Fact, Fiction, Fickleness, and Fanaticism

I’ve questioned some of Senator McCain’s decisions, and I’ve retracted some of those questions. I’ve defended him, and later reconsidered some of my defenses.

Accordingly, on the matter of the already (in)famous NYT story about McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist, I plan to generally withhold judgment until the matter has played itself out — with the exception of these few comments now.

(1) As of today, I put no more stock behind the innuendo running through this story than I do behind the innuendo running through the multiple Obama-Rezko stories.

(2) Elected officials frequently write letters to appointed officials seeking resolution of issues under agency review. I’ve been on the requesting end of some of those letters. The Congressional offices of which I have made such requests have consistently declined to take sides, though they are typically willing to ask agencies for prompt review and resolution … for two reasons: (a) they know agency reviews can be painfully and counterproductively slow; and (b) they recognize that timely resolution is often in the best interests of all concerned. Accordingly, the fact that Vicki Iseman asked for such letters from McCain’s office is nothing unusual. To the contrary, it’s standard operating procedure, and — more often than not — it’s helpful to the larger process because (regardless of the answer, for or against one’s position) clarity has its own value. In the same vein, I’m not surprised nor troubled by the agency Chairman’s “rare rebuke for interference” in response to McCain’s letters. While these letters may not always evoke rebuke, egos and turf battles are common fare inside the Beltway.

(3) True or not, it’s quite possible that Vicki Iseman’s frequent appearances in and around McCain and his office were nothing more complex than a lobbyist doing her job, her recognition that frequency and proximity (invited or not) are half the battle when it comes to communicating a client’s position. I’ve seen it before. And on similar grounds, I have no trouble believing certain staff grew concerned about Iseman’s frequency and proximity — based (perhaps) on nothing more substantive than the fact that she was a reasonably attractive, younger woman and a blonde at that. A shallow reaction? No doubt. Cynical? Absolutely. More concerned with appearance than reality? Probably. Perfectly human? Yes.

(4) There are certain elements of the narrative — e.g., donated air trips — which appear to be undisputed and, while not a complete renunciation of character, are (at best) an indication of lapsed judgment by someone who has taken the bully pulpit and loudly railed against “favors” like these. On the other hand, the air trips are old news and McCain has since voted to disallow them. In short, the Senator isn’t the first and won’t be the last to make a mistake and later support reforms that help prevent the very mistake he made.

In closing, let me be painfully clear. I’m not dismissing the NYT story. I’m not screaming about liberal media bias. All I’m attempting to do is offer perspective, some of it based on personal observations of inside-the-Beltway life, in order to raise legitimate questions and thus encourage all of us to resist the temptation to believe there’s fire behind these wisps of smoke, until said fire is indisputably proven. We owe all of the leading candidates — McCain, Clinton, and Obama — the benefit of such doubt, the same benefit we would want, if we found ourselves in a similar situation.

Addendum: A similar conclusion reached by the ed board of a presumably McCain-friendly paper, The Arizona Republic.

The American people will ultimately be judge and jury on this story, and we have every confidence they possess the discernment to figure out what is real and what is cooked up.

If McCain is telling the truth – and we have not seen enough evidence to doubt him – this story will be a musty afterthought come the general election. If he isn’t, Americans will render their verdict at the polls.