Point and counterpoint on McCain and the lobbyists
A.J. Dionne at the Washington Post is one of the few who thinks that, minus the sexual innuendos, the NY Times was onto a good story about McCain and the lobbyists.
Paul Sheehan, in an exhaustive and definitive fisking of the Times story, begs to differ. As does David Brooks, who points out McCain’s unusually exemplary record vis a vis lobbyists.
No, McCain hasn’t avoided them entirely. But for a member of Congress, he’s come about as close as it gets to treating like them lepers.
[ADDENDUM: Michael Kinsley has the definitive take on the subject].
Dionne is a whore. No disrespect intended – to whores, that is.
Michael Kinsley joins those who are skewering those who are desperately searching for a pony somewhere in all that horse manure. http://www.slate.com/id/2185134/
A sample:
“More troubling, however, is the issue of whether McCain’s letter may have led some people to worry that other people might conclude that McCain’s letter created the appearance of a conflict of interest, as well as the issue of whether the New York Times, in digging up this eight-year-old letter, was creating the possibility that some people might think there was a possibility of an appearance that the Times was suggesting the possibility of an appearance of a potential conflict of interest in McCain’s behavior, along with the most distressing possibility of all: that in this very article I may be creating the possibility that some people might worry that other people might think that I have created the appearance of suggesting that the New York Times has created the possibility that some people might worry that other people might think that McCain has created the appearance that some people might worry that other people might think that there could be an appearance that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist.”
I think Kinsley has it nailed. One thing about McCain, he is willing to buck the powers that be even when it gets him into trouble with his own. Therefore, accusing him of sucking up will be hard to do.
Thanks for the very funny but very pointed Kinsley article; just posted a link to it.
I rise to defend John McCain. Lordy, its a new day.
I criticize Senator McCain for philosophic ignorance + political cynicism and opportunism.
That is very different from criticizing Sen. McCain for corruption(which I have never done). In the areas of lobbyists and pork, Senator McCain has a an enviable and long record of integrity. I suspect it almost impossible to have served since Reagan, and to have a cleaner record than Senator McCain.
Now that Sen. McCain is my preferred candidate, I can’t help hoping that he will continue to be educated – for the first time ever, I suspect – about the philosophic principles which are important to me. Senator McCain has made his strong statement that he will veto pork-filled legislation. He has said he supports lower taxes, border enforcement, and judicial restraint.
I dare not hope, exactly, that a President McCain would follow through on his rhetoric. Almost no Presidential candidate actually follows through on his promises. GWB was the exception: a Presidential candidate who went into office and literally attempted to follow through on his campaign promises – even when it hurt him terribly, as it did with attempted Social Security reform.
Rather, instead of hoping Sen. McCain would be another GWB, I merely hope Sen. McCain will become more educated while conducting his Presidential campaign. I hope Sen. McCain’s campaign advisors, in the course of explaining why his policies should be more conservative vis a vis certain issues, will educate Sen. McCain about why those issues are important to voters like me. I strongly suspect Senator McCain has never, to this point in his career, intellectually understood why limited government is best for the nation; is best for the man working in a factory; is best for the man working as a mechanic, and is best for the person working an entry level job at McDonalds.
It’s a measure of my regard for Sen. McCain that I have hope that: if Sen. McCain gains intellectual understanding, he will then have the integrity to follow through on what he understands.
Democrats never lobby do they? Therefore the electron microscope of trith is never pointed in their direction. Which is a shame because that way they wouldnt have to manufacture the dirt. They could just write about it.
Bah! Rather explained that we should believe in the story because he “knows responsible, outstanding journalists” when he sees them.
Now if the rest of you cretins would get on-board, we could get this ‘Rathering’ of McCain up to speed and make sure the Messiah wins the White House.
“Cretins” may seem harsh; however, I’m just being fake but accurate.
BTW, lobbyists and politicians?
Wow. Breaking news.
WRT the Kinsley article: Nixon’s “I know you believe you understood what you thought I said, but I am not sure that what you heard is what I meant” now takes on a liquid transparency and simplicity that I have never before appreciated. If I can get two weeks off I may try to diagram one of Kinsley’s shorter sentences.
Funny aint it?
McCain, whom I personally can barely stomach, btw, may have written a letter to a lobbyist nearly a decade ago, so is evil incarnate, but Jefferson gets busted with a freezer full of dirty money and doesn’t even loose his seat on committees until evil bad people push the issue.
I swore I’d never vote for a Senator for POTUS because of exactly this kind of thing. Kinda screwed now, aren’t I?
I do think McCain is the cleanest of the bunch, though. I mean, really: a Clinton is somehow less corrupt? Hah. Obama? He’s got a pretty good scandal of his own going, considering how new to the game he is.
Faint praise, that, but for the sake of my mental health, I have to have something.