "the Keating five"), and more erosion of our civil liberties, then McCain is the one who will give it to them. Throwing in a little innocent hanky-panky just makes this choleric 72-year-old war monger look like a kid again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i'm not sure what the big deal is...
Posted by: sinfony78 on Feb 22, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...about the sex scandal. if some of these guys don't get paid off through corporate donations by lobbyists, they get paid off through sex...either way you look at it, the public at large loses out...the entire election system needs to change, otherwise this is nothing new - we hardly live in a democracy...the author is right, however, that the big deal is that the media didn't pick up on his torture flip-flop...they were probably on the heels of a britney spears scoop that they missed it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain's lobbying
Posted by: ibolyap on Feb 22, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I found disturbing is that a professional lobbyist had such close access to McCain and he did her bidding to help her clients. His staff were so concerned that they warned him several times that he should distance himself from her. I doubt it was sexual but still too close. I think she was doing her job and manipulating him. Her frequent visits to his office and being seen in public with him were raising eyebrows as it went beyond politican-lobbyist accepted norms. Given his history with Keating he should have known better. He acknowledged that his actions were inappropriate but continued to do her bidding. This shows very bad judgment on his part and makes me seriously question his suitably for the presidency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain's lobbying
Posted by: ibolyap on Feb 22, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Correction to posting: should be "suitability" in last line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Author is Right!
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 22, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny how even a conversation in Alternet quickly diverts from the author's main point, that McCain's switch on torture is the bigger story. His opposition to torture was the one remaining point that symbolized his supposedly principled independence, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why he did it.

Maybe he thought no one was watching. Or cared. But whom did he appease?

Interestingly, the Times is in a fight for its corporate life today. See Floyd Norris's blog. The people they seek to please probably don't worry much about torture either, but even a mediocre sex scandal is money in the bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Author is Right! Posted by: luzmejor
McCain's VP choice
Posted by: perplexed on Feb 22, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who will be McCAins VP, Jeb Bush or Dick Cheney?
I don't see any one speculationg about his VP choice and would be curiou of what others think.
Daddy Bush's endorsement must have been for a reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hopefully Sonny Perdue Posted by: Drclaw
» NO to Perdue Posted by: zipper696
Priorities
Posted by: QQOblivion on Feb 22, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to say that the main reason why McCain's apparent flip-flop on torture isn't viewed as a big story by the Big Media is that, hey, McCain is a Republican; and everybody knows anyway that ALL Republicans are twisted sadistic pro-torture monsters. So, there is no news really. We all could figure out McCain's real stance by the party he is affiliated with.
But, sadly, I think the real reason that McCain's flip-flop is not news to the corporate media is that torture is only a big deal to the MSM if some mass-killer celebrity is accused of having tortured the pretty young white blonde girl before he strangled her to death. Otherwise -- such as when torture is institutionalized and is done on a massive scale in Americans' names -- then it doesn't matter squat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't believe that ALL media is ignoring the torture issue...
Posted by: Voicedude on Feb 22, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sojournors, for one, is behind a major campaign to get Huckabee not only to just NOT support McCain, but to actually separate from and denounce him for his anti-Christian views on torture. The fact that he himself was originally against the issue (being a well known victim of it) and now has flip-flopped to be for it shows what a greedy, GOP party whore he really is.

I hope those that would normally vote GOP - at least those on the Christian end - would recognize this hypocrisy of 'values' and NOT vote for McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ectasy drug maybe?
Posted by: militaryhater on Feb 22, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain is really whacking out. Do you think that test drug the military is using, which I believe is Ectasy has been used on him? You know, wipe his brain so he has no memory of being tortured in Vietnam as a POW? For a POW to be for torture is mind blowing. Maybe Bush, really did blow his mind..with mind control.

McCain is now a different man...COMPLETELY!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's quote him!
Posted by: Crazy H on Feb 22, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't he renounce America while being tortured by the VC?

Quite obviously, he believes that information obtained by torture is valid.

I guess that means that putting those quotes on TV is fair game...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rove's the name; misdirection's the game
Posted by: willymack on Feb 22, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I'm paranoiac, but I see karl rove lurking in the political cesspool, just waiting to deflect any and all negative news about mccain's neocon leanings. This latest "scandal" is a good example. What's more important to Joe Six Pack, unconstitutional support of torture, or a juicy sex scandal? I think most of know the answer to that one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shylove
Posted by: inknowtime on Feb 22, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can you imagine Bush needing encouragement to veto this bill? Like he is going to stop and listen to somone as he is speeding to his office to sign the veto or whatever he does. So maybe McCain gets the idea, why not? It's gonna happen anyway and once he is elected he can simply do what he wants from then on.

Also I agree with the rovian theory, why not get some positive backlash for McCain plus make him look a little hotter too. Anyway the Dan Rather gambit worked rather well last time planting a story(lets see if all the sudden these sources dry up like paint!)

It is hard to resist the headline, "McCain Takes Being In Bed With Lobbyist Too Literally!!" and while in bed discovers a renewed fondness for torture!!

Or is it just a case of tortured principles so common in Washington, as well as at the CIA!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But sex WAS a big deal with Bill Clinton,
Posted by: Ellie1 on Feb 22, 2008 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and he was impeached for it. DOUBLE STANDARD HERE??????? I think so. But then Repukes are noted for double standards and hypocrisy.

What a terrific party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 22, 2008 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We already know that we're not going to vote for John McCain. Ignore him and concentrate on rolling back the Bush agenda on January 20, 2009.


Direct Primaries!

Direct Elections!

Direct Democracy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mccain is situational moralist
Posted by: whealeydj on Feb 23, 2008 3:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mccain is currently trying to draw a fine legal distinction between enchanced interrogation techniques by CIA overseas and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment by military or police personnel. Sojurners is correct this is situational morality which conservative use against liberals all the time. "Who would Jesus torture?" should be used as a slogan against pro torture Republicans and "Who would Jesus bomb?" against pro war politicians. As far as adultery goes, Jesus clearly denounced divorce. Many Americans love sex scandals so more evidence of conservatives philandering would be nice; maybe the juicy details of his divorce circa October would be nice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eclecticist, S Jim Rodriguez
Posted by: SJR505 on Feb 23, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tale of "THE DRUNKEN SAILOR" continues and reminds me of two other negatiVe outcomes : Bill "Valentino" Clinton-"I DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN..."Larry " I'M NOT GAY, BUT MY BOYFIREND IS" Craig...Score two out of three for RE-PUG-NICANS ,one for the COWARD-CRATS"..

Moreover I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, wickedness was there, and in the place of righteousness, wickedness was there as well. I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work. I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. - Ecclesiastes 3:16-18

S. JIM RODRIGUEZ+ ECLECTICIST SPIRIT SEEKER(ESS)+

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» S Jim Rodriguez Posted by: zipper696
Fuzzy Thurston is a terrorist
Posted by: gfatjax on Feb 23, 2008 6:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm amazed at the lack of attention and perspective on McCain's endorsement of torture. If there is anyone in our nation's politics who should know how ineffective and unreliable torture is, it's John McCain.
When he was a POW undergoing torture, he talked. He gave names. And the names he gave were those of the Green Bay Packers offensive linemen. Anything to make the torture stop.
And now, because he wants to be president, he doesn't care if someone gets tortured. Sure, it will cause people to give information. But they won't name Fuzzy Thurston. They'll name some nobody whom we'll then torture.
McCain. What a scoundrel. Trading truth and ethics for power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How is McCain trading ethics for anything? Posted by: photon's feather
A double whammy for Johnny-boy.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 25, 2008 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The other story that no one in the MSM wants to carry, one that rides on top (no pun intended) of the slightly salacious involvement with the Washington Hottie, is that McCain has some 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign. This from a man who claims to not take lobbyists' largesse. Sounds like parsing to me: define the word, "take."

So, not only is McCain a turncoat on the torture issue, but he is also a hypocrite on his association with lobbyists. McCain as president will virtually guarantee that the nightmare we have all been living for the last 7-1/2 years will continue. (If not worsen: remember, he is [slightly] brighter than "Duh" über-führer Bush, and thus is capable of even more damage...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

question
Posted by: Ama on Mar 12, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder what did he mean saying that he supports "additional techniques" for interrogation?
Sticking a butt plug or using a strap-on on the criminal while inter-rogating him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]