A Contradiction Between McCain's Account And Weavers?

During his presser this a.m., did McCain contradict John Weaver's account of Weaver's meeting with lobbyist Vicki Iseman?

Not really.

Here's the Times:

Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.

“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”

Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.

McCain simply said he was not "aware" of Weaver's having met with Iseman -- "I don’t know anything about it", not that McCain knew for a fact that it did not happen.

This is plausible.

Still, the fact that Weaver met with Iseman at all in the midst of a busy campaign season suggests that very senior McCain aides did indeed worry about the appearance of her relationship with McCain.

After all, they were working for a guy who was supposed to pay attention to the appearance of a conflict of interest. In his autobiography, Worth the Fighting, McCain wrote of his Keating 5 days:

Learning from my unhappy experience, I have refrained from ever intervening in the regulatory decisions of the federal government if such intervention could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as done solely or primarily for the benefit of a major financial supporter of my campaign.”

Comments

I'd say the facts in the Times article contradict the passage you quoted from McCain's autobiography. Based on many of his actions that are not in dispute, he wrote letters, made phone calls, and introduced legislation that "could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as done soley or primarily for the benefit of a major financial support of (his) campaign."

Posted by Barbara Palmer | February 21, 2008 12:13 PM

Weaver said today that the "conduct" he was worried about was Ms. Iseman going around telling people that she had gotten McCain to write a letter for her client. Not that she was telling people she was having an affair with McCain.

Posted by C.B. Todd | February 21, 2008 12:46 PM

"Learning from my unhappy experience, I have refrained from ever intervening in the regulatory decisions of the federal government if such intervention could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as done solely or primarily for the benefit of a major financial supporter of my campaign.”"

liar.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/a_real_story.php

Posted by Becker | February 21, 2008 1:00 PM

Marc, this turns into a great hypothetical: You were in Weaver's 2000 role and your candidate making his reform credentials the primary issue in the race. You've heard that a supporter was telling people that she had close contacts with the candidate and his staff. Do you not have an obligation to the candidate and the campaign to take the supporter aside and explain that their actions are not helpful?

Those who have worked on organizations that revolve around volunteers frequently deal with the occasional overzealous volunteer who, while well intentioned, say or do something that is not helpful. Frequently it is someone who is in the Weaver role from 2000 that has to tell them that while they think they're being helpful, they actually are causing a problem. People in Weaver's role are the most effective messengers.

Posted by That Guy | February 21, 2008 1:30 PM

It's not even remotely plausible.

Look. There are two separate questions here. The first is whether McCain knew of Weaver's actions in 1999, and I'm willing to concede the possibility that he did not. But that's not what McCain denied this morning. He went a step further than he had to, and frankly, a step further than he should have done. He said: "I don’t know anything about it" and strongly implied that the Times had fabricated its account.

That was stupid. Weaver has told everyone who will listen, Marc included, that he kept the McCain campaign fully in the loop as he dealt with the Times. That he e-mailed his statement to McCain's three top staffers. That he talks to the campaign every day, including holidays. That he's still in regular contact with the senator.

All that, and McCain wants us to believe that the first he heard of this meeting was when he read the story yesterday? I'm sorry, but that won't fly. And if he's willing to lie about something so obvious, something he could so easily have told the truth about, frankly, I'm inclined to doubt his entire account as equally fictitious. There was no reason for him to lie about this - all he had to say was that he'd first heard of the meeting from Weaver in December, or from the questions the Times had put to Bennett. But lie he did. And unless someone can explain that, I think his entire account is called into question.

Posted by Cynic | February 21, 2008 2:08 PM

Cynic - I think McCain was saying "I don't know anything about it" more than what Weaver told the NYT. He's not talking about when he learned about it, but what he knows about it. Weaver never told him about it at the time or any time prior to Weaver speaking to the NYT about. And he doesn't know any more about it than what Weaver says he told the NYT.

Posted by C.B. Todd | February 21, 2008 2:40 PM

Whether Senator McCain has any extramarital activities should not be an issue this time around. What with his tender age and the medications he is probably taking he is in what can euphemistically called a safe mode. He is probably no danger to anyone anymore. To be on the safe side I suppose that is why Bob Bennett was hired to take a deposition from Senator McCain to that effect. I can not think of any reason to hire him otherwise as there is no criminality involved? So Chill.

Posted by Redman | February 21, 2008 2:48 PM

From the Press Conference:

Q: Have you spoken with John Weaver about what he has told the Times or the Post?

A: No, I have not.

Q: ....a conversation with him during this investigation when they were reaching out to him?

A: No...

Q: When he was talking with them...?

A: I've had a couple conversations with John. He called to congratulate me when we won a couple of the primaries. I said thanks to him, and look forward to seeing you. The only subject we discussed on the phone was how well the campaign was going. John and I have known each other for many many years, and we remain good friends.

Later on:

Q: [not audible]
A: It's John Weaver and I...I don't know anything about it. Since it was in the New York Times, I don't take it at face value.

Q: (Reporter quotes Weaver's rationale for the meeting, and asks McCain for an explanation.)

A: I don't know. Because again, I've never discussed it with John Weaver. As far as I know, there was no necessity for it. But that's a judgment that he made, so you'd have to discuss it with him. But I did not know anything about it.

Posted by Cynic | February 21, 2008 3:08 PM

The NY Times is obviously making up this story and lying to discredit John McCain, a great American hero who has always put his country first. He is one of only five senators in the Senate who has not requested ear marks (I don't quite understand it, but the news said it was contracts that don't have to be bid on.) Both Democratic contestants have requested earmarks. Almoat always, in return for the earmark request, the company gives a good sized donatino to the senator's campaign. this is an example of the integrity of John McCain. He is a great man and will make a great president of the USA. The American people are not stupid enough to let the NY Times fool them.

I think this was written at thsi time to take away interest from the comments of Michelle Obama on how she was now proud of her country for the first time and how the Obama campaign is giong back on their public funding/limit commitment.

Posted by Raymond Russell | February 21, 2008 3:14 PM

The NY Times is obviously making up this story and lying to discredit John McCain, a great American hero who has always put his country first. He is one of only five senators in the Senate who has not requested ear marks (I don't quite understand it, but the news said it was contracts that don't have to be bid on.) Both Democratic contestants have requested earmarks. Almoat always, in return for the earmark request, the company gives a good sized donatino to the senator's campaign. this is an example of the integrity of John McCain. He is a great man and will make a great president of the USA. The American people are not stupid enough to let the NY Times fool them.

I think this was written at thsi time to take away interest from the comments of Michelle Obama on how she was now proud of her country for the first time and how the Obama campaign is giong back on their public funding/limit commitment.

Posted by Raymond Russell | February 21, 2008 3:14 PM

There are only two possibilities. Either McCain is deliberately parsing his words and being mendacious ("The only subject we discussed on the phone"; "I've never discussed it with John Weaver") or he's flat-out lying.

Look. We know Weaver forwarded the e-mail to the campaign, and we can safely assume that McCain has been aware of that for two months - in fact, that he saw the email. If he wasn't, he should fire his entire senior staff for criminal stupidity. Weaver's account of the meeting is not news to him.

Given that, the swipe at the Times ("I don't take it at face value") is purely gratuitous, and his feigned ignorance of the substance of Weaver's account is troubling. It's possible, I suppose, that he's never directly discussed it with Weaver. But if that's the distinction he was trying to draw, he slipped up when he said "I don't know anything about that." Later on, interestingly, he resorted to "I didn't know anything..." which seems more plausible.

This isn't the only point in the press conference at which he overstated his case. He said he'd never spoken to the Times, got called on that, and admitted he'd called Bill Keller.

My take on this is that McCain is tripping up in his denials because he's trying to keep straight, in his own mind, the things that happened which he's now denying and the things that happened which he can safely acknowledge. He walked out to the podium determined to deny everything - and that's exactly what he did. He denied talking to the Times. (Oops). Denied knowing of Weaver's meeting. (Oops). Denied intevening on behalf of Iseman's clients. (Oops). Denied trying to kill the story. (Oops).

Each denial provides further grist for the media mill. Some, he corrected right away. Others will take reporters a little longer to rebut. But all will ultimately prove damaging.

Posted by Cynic | February 21, 2008 3:18 PM

Hilarious!

That old geezer McCain can still get it up and shag the ladies! Woo hoo! Good for him!

Say, wasn't he swinging his meat hammer into Cindy before he was even divorced from his first wife?

And what about that black child he fathered back in 2000?

I'll never forget that old coot during that S&L scandal!

That's what I call 'Experienced'.

Posted by Horace P Manure | February 21, 2008 4:07 PM