« Hillary's Closing | Main | Obama On Track To Raise Record $$ This Month »

How McCain Weathered The Storm

22 Feb 2008 09:03 am

It is not often that campaign staffers feel good after a day of relentless media focus on the question of whether your boss had an extramarital affair. And yet, behind the veneer of self-confidence, of the political imperative to project a calm upper lip, the campaign’s senior advisers and aides are in a much better place tonight than they were last night.

The campaign responded quickly and deftly to the accusations and provided a model of sorts for how to weather an accusatory, highly provocative front-page, above-the-fold investigative piece in the world’s most influential newspaper.

First, they had facts. Within two hours of the story being published to the Times’s website, McCain’s campaign distributed a 1,200 point-by-point rebuttal of some of the story’s claims. Spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker issued a statement slamming the Times for its “gutter” politics.

Wisely, they deliberately decided to keep McCain from reading the article. That way, when a reporter serving as the pooler for his evening fundraiser threw him a question, he was able to say, quite honestly, that he hadn’t read it yet. The message: nothing to be concerned about. To prevent reporters from claiming that McCain was trying to hide from them, the campaign scheduled a news conference for 9:00 am the next morning -- after the morning shows, on which, incidentally, high-powered McCain surrogates repeatedly denounced the story and the New York Times.

During his press conference, McCain was the picture of solitude. Cindy McCain’s smile wasn’t forced. “No,” he did not have an affair. Never did he “violate the public trust.” He would allow only that he was “disappointed” with the Times. McCain did allow his affect to become the story. That allowed his staff to attack the story with furor. And they did -- in lengthy sessions with McCain’s traveling press corps, in personal conversations with top reporters, in outreach calls and e-mails to bloggers and surrogates and donors.

To be sure, the story was met with fairly widespread condemnation, and the media decided to give McCain the benefit of the doubt. What the story proved -- that some staffers were worried about a lobbyist’s braggadocio -- was not what it implied, and it was very easy for critics to turn widen that wrinkle into a credibility gap.

Republicans worried about McCain’s ability to run a competent general election campaign should be mollified. Facing the worst crisis of his candidacy since…well, July, McCain and his aides weathered the storm.

Comments (20)

The conservative pundits finally decided the McCain was the lesser of the two "liberal" evils. He's off the hook.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Is this a joke?

I think you're missing the point. The articles proves there's a world of material out there for the Dems to use against McCain. Few in the DC media realizes that the average voter knows just as little about McCain as Obama. There's this fuzzy view of him as some wise man, a Jimmy Stewart type. But I doubt most people know the first thing about the Keating Five. What the Times story showed, for anyone who read the whole thing, is that McCain is in real danger of being labeled as a hypocrite, as someone who talks about ethics but doesn't follow through in his own life. The Times made the mistake of insinuating an affair but not nailing it down. Had they instead written a story saying McCain's campaign intervened to silence a lobbyist who was bragging about town her closeness to him and then gone on to discuss his many ethical lapses, the story would've been very damaging right then. Instead, it'll be damaging later, once the general campaign is underway. McCain's campaign deftly deflected the issue for now. But it's going to come back to haunt him.

It's fascinating how you pundits like to see yourself as a constituency all your own and perhaps the only important one. So the collective "you" decided this week that there was a backlash to Obama hype, and all of "you" affirmed it (with no evidence from polls or actual voters). Likewise, "you" have collectively decided McCain dodged the bullet... but in fact David Brooks has a more accurate take this morning. If more evidence emerges about this -- and that's a big if -- McCain will look like a liar. This issue is only over if there is nothing to it, and I don't think many people actually believe there's nothing to it.

Well, looks like Marc's managed to snag himself a source in the McCain campaign. Good thing, too -- the blog would have been a pretty desolate place going forward without Marc's Hillary source.

Wisely, they deliberately decided to keep McCain from reading the article. That way, when a reporter serving as the pooler for his evening fundraiser threw him a question, he was able to say, quite honestly, that he hadn’t read it yet. The message: nothing to be concerned about.

So he hired Bob Bennett and called Bill Keller to plead with him to spike the story because he had "nothing to be concerned about"?

Also, given some of the Senator's blanket statements thus far, I'm not sure being able to answer reporters "quite honestly" is a huge concern in this campaign. But I suppose that remains to be seen...

Also also, is this post exactly the same as your last post on how McCain "deftly" handled the crisis (which, by the way, is nothing to be concerned about)? Just seems kinda lazy to repeat yourself like this.

Weathered? I'm not sure it's over yet. In fact, I'm sure it's not over yet.

So GOP is stuck with a guy who is

- very old
- a liberal
- has extreme temper
- abuses his colleagues with "f*ck" word routinely
- wants more Iraq war
- and now caught in bed with a young lobbyist

One thing is very clear that McCain has ties with lobbyists which is totally against his image. Imagine everytime Barack says McCain takes lobbyist money, McCain won't have any answer.

You liberals are hilarious to be sure! You're going to make this too easy. Obama's two step of keeping positive with his new politics while the left becomes his de facto attack dog is so transparent.

This article had about as much evidence and as much truthfullness as those "Obama is a Muslim" e-mails.

Believe me, the majority of McCain's supporters had the decency and generosity not to accuse the man of lying about his faith because we don't question people's integrity without reason.

Can the same be said for the majority of Obama's supporters? Judging by the reax on this blog - I honestly don't know.

If the NYT doesn't have more than they published Bill Keller should be fired. If they have material to back up their story then McCain had a VERY BAD day because he dug himself a deeper hole. What matters is what is the truth, not who is winning the spin game.

Fortunately, this isn't going away. It's not the sex, it's the lobbyists.

They're everywhere around McCain.

And folks like me are sick of government for corporations instead of people. We understand a sex story, thanks to Republicans treatment of Bill and Hill.

But we're living the lobbyist story each and every day. And typically, it's not to our advantage.

I agree with zic, its about the lobbyists. Sex is just a tease for the story, taking you behind the facade. Travelling on corporate jets to fundraisers sponsored by executives of regulated industries is the definition of moral hazard. And as seen with Carol and Cindy and Bob Jones, he is a man of principles when convienent but they never stand in the way of the trophy.

Huh, looks like McCain might not be as forthcoming with the press as, er, some have alleged:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013176.php

Any comment, Marc? I'd be interested in hearing how either you or your source spin this one.

You know, it is not just about the lobbyists, it is also about (his aide's concerns of) sex with a lobbyist. I mean what is up with people's notions of ethics, that they could not perceive a conflict of interest in an extra marital affair, between a politician and a lobbyist (whose clients stand to gain millions by the pol's. decision) when that affair, if revealed, could ruin the politician's career. Iseman needs to make one call to 60 minutes and McCain is done. Care to think how he (or the lobbyist he hired to run his office) might handle some of those pending files she's got on her desk? What about the files of everyone who knows what Iseman knows? And does McCain really benefit in the end from a "war" with the NYT?

Jeff Larson, McCain taking one day off from his nearly 100% media availability in order to move on from a universally discredited story is not news - its common sense.

Now, if only Obama was as open and available to answer everyone's questions as McCain. Political and corruption watchdog groups are blasting him for only now releasing new details about meetings and dealings with Tony Rezko. The Centre for Responsive politics is hammering him for spending $800,000 to essentially BUY super delegates. There's his broken pledge on public financing. There's his friendship with 60's terrorists from the Weather Underground.

I have serious questions about the man's honesty and integrity. Of course, i'm not into smears so i'm going to say miles away from this story O'Reilly is tempted to break:

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/01/dear-larry-sinc.html

Its a cocaine-gay sex in a limo story from eight years ago that's been simmering beneath the surface of the mainstream media and the right wing blogosphere for months now. Nobody will touch it because its anonymously sourced. When will the NYT investigate this and run an equal opperunity hit piece on Obama?

Jeff Larson, McCain taking one day off from his nearly 100% media availability in order to move on from a universally discredited story is not news - its common sense.

Huh. Interesting timing, then, for the darling of the media to decide to take that day off after that long history of near 100% availability. Very suspicious!

Bad news; looks like McCain lied:

Just hours after the Times' story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff--and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement emailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the September 25, 2002 deposition obtained by Newsweek. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

Straight talk, indeed :(

Marc, is this also part of your source's "deft" handling?

Well, defter than my HTML tagging apparently. For the record, the following paragraphs document the lie circulated by the McCain campaign:

Just hours after the Times' story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff--and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement emailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the September 25, 2002 deposition obtained by Newsweek. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

Either I'm the dumbest man alive, or there's a problem in the way this form parses HTML tags across paragraphs. I'd say it's probably about a 50/50 proposition ;)

Hello, Marc, commenters-

I was very impressed by your write-up about how the McCain campaign handled the situation, and how it appears that their crisis-management skills were on fine display throughout the news cycle...

What distinguished your write-up from everyone else's, is that you zeroed in on the politics and spin of the situation, and did not go into the question of whether the allegations are true or false or whether the NYT exercised good judgment by its publication of the story....

The link on my site to your story:

http://blog.electionnighthq.com/2008/02/22/the-atlantics-marc-ambinder-how-mccain-weathered-the-storm/

Comments, anyone?