Soccer Dad

Razing mccain

One of the remarkable aspects about last week's NYT hit piece on Sen. McCain is that once you get through the allegations about his "romantic involvement," there were a lot of words, but, seemingly not much else. What exactly did Sen. McCain do wrong. According to an article in Forbes, not much. (via memeorandum)

During the six-year-long fight that followed, McCain never wavered from his opposition to the legislation Paxson pushed, which would have diverted those billions into his company's coffers and away from the U.S. Treasury. Whether McCain did any other, smaller favors for Paxson is a question that will draw new attention as the campaign heats up. But, at least on the issue of most consequence, the two strong-willed men were implacable foes.

Remarkably even Public Citizen came down on Sen. McCain's side.

We are compelled to note something that has been lost in the recent criticism of Sen. McCain’s association with lobbyists: Regardless of how many lobbyists are working on his campaign or raising money for him, John McCain fought for 14 long, hard years for reforms that seriously limit lobbyists power. He has fought for campaign finance reform, limits on gifts and travel from lobbyists, and extensive public disclosure of lobbyists activities - all of which limit the influence of lobbyists and the companies that hire lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

As the article notes, Public Citizen doesn't normally side with Republicans.

Charles Krauthammer, makes an interesting point, (or here) though. There's really nothing wrong with lobbying.

Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.

There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.

Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.

The worst he can say about Sen. McCain, is that he is too self-righteousness.

It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.

Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal.

Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times' story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.

But of course, the hit piece wasn't just about lobbying. It was about romance. After all, the Times chose to illustrate it with a photo of the lobbyist in an evening gown rather than business attire. That wasn't likely a mistake.

And Kevin Williamson at NRO's Media Blog quotes someone who sees sexism in the hit piece.

Though it's not my usual way of looking at things, there's something to that charge. Consider for a moment that Vicky Iseman, in her early thirties, had developed a career of working for industries who trusted her to make her case to lawmakers. (Even if we don't assume, like Krauthammer, that such a career is noble.) She clearly was a successful professional. And how does the New York Times treat her? Like she's a trophy for a powerful man.

The dishonesty of the article is compounded by the collateral damage to Ms. Iseman and her reputation. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the Times much cares.

john mccain, lobbying.