Political Wrinkles - View Single Post

cnredd · #2 (**permalink**) 02-23-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

A Hole in McCains Defense?

So John McCain said he never had any contact whatsoever with anyone associated with Paxon Communications. McCain testified under oath just five years ago that he met with Paxon personally! McCain also wrote two letters to the FCC demanding that they act on a long stalled bid by Paxon Communications to purchase a Pittsburgh TV station.Guess who was the lobbyist for Paxon Communications? That's right,Alcade & Fray the company who employed Vicki Iseman!

Full story below!

A Hole in McCain?s Defense? | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

It's far from a "hole"...It's much ado about nothing...

Here'a an article from the previous FCC commissioner on the letters...

McCain Stood Up

Quote:

There is no news in this story. Everything in this article has been around for many years and is public knowledge. The Times is bringing it out now because Mr. McCain is the likely Republican nominee.

FCC commissioners receive thousands of letters annually from members of Congress and other high-ranking officials of the federal, state, and local governments. The letters remind the commissioners of important considerations and often ask the commission to address an issue in a timely manner. Mr. McCain's letters were unremarkable and indistinguishable from countless other letters and comments sent to the FCC. As a commissioner at the FCC between 1997 and 2001, I received thousands of letters including the two letters in question from Mr. McCain.

Mr. McCain's letters in question were checking on the status of the FCC's review of the transfer of broadcast licenses in Pittsburgh, Pa. The transfers included non-commercial stations WQED and WQEX, as well as a broadcast company called Cornerstone Television and Paxson Communications. The application to transfer those licenses was filed in 1997, two years before Mr. McCain sent his letters.

Why should it have taken a government agency more than two years to process a license transfer application? The FCC staff and commissioners are hardworking, honorable people. Most license transfers take less than two years, but this was no ordinary license transfer. It involved a topic that makes many government officials feel uncomfortable: religion...

...In the meantime, on January 7, 2000, the Washington Post wrote an editorial against Mr. McCain raising many of the same allegations belatedly reported by the New York Times on February 21, 2008. Those allegations include accusing Mr. McCain of writing to the FCC on behalf of one of Ms. Iseman's clients. At the time, one of her clients was Lowell Paxson, founder and CEO of Paxson Communications.

Those who know the FCC know that Mr. McCain did nothing wrong. As the Democratic chair of the FCC between 1993 and 1997, Reed Hundt, responded in January 2000 in a letter to the editor to the Post:

"Nothing was objectionable … in the letters that you mysteriously find offensive. What is wrong is for an elected official to adopt a point of view about a matter because of financial contributions. If you think John McCain's opinions can be bought, your opinion flies in the face of all of my experience of the man."

Mr. Hundt was exactly on target in 2000, which makes the Times' "news" story this week all the more ironic. Like all presidential candidates, Mr. McCain is not perfect. But asking a government agency to do its work on time is hardly a sin; indeed, it is the hallmark of the separation of powers for a legislature to hold the executive accountable. On that basis, Mr. McCain should be congratulated.

Here what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY MCCAIN to the FCC...

Quote:

The sole purpose of this request is to secure final action on a matter that has now been pending for over two years. I emphasize that my purpose is not to suggest in any way how you should vote -- merely that you vote. In order to assure that no oral ex parte communications on the merits of these applications take place, I will not entertain any oral responses of any kind to this letter.

This letter is not written to obtain favorable disposition of any matter on behalf of any party to any proceeding before the commission. Please treat this letter in compliance with all applicable substantive and procedural rules.

He wasn't looking for favor...he was asking to commission to actually vote on it because they were taking twice as long as they usually do on votes such as this...