I disagree with Mr. Kinsley on two points. One, the issue the NYT was trying to raise was whether there was a quid pro quo, i.e., did Ms. Iseman provide Mr. McCain with sexual favors in return for preferential treatment of her client(s). He seemingly is oblivious to this point. Second, it is absolutely about an affair and the NYT knew it, or should have known it. Either way, someone should be fired, perhaps Mr. Keller.

David Brooks has written an excellent article about Mr. McCain's fight against lobbyists and special interests in the NYT today. Folks who want to know the truth should read it. Here's the link:

<link>

Lastly, I am a government regulator. Most regulators, when acting on applications have regulatory time frames in which they must act. I find it hard to believe the FCC's initial time frame was two years. In my line of work, typically, our time frame is 60 calendar days. If we fail to act within that time frame, we can extend review of an application, but only for very specific reasons related to the statute that requires an application to be submitted in the first place. Usually, if we do not act promptly after an initial extension period, the applicant, rightly so, complains to his or her Representative and/or Senator, something that is well within the rights of all Americans (redress of grievances, remember that?). And, the Representative or Senator usually sends a letter or has a staffer call to inquire into the status of the application. Some of the letters get kind of harsh. Why? Because the legislative branch is holding the executive branch accountable for its actions, or in this case, its lack of actions. If the elected politician did not inquire, then he or she would not be doing their duty to the American people. Mr. McCain wrote that letter because that is his job, plain and simple.

But...but...oh dammit! That's reasonable and logical.

Why did you have to bring the boring reality of everyday life into it? It's so much more fun to giggle like school girls 'cuz someone said something naughty, then when caught hand in pants, get all serious about another someone trying to steal our balls.

Please - no more pragmatism!

I am on the other side of the regulatory "process" and agree with about 95% of what WordsMatter wrote. However, I also know (because I have taken advantage) that elected officials try more or less hard to address a constituent's complaints based upon the particular constituent's ability to get the elected official re-elected. I have no doubt Mr. McCain sees it as his role to hold the executive branch accountable. On the other hand I am also very familiar with the process that elected officials employ to decide who makes it to the front of the line. And a constituent who can afford an expensive lobbyist also tends to be the kind of constituent that can afford to write campaign checks, hold fundraisers, etc. Any decent lobbyist can easily get someone like Bud Paxson to the front of the line without resorting to taudry offers of sexual favors. In fact, she wouldn't be a very good lobbyist if that was her operational style.

The bottom line, though, is that - at least for me - it is very disappointing that a paper like the NY Times would stoop to pretending it doesn't understand how things get done in order to get a front page headline.