Today he's blasting the New York Times, but six years ago John McCain singled the paper out as being a particularly credible source, with its articles worthy of inclusion in the permanent journal of Senate proceedings.
The statement came during a deposition in 2002, when his campaign finance law was being challenged. One of the lawyers asked him what sort of standards he used when deciding what articles he would insert in the Congressional Record, which is the official journal of House and Senate floor proceedings.
"I think it's important to insert credible media outlets such as The New York Times," McCain said, adding that would also apply to publications such as the Los Angeles Times "because most people give them credibility."
Maybe it's just more evidence for Rush Limbaugh's "See, I told you so" statement on his radio program this week, after the story broke.
As Limbaugh put it on his radio program Thursday:
"There's a great opportunity here for Senator McCain to learn the right lesson and understand who his friends are and who his enemies are. He's had that backwards for way too long. He has thought the New York Times is his friend. He has thought Chris Matthews and these other people in the Drive-By Media are his friends. They aren't. That's the lesson today."
The deposition included some other interesting tidbits, not least of which was an apparent contradiction between what McCain said in 2002 about his interaction with lobbyists or agents for Paxson Communications and what the McCain campaign said Wendesday night in refuting the New York Times story
The New York Times and Washington Post reports questioned whether McCain acted improperly in sending two letters in 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging action on the sale of a Pittsburgh television station to Paxson Communications. The female lobbyist in question in both reports was working on behalf of Paxson.
In a long memo sent to reporters Wednesday night the McCain campaign denied the senator ever talked to key figures in the deal about writing letters: "No representative of Paxson or [the lobbying firm] Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding."
But in the 2002 deposition McCain said owner Bud Paxson contacted him personally to ask him to take action.
"I said I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act. But I will not write a letter, I cannot write a letter asking them to approve or deny, because then that would be an interference in their activities," he said, according to his deposition.
McCain said if he had asked for a specific ruling from the FCC, "then I would have been open to at least allegations that I acted in behalf of a contributor."
He went on to say "Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint" about delays at the FCC, and said his job as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee at the time "is to see that bureaucracies do function."
— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (17)
Exactly. 6 years ago the NYT may have been credible. As for today, let's judge it by what it prints. And what it printed was a very old rumor with no evidence despite 9 years to accumulate that evidence. This is investigative reporting worthy of an old line newspaper? It's disgusting how far they've fallen so, yes, a lot of that fall may have been recent.
Posted by cerebral_but_dull | February 23, 2008 4:07 PM
The Republican establishment, including this lunatic, Rush Limbaugh, can mount all the spirited defense and smear campaign they want, on behalf of John McCain. The fact remains, based on what he has done, he is really not as pure as driven snow as his surrogates are trying to make him to be. The guy cannot, in good conscience claim, anymore that he is a straight shooter, or a straight talker. We all watched him shrivel, by conceding his moderate principles, all in an effort to win conservative Republicans over. Guess what: now, he is neither a true moderate, nor a true conservative. This is John McCain�s dilemma in this election. Let us see how he can straddle all these many contradictory positions, and still remain an authentic candidate in this election. This is John McCain self-created trap.
These recent revelations are just some (the beginning) of John McCain's troubles.
Posted by IGNATIUS ANYANWU | February 23, 2008 4:29 PM
hmmm...so an endorsement from mccain give the NY times or any other 'objective' media outlet the right to print whatever their agenda driven editors/reporters deem appropraite, regardless of confirmation of their sources? how irresponsible. no wonder these losers are losing viewership. you are a disgrace 2 our country. (you media types tell me its better to have bill clinton, well established philanderer in the white house??- PLEEZ)
Posted by john remchick | February 23, 2008 4:46 PM
It is pitiful that John McCain is taking money being laundered by lobbyist. We don't need another 4 years of George Bush. Didn't he learn anything working with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. John is becoming a bond servant to the donors of this money. How many government contracts will he awarded to these sham organizations in return for their campaign contributions.
Huckabee is the only true hope for our country. I admire him for his ethics and not taking money in return for political favors.
Posted by Robert Riley Jr. | February 23, 2008 5:00 PM
Excellent reporting!
Keep it up.
Posted by RFM | February 23, 2008 5:03 PM
I wrote a length comment and then reduced it to this: "Washington as usual". Nuff said.
Posted by lance | February 23, 2008 5:08 PM
WITH A NAME LIKE IGNATIUS ANYANWU (SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF OSAMA'S BROTHERS) I WOULD BE CAREFUL OF BEING A CRITIC OF ANYONE.HE IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF YOU PLACE ONE HAND ON A RED-HOT STOVE AND THE OTHER HAND IN A FREEZER,ON THE AVERAGE YOU WILL BE COMFORTABLE.
Posted by JAMES KILLETTE | February 23, 2008 5:10 PM
Let McCain sue the New York Times if these stories are untrue or libelous.
Or if the developing story concerning Bill Paxon.
Of course, McCain won't sue. He won't. That's because the stories have legs.
There is suddenly no doubt. Republicans have out-Roved themselves. Perhaps there would be some residual respect for McCain if Rove hadn't frittered it away by orchestrating that horrible hit campaign in 2000. For which McCain basically bent over. Well, chickens come home to roost.
Isn't McCain's military service enough to put him over the top, in the public eye? It might have, if Rove hadn't stripped the military of respect by his Swift Boat ads against Kerry. Whether you like it or not, the rich kid Kerry volunteered for Nam, and somehow got shot up. After the Swift Boat ads, and right wing nuts believing that Kerry was some kind of Manchurian candidate who faked his own injuries so he could take over the country 40 years later, no wonder respect for the military is so far down in the eyes of the voting public. Like it or not.
Interesting to see the Repubs twisting in the winds that they themselves started.
Posted by Washington Insider | February 23, 2008 5:34 PM
I know there are clean Republicans. I'm just not sure who they are...
Posted by Steve T. | February 23, 2008 8:30 PM
What is the difference in accepting "PERKS", whether they are in the form of unlimited use of a Paxson Communication Company Corporate Jet or "CASH".
McCain stated in the 2002 depositions that he used this Jet to travel all over the country.
Did he feel obligated to Paxson Comm for using the Jet?
Also other communication companies provide Corporate Jets for his use.
Earl
Posted by Earl | February 23, 2008 10:31 PM
The NY Times is correct about McCain's love for lobbyists and the follow up reports on Paxson admitting he nd the lady lobbyit met with McCain (which McCain said originally didn't happen) give the article lots of legs.
And we know of McCain's love for blondes - from his own book.
One McCain comment about the lobbyist - he called her a "fiend." He's 30 years her senior and she's his friend - not business associate, or professional contact -- a friend. What do friends like that do - go to lunch, dinner, talk on the phone? That type of friendship a man of his age shouldn't be having with a woman her age.
Posted by Anonymous | February 23, 2008 10:32 PM
Hmmm. First Rush practically refers to McCain as the anti-christ of the conservative movement. And now, he's "the man". Take another Vicodin Rush!
Posted by Ted Shokes | February 24, 2008 12:04 AM
To determine how credible the NYT was six years ago as compared to today, simply graph their circulation numbers.
Posted by Larry Stone | February 24, 2008 3:07 AM
-JAMES KILLETTE- You are actually exposing your illiteracy by hinting with that snide remark that "IGNATIUS ANYANWU" is an Arabic or Islamic name.
Even common sense should tell you that "Ignatius" is a Latin or Roman name, ever heard of Saint Ignatius? Or are you one of those dim witted Christians who know the bible by rote and nothing else about the religion?
If you are still interested, "Anyanwu" is a name from the west coast of Africa, an area that may be known for a lot of bad things but rarely terrorism.
Posted by WeeFree | February 24, 2008 7:20 AM
Mr. Limbaugh did not defend McCain on the NY Times story. Rather,he lectured McCain on choosing his "friends" more wisel. Clearly Mr. Shokes is neither a fan nor listener of Rush Limbaugh. Kindly get your facts straight before you comment.
Posted by Richard | February 24, 2008 3:42 PM
"JAMES KILLETTE"
Yours truly is not a shrinking violet, that is the reason why I always sign my op-ed articles in my real, rather than pseudo-name like most people. You will read more from me, as the 2008 elections goes forward. Look at your silly little tactic -anyone- me, the New York Times, just anyone who challenges the Republicans, elements like you resort to smear campaign. The name Ignatius is an arch christian (catholic name), rather than the foolish insinuation you were trying to make.
You and other Republican elements like you will read other articles, albeit more pointed, from me during this election.
Posted by Ignatius Anyanwu | February 24, 2008 4:18 PM
I guess you have to write something to get paid, but you are really, really reaching here.
Posted by John | February 25, 2008 1:20 PM