« Sabres! | Main | Count & Sinden f. Kid Sister: "Beeper" »
February 21, 2008
McCain Bombshell Drops, But What's The Fallout?
The New York Times' long-awaited "I'm In Luv (Wit A Lobbyist)" John McCain bombshell - which cites two unnamed former associates saying that they warned McCain prior to his 2000 Prez bid about his worryingly cozy relationship with a female lobbyist - has finally dropped, after months of wrangling. (And the wrangling is a compelling story in itself, as that last link reveals.)
Big graf:
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
Thus far - and, since the story reads like it's been hacked up, another shoe may yet drop, as The New Republic speculates - Team McCain's damage control has been masterful. How are they doing it? Marc Ambinder breaks it down:
(1) Don't hide -- John and Cindy McCain answered any and every question from the press, in a single setting, less than 24 hours after the story broke. They appeared calm and collected; the symbolism of the two together was reassuring.
(1a) -- Don't let the candidate respond immediately. Last night, McCain was asked by a reporter for comment. He smiled and said he hadn't read it yet... that gives the impression that he wasn't worried about it enough to read it immediately.
(2) Find an enemy -- this one's easy: the New York Times -- the "liberal" New York Times, according to McCain adviser Charlie Black. Use phases like "Jason Blair" and "Judith Miller."
(3) Shame reporters -- imply that it's shameful for reporters to ask questions about the romantic angle... imply that they're engaging in gutter politics when they do so.
(4) High-powered surrogates -- they blanketed the morning shows for McCain, and they'll be everywhere else this afternoon.
(5) Detailed rebuttals -- not even to the whole article, mind you -- but any sort of word-expensive response like the 1200 word essay the campaign released last night -- is likely to foster the impression that the campaign has facts on its side, too.
That's how it's done. Take notes, Senator Obama, as I fear you'll likely have to dance a variant of this nimble step at some point before November.
Anyways, I'm not so sure this story is all that damaging to McCain just yet. Indeed, at the moment, it's having the welcome (for McCain) effect of shoring up his support among those on the right who until now had been complaining bitterly about a McCain nomination. Now they have an excuse to scurry back, all while indulging in the beloved pasttime of bashing those lib bastards at the Times. Not bad.
Indeed, Marc Cooper suggests that because the Times sat on the story until he secured the nomination, McCain owes the paper a thank you card, while Romney and Giuliani and all the other vanquished GOP contenders have every right to be pissed:
More importantly, if the Times had published its expose when it first had it over Christmas, it would have preceded all of the Republican primaries and caucuses. To say it would have changed the dynamic of the GOP race is perhaps the understatement of the decade. You can bet Mitt Romney and even Mayor Rudy are up late tonight gnashing their teeth and pounding their heads against the wall over this one.
So should Republican voters. They've been seriously toyed with by the paper of record. The Times gives them McCain. And then, only after it's too late to reconsider, it takes him away. McCain might, indeed, be seriously wounded by this week's revelations. If they had come out two months ago, he would have been reduced to a political asterisk, a footnote alongside Tommy Thompson and Tommy Tancredo.
As ABC News reports, Romney's team seems to be taking it pretty hard. Understandable.
Finally, is it just me, or do Vicki Iseman (the lobbyist) and Cindy McCain look kinda similar?
UPDATE: Changed "advisors" to "associates" in the opening paragraph, and added a link to Ambinder's exploration of all the determinative value that this word choice may hold upon close examination.
Posted by caps at February 21, 2008 12:30 PM