Leave No Stone Unturned

In their determined effort to explore every aspect of John McCain's life, various MSM outlets are leaving no stone unturned.

First, The New York Times weighed in with a lengthy article suggesting that Mr. McCain had an "inappropriate" relationship with a female lobbyist almost a decade ago. Trouble was, both Senator McCain and the woman denied the allegations, and the Times account was woefully short on substantiation.

More recently, the Washington Post offered an examination of McCain's "anger management" issues. Imagine that--a politician with a temper. But, it was somehow worthy of a multi-page investigation, recounting examples of McCain losing his cool, some of them from decades ago. Funny, but we don't recall a similar piece on Hillary Clinton, whose White House tirades were the stuff of legend.

But, in this journalistic equivalent of dumpster-diving, both the NYT and the Post are mere pikers. With a piece that appeared yesterday, the Los Angeles Times can now claim top honors in the McCain expose sweepstakes.

Their sensational revelation? Senator McCain, a retired naval officer who spent almost six years as a POW in North Vietnam, gets a tax-free disability pension.

At this point, most of you are probably saying "duh." Thousands of military retirees and veterans collect disability pensions, the result of injuries or medical conditions that stem from their days in uniform. And, as the Times notes, certain types of military or disability pensions are partially or completely tax-exempt, depending on the severity of the condition.

Mr. McCain's pension, in case you're wondering, is 100% tax free.

But, according to the paper, this raises questions about McCain's fitness for the rigors of office. If he's disabled, the logic goes, then he may lack the stamina for the presidency. On the other hand, if he's healthy enough to hike the Grand Canyon (as the senator has claimed), then why is he drawing a disability pension?

Mr. McCain's chief campaign strategist, Mark Salter, offered a rather succinct response when the Times asked how McCain acquired his disability. "He was tortured for his country," Mr. Salter observed.

And certainly, no one can dispute that. Shot down over North Vietnam, McCain suffered two broken arms and a shattered knee ejecting from his crippled aircraft. Imprisoned in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton," he received no medical care until his captors learned that McCain's father was commander of U.S. military forces in the Pacific. Refusing to cooperate with the enemy, McCain was subjected to torture, exacerbating his condition. After being released in 1973, he endured a long and painful rehabilitation. Today, the Senator cannot raise his arms above his shoulders, the lasting result of his injuries in Vietnam.

We'd say that Mr. McCain earned his disability pension--and its tax-exempt status.

Still, the Times managed to find an "expert" who wondered about the senator's ability to serve, or (alternately) his eligibility for a tax-free pension.

"It is a legitimate question to ask about the commander in chief: Is he fit to serve," said Robert Schriebman, a senior Pentagon tax advisor and tax attorney who recently retired as a judge advocate for a unit of the California National Guard.

If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked.

We wonder if the L.A. Times would have asked the same question in 1932, when FDR was campaigning for the White House. He was in a wheelchair.

A Marine's Right to Privacy

The headline in Sunday's New York Times says it all: "Vocal on War, McCain is Silent on Son's Service." With that, reporter Jodi Kantor plunges into another strange examination of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, detailing something that Mr. McCain never mentions on the campaign trail--that his son, Jimmy, is a member of the Marine Corps, and recently completed a combat tour in Iraq.

According to the Times, the Senator, his wife Cindy and Lance Corporal McCain declined to be interviewed for the piece. And the McCain campaign asked the paper not to run the article, citing Jimmy McCain's right-to-privacy. Not surprisingly, the NYT declined, decided that its readers need to know about Lance Corporal McCain, a combat vet who has accompanied his father on campaign swings (in civilian clothes), but is never mentioned by the candidate.

Readers of this blog know that we've had--and still have--serious disagreements with the Arizona Senator on policy issues. But in the matter of Jimmy McCain's service to his country (and his right to privacy), we'd say the Senator and his family got it right. Reading the Times account, readers discover that Jimmy McCain has a bit of his old man's maverick streak. He enlisted in the Marine Corps at the age of 17, and never asked for special favors--only a chance to prove himself. But that ignores the salient question: doesn't the younger McCain still have a right to privacy?

And, by all accounts he has. The Times interviewed one of Lance Corporal McCain's commanding officers, and a number of his fellow Marines. To a man, they describe him as hard-working and humble, eager to do his duty. During his deployment to Anbar Provinence, McCain's unit performed "soft knock" operations, visits to Iraqi homes designed to provide surveillance and reassurance. They also searched for weapons caches and IEDs. While the security situation had dramatically improved by the time McCain's unit arrive, three Marines from his battalion were killed in action during his deployment.

From a news standpoint, what does this have to do with John McCain's bid for the White House? Absolutely nothing--the same point his campaign tried to make with the Times in an effort to quash the story. Like any other soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine, Lance Corporal McCain deserves the right to serve outside the media spotlight. As the scion of a legendary Navy family, McCain already carries an extra burden. There was simply no need for the Times to pile on with Sunday's story about Jimmy McCain and his military career.

But, when it comes to Senator McCain and his presidential bid, nothing is apparently off limits for the NYT. Just a few weeks ago, the paper ran with that infamous "expose" detailing Mr. McCain's supposedly relationship with a female lobbyist. Never mind that both the Senator and the lobbyist denied the accusation. And never mind that the Times' own editor didn't think his reporters had the story nailed down. The "story's" salacious allegations were enough for the paper to launch its opening salvo against McCain.

Sunday's article on Jimmy McCain doesn't fall in the same category, but it's timing is curious, to say the least. With Sunday's splash, McCain is now the most famous Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps--a title he clearly loathes. And, it raises concerns for the Corps. Jimmy McCain's fellow Marines joked with him about "patrolling with the Secret Service," if his father wins the fall election.

That's obviously a stretch, but the Corps would have to go to added lengths to protect future deployments by the younger McCain and his unit. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the Marine Corps might impose similar rules to those that accompanied Prince Harry's recent deployment to Afghanistan--a tour that was cut short after the Drudge Report (and other media outlets) broke the media embargo.

Clearly, that's not the way that Lance Corporal McCain wants to serve out his enlistment. He has the same right (he would use the word "obligation") to face the same hazards as other Marines, without regard for his family's history, or his father's bid for the White House. Like the rest of his family, Jimmy McCain understands that you don't join the military for personal glory or for political expediency. The desire to serve is rooted in a thousand different motivations--love of country, a desire to improve one's self, an opportunity to make your own way in life--concepts clearly beyond the grasp of The New York Times.

We wish Lance Corporal McCain all the best during the rest of his tour. According to the paper, the younger McCain has aspirations of eventually earning his commission and becoming a naval aviator, like his father. We hope he has the opportunity to pursue that dream with the privacy that all service members deserve.

***

ADDENDUM: While the Times finds it a bit strange that Senator McCain doesn't mention his Marine son on the campaign trail, the paper had no problem with a Democratic politician using his son as a campaign prop. During his successful run for the Senate in 2006, Virginia's Jim Webb made a point of wearing his son's boots on the campaign trail, to emphasize his opposition to the Iraq War. Shortly before taking office, the Senator-elect used his son to score more political points, chastising President Bush when he asked about the younger Webb's tour in Iraq. Apparently, the NYT saw nothing wrong with Webb's behavior, though many in the military shuddered at his feckless--and opportunistic--display.

As Desperate as Hillary?

Last year, we mourned the passing of the Weekly World News, the late, great supermarket tabloid that amused readers with repeated “discoveries” of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and space aliens masquerading as world leaders. As we observed at the time, the WWN could hold its head high as it faded into history; at least they were honest about their journalistic fraud.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of The New York Times. Last week, the Grey Lady published a story on GOP presidential candidate John McCain, suggesting that he had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. The article was so inconclusive—and poorly sourced—that the Times would have better luck in claiming that McCain fathered an alien love child, cheekily citing the same “experts” and “leading scientists” that were stock-in-trade for exclusives in the Weekly World News.

Never mind that the Times was roundly criticized for the McCain/lobbyist “investigation.” Even the paper’s Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, admitted the article failed to substantiate its salacious claims. Reader reaction to the story was overwhelmingly negative, and the anti-Times backlash actually produced a spike in donations to the McCain campaign.

Undeterred by that little setback, the NYT is at it again, reviving the “musty” debate over Senator McCain’s eligibility for the presidency, based on his birth in the Panama Canal Zone 71 years ago. The Constitution, of course, states that only “natural-born” citizens can hold the nation’s highest office.

But, as Times reporter Carl Hulse suggests ominously, the meaning of the term “natural born” is subject to legal interpretation:

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The “growing interest” in this matter appears limited to “internet buzz” and conjecture by immigration professors, attorneys and law students. At one point in his article, Mr. Hulse even acknowledges that Senator McCain’s citizenship “was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods.”

Case closed, right? Well, not according to the Times. One of McCain’s supporters, former Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, says he “wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to make an issue out of it. But Nickles quickly added: “If it goes to court, I think he will win.” We might also add that (so far) there’s no real suggestion that anyone plans to legally challenge Mr. McCain’s status as a natural-born citizen, given the rather inconvenient facts of the case. We rather doubt that Mr. Olson's research into the issue is one of his--or Senator McCain's--top priorities.

Let’s see. Both of his parents were natural-born; Mr. McCain’s father was a naval officer, stationed in the Canal Zone (then American territory) at the time of his son’s birth. His assignment there was based on official government orders, and he was born in a U.S. military hospital. And, according to at least one poster on another blog, children born to military parents in the Canal Zone--and other overseas locations--receive papers from the government, identifying them as “natural-born” U.S. citizens.” Contrary to the assertions of Professor Duggin, it sounds like a slam-dunk case to us.

But then again, we’re not lawyers—or reporters for The New York Times. Patterico
summed up the non-story rather well, asking if the Times has become “as desperate as Hillary.” We’d say the answer to that one is as clear as John McCain’s status as a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.

***

ADDENDUM: Patterico also has a link to a detailed discussion of key laws and legal precedents on this issue, courtesy of Simon Dodd at Stubborn Facts.

Follow the Money

PJM has a fascinating read, by journalist Craig S. Karpel, on The New York Times’ “financial” motivation for running that recent hit piece on John McCain. As Mr. Karpel explains, the parent NYT Company is girding for a key election that is focused on boardroom, rather than presidential politics.

How does that relate to John McCain? According to Karpel, it’s part of a plan to get the Times back in the headlines, increase shareholder value and keep some unwelcome outsiders off the corporate board:

“..I’m talking about the election that’s genuinely crucial to the newspaper’s senior management, the one that’s going to be held on Tuesday, April 22, 2008, the one that decides who the directors of The New York Times Company are going to be.

Have a look at a chart of the company’s Class A stock and you’ll see why. (The holders of the Class B shares, 89 percent of which are owned by descendants of Adolph Ochs, who bought the Times in 1896, elect nine of the company’s 13 directors.) In 2002, Times shares were as high as $53. The stock is now trading below $20. During the same period, the S&P 500 index has gone from about 1,000 to more than 1,300.

The decline of the A shares has had two effects. It has attracted the attention of a group of investor/kibbitzers who, as you read this, are engaged in a proxy battle to have their slate elected to the four Times board seats that represent shareholders unfortunate enough not have been born into the Ochs-Sulzberger family. The group hopes its directors can hector the clan’s directors into selling off the company’s non-core holdings (e.g., 17 percent of the Boston Red Sox, not to mention full ownership of that journalistic bastion, the Petaluma Argus-Courier, circulation 7,400—I kid you not) and buy additional Internet-based businesses with the goal of obtaining most of its revenues from Web advertising by 2013. And it has wonderfully concentrated the minds of the paper’s senior managers.

Nothing can be done about the overriding tribulation of the dead-tree press: the enormous expense of growing, cutting, pulping, shipping, printing, folding, and delivering the end-product of the deciduous deceased. But dead-tree diehards believe the value added to the newsprint product can be increased, while simultaneously being leveraged into digital content. The key to it all, as they see it, is that old standby, the scoop. And the best kind of scoop a newspaper can have is the kind where the paper itself becomes the story.

[snip]

Sources at The New York Times have told me that “the masthead”—the paper’s top 13 editors, from assistant managing editor on up—has been under relentless pressure from publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. to come up with stories that will themselves make news. In Sulzberger’s view, the only instance in which the Times has shot and scored during the tenure of the paper’s executive editor, Bill Keller, who was appointed in mid-2003, was its coverage of warrantless surveillance of phone calls to and from the U.S., for which James Risen and Eric Lichtblau received the 2006 Pulitzer Prize.

So it’s not a coincidence that the McCain-Iseman story was published the same day—February 21—as The New York Times Company submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the preliminary proxy statement for this year’s annual meeting. The statement warns shareholders: “Please note that Harbinger Capital Partners NY, LLC and certain of its affiliates have notified us that they intend to solicit proxies for and nominate at our Annual Meeting their own slate of four nominees for election as directors, in opposition to four of the nominees we have selected. Our Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote for the election of each of our Board’s nominees on the enclosed WHITE proxy card and urges you not to sign or return any proxy card that you may receive from Harbinger.” [Boldface and capitalization in the original.—CSK]

So far, the Sulzberger strategy of “making the paper the story” has been a major flop. The Times was roundly—and rightfully—criticized for publishing the McCain story. Even public editor, Clark Hoyt, slammed the paper’s “coverage.”

The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap.

[snip]

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

Readers will note that Mr. Hoyt’s post-mortem makes no mention of the “pressure” on editors at the Times to put the paper back in the headlines, or the looming proxy battle. And, in fairness, it’s quite possible that Hoyt was unaware of Sulzberger’s “strategy,” or the attempt to bring fresh blood to the NYT corporate board.

Still, one would think that the Times owes its’ dwindling readership a little more disclosure—the same thing it has demanded of politicians, government institutions and business conglomerates. But, if you’re expecting the NYT to generate a 5,000 word examination of the Sulzberger “strategy” and its impact on news coverage, forget about it. That sort of introspection and analysis is reserved for organizations and individuals targeted by the Times—certainly not the paper’s parent company, and the latest Sulzberger who’s driving it into the ground.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.