Roger’s Rules

April 27th, 2008 2:50 am

Grasping at Straws: The NY Times on McCain

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

This is getting embarrassing. Remember the front-page story The New York Times ran about John McCain’s non-affair with a lobbyist? That was the long-held piece of non-news that the Times subtly dropped like a barbell at midnight shortly after it became clear that McCain would be the Republican nominee for President. The point of the piece was to knock Mr. McCain off his high horse and tarnish his reputation. But the effect was to further diminish the Times in the eyes of its readers. If such mean-spirited and slightly hysterical rumor-mongering is news, who needs it?

Well, they never learn. At least, that’s what I conclude from today’s non-story about Mr. McCain’s use of a corporate jet owned by a company run by his wife. “McCain Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost” screams the headline.

“Yeah, so?” you might be asking, and you would be right. Here’s how the Times structures its non-stories about John McCain:

1. Prissy introductory sentence or two noting that Mr. McCain has a reputation [read “unearned reputation”] for taking the ethical high road on issues like campaign finance reform.

2. “The-Times-has-learned” sentence intimating some tort or misbehavior.

3. A paragraph or two of exposition that simultaneously reveals that a) Mr. McCain actually didn’t do anything wrong but b) he would have if only the law had been different and besides everyone knows he is guilty in spirit.

It’s really easy once you get the hang of it. Here’s how it looks in practice:

1. The Setup: “Given Senator John McCain’s signature stance on campaign finance reform, it was not surprising that he backed legislation last year requiring presidential candidates to pay the actual cost of flying on corporate jets. The law, which requires campaigns to pay charter rates when using such jets rather than cheaper first-class fares, was intended to reduce the influence of lobbyists and create a level financial playing field.”

The “Times-Touch” © here is in the opposition of Mr. McCain’s “signature stance” campaign finance reform and the ominous but as-yet-unstated malfeasance: Mr. McCain claims to be a reformer, but really . . . . The suggestion of hypocrisy is all the more potent for being left in the realm of innuendo.

2. The Execution: “But over a seven-month period beginning last summer, Mr. McCain’s cash-short campaign gave itself an advantage by using a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife, Cindy McCain, according to public records. For five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes, those records show.”

Oh dear. That’s bad, right? I mean, using your wife’s jet doesn’t sound too bad, really. Perfectly normal, in fact. Convenient that she has a spare jet he could use. But it must somehow be against the law, right? Otherwise it wouldn’t be news, would it? And if it wasn’t news, it wouldn’t be worth reporting. Right?

If you believe that, you don’t know the Times. Pay attention now:

3. The Obfuscation: Part one: “The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control.”

Oh. Case closed, what? Not quite:

Part two: “The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole — rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes — but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making.

Because that exemption remains, Mr. McCain’s campaign was able to use his wife’s corporate plane like a charter jet while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however, added that his campaign’s actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit.”

Let’s summarize. McCain used his wife’s company’s jet. It was perfectly legal for him to do so. But some people the Times reporter talked to think it shouldn’t be legal. Therefore . . .

“Therefore” what? Therefore you run another several hundred words telling readers how many flights the plane made over a 7-month period, how much it costs per hour to fly the plane, what the F.E.C. rules are for “deadhead” flights, likely tax-consequences for Mrs. McCain’s company, ending with an all purpose disclaimer: “The Times analysis may be inexact for a variety of reasons.” Why? “For one, the Times suffers from crippling ideological bias that requires it to publish stories that are nothing more than a tissue of groundless insinuation and thinly veiled editorializing designed to discredit a candidate we don’t like but against whom we have no dirt, though we are digging as fast as we can . . .” Oops, wrong sentence: the reason the Times actually gave for its possible inexactness was “flight records do not show how many, if any, campaign travelers were aboard a plane on a given flight.” Good to know.

Update: A reader adds two additional observations:

[R]egarding the non-violation of FEC rules: the article itself states that the FEC didn’t even begin not-adopting this new non-rule until December - and the travel in question took place from August through February. Not in any conceivable universe would McCain ever to have been held to have violated in August a rule that didn’t exist before December. And presumably if the FEC had had enough members to pass this rule in December, the McCain campaign would have then stopped doing whatever it is that the Times is so indignant about.

And WHY does the commission not have enough members to conduct business as usual? The Times is unusually reticent on that point. That’s because the reason the FEC doesn’t have enough members is that Barack Obama has blocked President Bush’s nominee from being confirmed.

Read bullet | (38) Comments bullet

38 Comments

Snooper:

Naturally. The Leftinistra only have non-issue issues to contend with. Otherwise, They would have to talk about themselves and they can’t afford to expose themselves like we do.

Apr 27, 2008 - 3:45 am Patrick:

Great post, Mr. Kimball. Two other points regarding the non-violation of FEC rules: the article itself states that the FEC didn’t even begin not-adopting this new non-rule until December - and the travel in question took place from August through February. Not in any conceivable universe would McCain ever to have been held to have violated in August a rule that didn’t exist before December. And presumably if the FEC had had enough members to pass this rule in December, the McCain campaign would have then stopped doing whatever it is that the Times is so indignant about.

And WHY does the commission not have enough members to conduct business as usual? The Times is unusually reticent on that point. That’s because the reason the FEC doesn’t have enough members is that Barack Obama has blocked President Bush’s nominee from being confirmed.

All the news that’s fit to print.

Apr 27, 2008 - 5:30 am Perfect Sense:

The New York Times missed an obvious angle: McCain flies in his wife’s jet because McCain is a racist.
/s

Apr 27, 2008 - 6:30 am Fr Martin Fox:

Hmmm…

Suppose the rule the Times wants were in place, and the McCain campaign had to pay steeper rates to the corporation for the use of the jet…

Wouldn’t that mean large amounts of campaign money would then be funnelled…back into the pockets of McCain’s wife?

Am I to believe the Times would think that was perfectly kosher, while it sniffs at this arrangement?

Apr 27, 2008 - 6:52 am Gagdad Bob:

This just proves the old adage that left wing journalism is the first rough draft of rewritten history.

Apr 27, 2008 - 7:40 am DelD:

What? Don’t you remember how the New York Times got itself into a righteous snit over John Kerry’s use of Theresa Heinz’s private jet?

Well, neither do I.

Apr 27, 2008 - 7:49 am Democracy Project:

Tanenhaus & The NYT

Apr 27, 2008 - 8:35 am BSKB:

Even worse, I heard that he occasionally drives his wife’s car without paying the equivalent value in cab fare. A man willing to stoop so low as to use his own property to run a campaign instead of taking graft from others is not the sort of man I want running my country.

Apr 27, 2008 - 8:51 am Democracy Project:

Tanenhaus & The NYT

Apr 27, 2008 - 8:55 am Mike_K:

The final solution, so to speak, of this problem with the Times is headlined, “Bloodbath in the Newsroom” as it prepares to lay off lots of reporters to stem the flow of red ink. “Pinch” is no more skilled at running a newspaper than he is at choosing stories to make the front page.

Apr 27, 2008 - 9:16 am Fresh Air:

That four-man Get McCain desk is really in overdrive.

They forgot to look in their own archives for what they said about T H-Kerry loaning her jet to JFK:

“Some aspects of Ms. Heinz Kerry’s wealth have been exaggerated in news reports. Her private jet, for instance, is often described as a “$35 million Gulfstream V” model. In fact, said a broker with knowledge of the sale, it is a Gulfstream II, bought used in 1993 for about $3 million, the low end of the scale for private jets. It is hardly a cheap item, costing about $1.5 million a year to operate. Mr. Kerry rarely flies on it, preferring to take commercial flights on his routine trips to and from Washington, said David Wade, a Kerry spokesman.

Ms. Heinz Kerry bought the jet in the wake of her husband’s death in a charter plane crash in 1991, because she believed owning their own plane would make her and her family members safer, said Grant Oliphant, the associate director of the Heinz Endowments.

********

So here we see TimesSpeak in action when a defense of the exact same activity is desired.

1. It’s not really a high-end Gulfstream V, it’s just a lowly Gulfstream II, for chrissakes! Don’t you rubes know your Twos from your Fives? The II, for example, only seats 12 and cruises at a pokey 425 miles per hour. The V, in stark contrast with the II, cruises at 550 miles per hour(!). Do you what a difference that extra speed makes when you’re flying to Davos? Plus the II can’t reach Bali without refueling at least once. This is a huge inconvenience for a busy senator.

2. This low-end jet that seats 12 and flies at 425 miles per hour was bought used! Practically purchased at the Methodist Hospital White Elephant store.

3. Sen. Kerry doesn’t actually use it all that much, as he prefers commercial according to his spokesman. [Ed: Is it possible someone at the Times actually took down that quote without laughing?]

4. After all, THK’s first husband died on one of those low-end corporate jets, and even it were a bit expensive for some, it’s only because she’s afraid and wants the important senator from Mass. (and her husband, natch) to be safe.

******

Okay class. For extra credit, re-write the first article like the second one and we’ll be able to see what happens when Barak Obama is caught on George Soros’s jet.

Apr 27, 2008 - 9:32 am jblog:

“…and he litters! And he hates cats! And he doesn’t eat his vegetables. And, and, and….”

Is this case, there aren’t even any straws to grasp at.

Apr 27, 2008 - 9:48 am David:

There’s another odd statement in the article:

Jan Baran, a Republican lawyer in Washington who specializes in election law, said Mrs. McCain or her company would be likely to face substantial tax consequences for the plane’s campaign-related use because such campaign-related business costs were not tax deductible.

Another case of making a non-event appear sinister. The only way there would be a taxable event would be if the company was reimbursed at a rate above its cost, i.e. the company made a profit. But the article claims the reimbursements did not even cover the operating profits. So how could there be a tax consequence to all of this?

Apr 27, 2008 - 9:50 am bandit:

It’s not reporting it’s campaigning.

Apr 27, 2008 - 9:52 am punditius:

Wait.

Wasn’t this an article in the Onion?

“McCain Campaign Fails to Obey Nonexistent Regulation.”

Clearly, the NYT is adopting the Onion business model.

Apr 27, 2008 - 9:53 am Joe Y:

The NYT website shows that this story is only part 1 of a series that’s running all week. Their schedule shows

Mon: In September, October, and November, 2006, used wife’s car for “at least 6 mysterious late-evening trips to 7-11 store.”

Tues: “Veteran Arizona political observers” confirm that at “numerous political fund-raising dinners” McCain has been observed inexplicably eating most of his wife’s desert.

Wed: Glamorous oil industry lobbyist Janet Sunderson, who several NYT sources confirmed is not a virgin, “lent” McCain several tissues after an unexplainable sneezing fit in July. A call to Sanderson, who claims to be on maternity leave, confirms that the tissues were never returned, nor was she compensated for them.

Thurs: Does McCain’s well-documented history of post-Thanksgiving dinner crankiness reveal a deeper pathology? Sidebar story on how much Obama loves stuffing.

The site only has big “?” under the Fri, Sat, and Sun stories, but I doubt there will be muich left of the McCain campaign by then.

Apr 27, 2008 - 10:09 am Bob R:

John’s a retired Navy pilot. Maybe he’s flying his wife’s bizjet to stay current. It’s obviously FAA’s rules that force him to do so, and those rules are George W. Bush’s. It’s GW’s fault.

Impeach him now!

Apr 27, 2008 - 10:47 am Chill Burger:

Not only did McCain use his wife’s corporate jet but he also fought in the Vietnam War…and that is bad.

Kerry isn’t running this year so its ok for leftonians to say that again.

Apr 27, 2008 - 11:07 am La Rana:

I don’t get it. McCain repeatedly makes a stink about campaign finance reform, largely out of the corrupting influence of personal wealth, and explicitly denies that he will use his inherited wealth for his campaign. Meanwhile, he is using a plane subsidized by his wife. Nothing in the story was dependent on legality. He’s a liar for using his wife’s wealth and a hypocrite to boot. That you miss that point is baffling.

Apr 27, 2008 - 11:29 am charlie:

Perhaps the Times would approve if the plane flew with only a left wing.

Apr 27, 2008 - 12:31 pm Bedhead:

I bet the plane was white too. That racist!

Apr 27, 2008 - 12:37 pm Laughing:

I believe one important point not mentioned in this article or the NYT story is the name of Cindy McCain’s jet - “Bozomobile.”

Apr 27, 2008 - 12:40 pm G Brooks:

By letting him use his wife plane she will have “undue” influence on him. Like his wife does not already influence him. Sorry, La Rana there is no problem. The only vialble reason according to the courts to have contribution restrictions is to stop “undue” influence.

Apr 27, 2008 - 12:59 pm Gershon Moshe:

Great observations. The good news is that the Times is slowly going bankrupt, it’s a journalistic joke believed only by those in Manhattan north of 50th Street and South of 110th. The Wall Street Journal rocks, and the Times is losing market share every day because of fabrications like these. Maybe Rupert Murdoch will pick up the Times in a bankruptcy auction.

Apr 27, 2008 - 1:05 pm Gary:

With all of the speculation of layoffs and firings at the NYT it seems that the lefties are having a going away party like they did when the Clintons left the White House. Rather than stealing the silverware they are getting in their last licks with more spray painted liberal graffiti.

Soon they will be gone.

Apr 27, 2008 - 1:30 pm Democracy Project:

Tanenhaus & The NYT

Apr 27, 2008 - 1:35 pm Dan A:

John McCain had better tap into that “Maverick” temper of his and come to grips with the fact that he is not going to be able to run an oh-so-clean and above board campaign. The Times insinuation piece is just the tip of the iceberg of the Titanic proportion, gutter assault, that will be waged upon him in the general election.

Barack Obama cavorts with known domestic terrorists, has a racist bigot for a pastor, looks down his nose at the “common folk” and avoids hard answers to real questions like the plague. Hillary Clinton can’t seem to recall any fact or circumstance surrounding any scandal in which she or her husband have been involved and routinely invents the facts (sniper fire).

John McCain follows the letter of the law, is open and above board in his answers to any question he is asked and for his honesty he is the target of hit pieces from the New York Times. John Boy had better start building a surplus of “mud pies” if he hopes to win an election against either Democrat candidate.

Apr 27, 2008 - 3:23 pm Dan R.:

The NY Times is a joke. Only the most delusional of liberal partisans would dare to still try and claim that it is an unbiased news source. It really is a shame to see the depths to which a formerly great American newspaper has now sunk.

Apr 27, 2008 - 4:00 pm bill tammelleo:

Mc Cain is emotionally disqualified for the office he seeks. It amy not matter to him or his supporters that he can flaunt his megalomania with his media pals and get away with it–the nation cannot afford another adolescent in the Whitehouse.

Apr 27, 2008 - 4:03 pm bill tammelleo:

Apr 27, 2008 - 4:03 pm SCSD:

At least the NYT dropped the story, after realizing it was wrong. “like a barbell at midnight” Unlike some issues/tall stories the wingnuts have beatten to death. Just go back 10 years, and look at the right wing rumor mill about the Clintons, stuff that stood up as well as a slug to a steam roller, after being investigated. Oh I get it you certainly don’t mind when your not accurate, but it’s a different story when the liberals are wrong. At least the wingnuts have control of the media to nip it in the bud.

Apr 27, 2008 - 6:44 pm Michael Lonie:

Well Bill, if you do not want megalomaniacs in the White House you’d better mae sure neither Hillary nor Obama (whose creepy devotees remind one of some fascist movement) gets in, for they are far worse than McCain in this respect. For example, both are demanding the nomination and subsequent election almost entirely on the basis of their sex or race, for neither of them has any significant accomplishments to boast of.

Indeed, the most humble and least megalomaniacal presidents we have had in recent history were Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43, so you’d better look for someone like them. But of the three you’ve got to choose among, McCain is the least megalomaniacal, so you’d better be content with him, if you are really worried about that problem.

Apr 27, 2008 - 6:48 pm Armando:

Bill,

Obama is the only adolescent in the race.

You’re intellectually disqualified from discussion.

Apr 27, 2008 - 7:04 pm Mightycline:

Nice article. Thanks. Too have you noticed that slowly, that the obambibloggers are dropping out slowly as they turn to toast in disappointment found emerging for their cadidate It’s called hero burn-out. Also by the end of the D-Convention in Demodenver, there may be no NYT as we now know it. I,too, was once was a subsciber before selecting the WSJ as my mainpage reading source. Market forces in a market driven economy…………
that’s all folks.

Apr 27, 2008 - 7:29 pm AG:

Charlie! Loved the comment! New York Times is as good as The National Enquirer. How low can they go?

Apr 27, 2008 - 8:10 pm yuen:

NYTimes actually had another item:

How McCain Lost in Pennsylvania - Frank Rich, New York Times

about the republicans that voted for Huckebee and Ron Paul in the Penn primary; it did not seem to occur to the author that, since McCain’s nomination is already certain, the people who still bother to vote are more likely to be doing it as a form of protest, thus exaggerating the anti-McCain percentage, above what it would be if the vote had an impact on the nomination

Apr 27, 2008 - 9:10 pm Nick K.:

The NY Times doesn’t have to mention McCain’s use of his wife’s airplane to highlight his hypocrisy on campaign finance reform.

All the Times (or any news outlet) has to do is just mention the many fat cats who have contributed to McCain’s campaign, and then describe how McCain has paid them back with favors by wielding his clout in the Senate.

McCain doesn’t just represent people like Charles Keating (his most famous supporter).

He represents wealthy Arizona land developers (who contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign) by greasing land deals for them–at the expense of ordinary citizens.

He will represent almost ANY corporate executive who will contribute to his campaign, just like George Bush does.

A straight talkin’ reformer?

McCain is just another corporate tool who doesn’t know much about the economy.

No McCain in ‘08!

Apr 27, 2008 - 9:29 pm buzz:

So, Bill Tammelleo. You had a problem with Bill Clinton’s two terms then?

Apr 27, 2008 - 10:33 pm