A Wrinkle: Did McCain Meet With Bud Paxson?

Check out this transcript from a deposition McCain gave five years ago, as reported by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff:

"....the campaign's insistence that McCain himself never talked to Paxson about the issue seems hard to square with the contents of his testimony in the McCain-Feingold case. Abrams, for example, at one point cited the somewhat technical contents of one of his letters to the FCC and then asked the witness, "where did you get information of that sort, Senator McCain?" McCain replied: "I was briefed by my staff." Abrams then followed up: "Do you know were they got the information?" "No," McCain replied. "But I would add, I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue." "You were?" "Yes." Abrams then asked McCain: "Can you tell us what you said and what he said about it?"

McCain: "That he had applied to purchase this station and that he wanted to purchase it. And that there had been a numerous year delay with the FCC reaching a decision. And he wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. 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. I think everybody is entitled to a decision. But I can't ask for a favorable disposition for you'."
Abrams a few moments later asked: "Did you speak to the company's lobbyist about these matters?"
McCain: "I don't recall if it was Mr. Paxson or the company's lobbyist or both."

Abrams: "But you did speak to him?"
McCain: "I'm sure I spoke with him, yes."

The McCain campaign responded to Isikoff that when McCain says "Paxson" here, he means someone on Paxson's staff...not Paxson directly.

Let's suppose there is a contradiction, though. What, precisely, do we learn from it? Does it matter whether McCain spoke personally to Paxson? In other words -- what would McCain gave from prevaricating about meeting Paxson personally? My guess -- and this is a guess -- is that McCain just doesn't remember today every single person he spoke with five years ago.

Comments

Ahh, shades of "I don't remember..." from the last age-addled Republican President.

Will the press let John McCombover get away with as many deceptions and lies as they did GWB, just because he charms them with small talk and the illusion that he actually likes reporters?

I also wonder when somebody will mention the Keating 5 scandal again, and how this ties in with this as a "character issue"....I bet the US public barely knows about this. If this were a Democrat, the Republicans would surely goad the press into making this a character issue.

Posted by Frank Carmelo | February 22, 2008 3:37 PM

My guess -- and this is a guess -- is that McCain just doesn't remember today every single person he spoke with five years ago.

And by "guess" you mean, "what my shiny new source on the McCain campaign told me to say," right?

In any event, I guess that "deft" campaign shouldn't have been issuing such wide-ranging blanket denials, huh?

Now they have a new problem to contend with, along with the problem that McCain pledged public money as collateral to keep his campaign afloat. How deftly will the Great White Maverick's campaign justify misusing the assets of the American people like this?

Oh yeah, and there's that little problem that McCain has about $4 million of breathing room under the spending caps that he's subject to, as he cannot unilaterally opt-out of public financing spending limits. It's a long time 'til August -- how deftly will the campaign scrimp pennies from here on out?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 22, 2008 3:38 PM

So he can lie all he want provided that it's about things that happened in the past, which he can't be expected to remember?

Is there a statute of limitations that protects all McCain statements from meeting the standard of truth/lie? If so, how long is it?

"Does it matter?" Yes it matters, because McCain denied in no uncertain terms that he spoke to him. It was a strong denial; and a strong denial demands a strong standard of evaluation - not this bullshit attempt at apologetics.

I believe that the NYTimes article of yesterday was about as subtle and effective an attempt to raise questions about McCain's character as something dreamed up by Tonya Harding.

But the press's attempt to protect poor St. John from legitimate criticism is contemptible.

And that includes this sorry blog.

Posted by lampwick | February 22, 2008 3:45 PM

Alzheimer's? P.S. "A wrinkle" - more like a thousand!

Posted by Anonymous | February 22, 2008 3:57 PM

C'mon, what are you Ambinder a writer for the Daily Show or a typist for the McCain campaign? You are telling us that when McCain testfies under oath "I am sure I spoke with him" he really meant "I don't recall" or alternatively he meant "I am sure I spoke to someone who works for him." Which one is it? And, by the way, I kinda doubt the lobbyist was a "him", if you get my drift.

Posted by Michael K | February 22, 2008 5:00 PM

If he can't remember, the he should have said that. It's that simple.

That would have been a lot better than denying it and then being proven otherwise.

Does he for instance remember if he had an affair with Ms Iseman or not? She does look a lot like his wife so he might have forgotten about that too.

Posted by PJx | February 22, 2008 5:11 PM

Due respect Marc, I think you're right -- to a point.

This isn't necessarily hot, saucy material on its own, but that's not as important as the sound you hear: Drip, drip, drip.

The Times story is deeply flawed, to borrow a phrase, but it DID open the public discourse on the topic of McCain and lobbyists and it DID stir a sleeping pile of investigative reporters.

If I'm Team McCain, I'm a little worried that the likes of Isikoff is digging into this pile. He's a ferocious investigative reporter, and the mere fact that he's interested suggests something along the lines of where there's smoke there's fire.

Relatedly, the Post's piece on McCain's lobbyist-filled campaign squad is another drip. It's not at a meme-building level but ... drip, drip, drip.

Posted by Denny Crane | February 22, 2008 5:31 PM

"open the public discourse on the topic of McCain and lobbyists"

Really, a public discourse? More like a few far left bloggers and some of their media sypathizers. My guess is the public thinks the NYT tried to drop another smear bomb a guy most people tend to respect, for the sole reason that he is not a democrat.

Posted by JBJB | February 22, 2008 5:43 PM

Look, it's likely that McCain really doesn't remember. But as PJx notes above, if he doesn't remember and thinks the answer is probably no, he can say that. That's not what he said. He said no, there was no meeting. So either he's sure he didn't, he's lying and he did, or he's lying about being sure.

But if you think he should be forgiven his memory, maybe you can start reporting his other flat denials in the same way -- "John McCain denied having a sexual relationship with Ms. Iseman, but my guess -- and this is a guess -- McCain just doesn't remember every single lobbyist he slept with five years ago."

Posted by Alex F | February 22, 2008 5:48 PM

I have a feeling that McCain's campaign has lost momentum. 8% of voters still do not even recognize Huckabee's name. When they see what Huckabee is promising to do & that Huckabee keeps his word, whoo-boy! There will be a major shift in momentum.

Posted by robert | February 22, 2008 5:48 PM

He might not remember everyone he ever speaks to, but how many depositions has McCain given in the past five years? He doesn't remember those?

Posted by James | February 22, 2008 6:27 PM

McCain doesn't remember?

Paxson/FCC was a major story for the McCain campaign in 2000. In fact, immediately after the Globe broke the story that January -- several weeks after he wrote the second FCC letter -- McCain did an interview about it on Nightline. Surely he came to grips then (if not before) with the "details," like whether he met the guy.

As for the deposition transcript, he repeatedly indicates -- when pressed, and in a very formal setting -- that he personally met with Paxson.

Squaring those two points with the claim that McCain did not meet personally with Paxson requires pretzel logic.

Posted by bt | February 22, 2008 6:58 PM

I don't even understand the defense here. If he spoke with Paxon's CEO OR its lobbyist about this matter, he personally spoke with Paxon about it, which totally contradicts the statement he put out yesterday.

And for what it's worth, the text makes it unambiguous that he spoke with Mr. Paxon of Paxon himself, so his campaign's explanation just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny.

And what would McCain gain by prevaricating about meeting with Paxon? Well, for one, he wouldn't get called out for lying, given the fact that he's often said he's never done any favors for special interests.

Posted by anon | February 22, 2008 7:04 PM

We do not think there is a contradiction here," campaign spokeswoman Ann Begeman e-mailed NEWSWEEK after being asked about the senator's sworn testimony five and a half years ago. "We do not have the transcript you excerpted and do not know the exact questions Senator McCain was asked, but it appears that Senator McCain, when speaking of being contacted by Paxson, was speaking in shorthand of his staff being contacted by representatives of Paxson. Senator McCain does not recall being asked directly by Paxson or any representative of him or by Alcalde & Fay to contact the FCC regarding the Pittsburgh license transaction.

well,well,well,

" We do not have the transcript you excerpted"; ( You are kidding me, right; if you don't have it you should be fired, if you do you are lying; and is there anyone who thinks you really don't have it?)

"Sen. McCain... was speaking in SHORTHAND"(caps mine;( My G-d, do they think that we regular working stiff Americans are that stupid after all we have gone through the last sixteen years; "SHORTHAND";It is time to de-lice( oops I meant de-lobby) Congress once and for all.

"Senator McCain does not recall" I, for one, am tired of politicians sounding more like Corlione
than Washington.

Posted by starryarcher | February 22, 2008 7:23 PM

McCain was the one who lead the investigation against Jack Abromhoff. He did this out of principle and honor even though he knew it would hurt his own party. The smears against this POW have crossed the line. He never voted for torture. He voted against having an intelligence agency having the same field manual as the Army.

K Street hates him. He lost campaign funds because of the abramoff investigation.

There is one reason and one reason only McCain will lose. 85 percent of the mainstream media are democrats which is terrible for democracy.

Posted by Jason | February 22, 2008 8:11 PM

Um, Paxson met with McCain. Check out the front page of Washingtonpost.com at the moment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid=topnews

They took the radical step of picking up the phone and calling Bud Paxson. He confirms that the meeting occurred and Iseman was present. It will be tough for John to spin this one.

Posted by Phil | February 22, 2008 8:43 PM

I'm not sure I understand why Republicans are rallying around McCain. If a member of my family does something wrong, I won't defend them. My own mother would turn me in if I did something wrong. Rally around McCain if he's innocent - not because he's being attacked by the Times. McCain says NO I DID NOT, but a transcript (in his own words) says that YES HE DID. The freshly-painted story is already starting to peel. But I didn't need this development to convince me of McCain's character. Morality may not matter to today's Republicans, but it matters to me. When McCain cheated on his first wife and admitted to it, he lost my vote. Character and fidelity still matter to some Republicans.

Posted by chris | February 23, 2008 12:09 AM

Wow, Phil, pretty devastating. Marc, any comment or follow-up? We'd love to hear either from you or your favorite new pet.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 23, 2008 12:22 AM

McCain is 71 years old,and old timers have memory lapses. He may even be senile by time he is 75.
I am 71 and have memory lapses, but know when I am lying.

He is too old to be President!

Posted by David Sano | February 23, 2008 3:01 AM

I fail to see how this is devastating at all Jeff Larson.

McCain has admitted to this meeting previously. None of this is new information at all. There was a discrepancy between whether he personally met them to hear their request for assistance or if the matter was handled through a staffer.

As for the assistance given - asking the FEC to hurry up and either deny or grant a request that had been pending for 8000 days instead of the usual 4000 days - it hardly seems unusual or unreasonable.

The McCain camp not having their facts 100% straight about a meeting that took place years and years ago is hardly a surprise. The record has since been corrected within a vary short time frame.

By the way, it is common for all campaigns, including Senators Obama and Clinton's, to have to occasionally clarify statements and press releases.

Posted by Jesse | February 23, 2008 6:08 AM

The above was supposed to eight hundred and four hundred, not eight thousand and four thousand.

Washington is slow but not that slow!

Posted by Jesse | February 23, 2008 6:11 AM

The above was supposed to read eight hundred and four hundred, not eight thousand and four thousand.

Washington is slow but not that slow!

Posted by Jesse | February 23, 2008 6:11 AM