Wednesday, February 20, 2008
|
|
NY Times: McCain and Lobbyist Deny Past Relationship
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:25 PM
|
Remember that Drudge rumor a month, or so, ago? You know, the one about McCain "killing" a New York Times story about him and a lobbyist? Well, it's back. The NY Times has a big story tomorrow. Here's how it begins ...
Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity. ...
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity. More The question, at this point, is: Is this a real story ... or not?
... On one hand, this is a 10-year old allegation. And the only people I can find who leveled allegations were "two former McCain associates" who reportedly became "convinced" (read: not 100% sure) something was going on. It's not unusual that "former" associates, who have been dismissed from their duties, might enjoy seeking revenge against their former boss. It should also be noted that both parties are denying anything took place. Moreover, unlike some conservatives, McCain has never staked his credibility as a social values sort of conservative. Is this just one bad news day for McCain, or much, much more?
On the other hand, you get the feeling from reading the news story that there is still more to come out about this thinly-sourced story. At least, based on the lack of attribution -- I would hope that's the case. I just get the feeling the Times has more ammunition than they put forth today. What would be especially damaging would be if they could prove some sort of quid pro quo. McCain's credibility has been based more on ethics and fighting lobbyist influence than on family values or personal morality.
If this turns out to have legs, might this be the last straw for McCain and conservatives? Was Mike Huckabee wise to stick around so long ... just in case something like this were to happen?
If there is truth to this allegation, then the New York Times may be guilty of withholding this information until after McCain became the presumptive nominee. Remember, as Drudge reported, they were on the verge of bringing this story out back in December ... and then nothing happened because McCain's team reportedly "spiked it." Could it be that the Times wanted to wait until McCain became the nominee before releasing this information?
It's still too early to say, but unless there is more to this story than has already been reported, my guess it that this is already overblown.
And if that's the case, McCain may be able to spin this as a cheap attempt by the liberal media to take down the presumptive GOP nominee. A lot of conservatives have been skeptical of McCain because of his positive press. Might some negative MSM attention be just what the doctor ordered?
Update: McCain's campaign issues this release:
ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker: "It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election. "Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."
Update: On MSNBC Howard Fineman reports that the New York Times finally came out with the story in order to preempt a story from The New Republic about why the Times spiked the story ....
Update: Having read this story more closely, it is very possible that, even if all the allegations that were literally made (not implied) are true, McCain may have merely had some sort of a mutual attraction to this lobbyist. His staff may have noticed this, and, being good staffers, taken precaution to remove any possible temptation. There are no real allegations that any favors were given, or any proof that anything physical really happened. At least, not in this first story, that is ...
Update: The New York Times endorsed McCain more than a month after they spiked the first story. If any of these allegations were credible, why would the Times have endorsed him a month later?
|
|
|
November is still several eternities away and you RINOs asked for it. It's not like the MSM has to dig deep to find dirt. McCain has been in the tank for campaign contributors from the beginning and most importantly, the one-world, no borders crowd. Exiled conservatives like me will keep reminding you RINOs what a mistake you made allowing the Dems to nominate this guy for you. Get used to it. We aren't going away. |
|
|
Here I thought the NY Times endorsed McCain. Right. |
|
because I saw Kieth Olbermann interrupting, on MSNBC, about a NYT piece, and going on, and on, and on, and on, and on....
Sometimes, you have to consider the sources... |
|
It now makes a lot of sense that Cindy McCain would steal prescription pain meds from the charity clinic she ran. The timing seems about right. Nice job to everyone involved.
Does this mean his Straight Talk Express is slightly compromised? |
|
It's really up to Johnny. If he wants our votes, he has to earn them.
He said he heard us after the last amnesty fight. He heard two things right. We want the border secured and we don't trust them. There apparently was alot he didn't hear.
He hired Juan Hernandez, who represents foreign nationals illegally in our country as his hispanic outreach, instead of reaching out to someone from "You Don't Speak For Me" a group of citizens of hispanic descent who oppose illegal aliens.
He said a couple of weeks ago he would sign McCain/Kennedy if it were put on his desk.
If he wants my vote, there are a couple of things he could do.
1. Publicly dismiss and disavow Juan Hernandez and the Reconquista for which he stands.
2. Apologize for conspiring in secret with La Raza and Ted Kennedy and trying to jam amnesty down our throats.
3. Pledge to veto ANY amnesty bill.
4. Pledge to enforce the laws, including deportation, which is the penalty for illegal aliens.
It's up to Sen. McCain, he can represent the interests of American citizens and uphold the rule of law or he can continue to court the favor of liberals and illegal aliens.
I will not vote for the latter.
New York Times endorsement or not.
|
|
I'm not shocked to see that this is being brought up *at this point in time, when McCain is trying to unite the base.* It's a 10 year old story, and *now* they bring it up? They couldn't have done so during the primary process? Come on now.
Still, there may be some truth to this matter, and if there is, the social conservatives like myself who were willing to vote for him but unenthusiastically so are going to turn right on him. The economic conservatives already loathe him, and the military conservatives will be left to ponder their future.
All-in-all, for the good of the party, and for the sake of doing the right thing, I hope that it's simply the Times spreading lies and innuendo as usual. |
|
Look at the man's personel life and tell me he represents Conservative Moral Values. "In April 1979,while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor, and Marguerite Smith Hensley...
McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife Carol in Florida on April 2, 1980...McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 in Phoenix, Arizona, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart as best man and groomsman.[83] McCain's children were upset with him and did not attend the wedding..."
Look at the man's record in the Senate he is no Conservative just another Neocon out to exploit the conservative base of the Republican Party. He talks the Reagen years but walks the walk of the corrupt morally bankrupt Clinton years. |
|
|
Looking at McCain's marital history one would be hard pressed to call him a social conservative. |
|
|
Robert S. Bennett (His extensive experience includes representing clients before congressional committees; Mr. Bennett has served as Special Counsel to the United States Senate’s Select Committee on Ethics in several major investigations. He was President Clinton’s personal attorney in the Paula Jones case, and, most recently, he represented Judith Miller in the CIA leak investigation. In 1981 and 1982, he served as a legal consultant to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the appointment of Alexander M. Haig, Jr. as Secretary of State and served as Special Counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Ethics.) Said on National TV, He investigated John McCain from the tip of head to his toes and John is a totally honest. He said further that he, Bennett, is a voting democrat. He also said that this was pure smear tactics. |
|
|
Looks like your candidate is gonna be a guy that doesn't believe in evolution. |
|
You GOP slime have no morals whatsoever.
Your Patron Saint, Ronald Reagan, knocked up Nancy before they were married. She wrote about it in her autobiography. I guess "Just Say No" came along later.
Now, you calim moral outrage? Please. You're just desperate for any excuse to dump McCain.
President Obama will do a great job. Hillary will probably be his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
Deal with it. |
|
Obama and his Mrs. took a couple of hits over the weekend...
The New York Times is taking the heat off Obama.
Of course, McCain's reply didn't directly deny the allegations. Certainly they are taking some cover in the event of actual evidence.
Not another Dress, Please! |
|
|
Jess, I'll learn to check my spelling when you learn to address the content. Deal? |
|
This story is fortuitous. I predict it will do more to unite Republicans in the long run and it will be helpful to McCain – it’s great the story came out now. The NYT's will be the real losers in the end—they continue to demonstrate why the Times is irrelevant today, and why it can’t be believed or trusted.
Keep in mind, the Times endorsed McCain and Clinton. They now understand that Clinton is most likely not going to be the Democratic nominee, and NYT's needs to kick McCain to the curb and start romancing and puffing up Obama, who they originally snubbed.
|
|
Straight talk BS. Remember Johnny's cute little Clintonesque political trick that he pulled on Ronmey right before Fla. elections. Lying about what Romney said. Funny that all the MSM picked up on that.
And now Johnny is whining about some sort of "smear campaign." I thought he knew this was a tuff game. - The smear is just starting Johnny. Where are his MSM buddies (you know the repower brokers - the producers- not some talking head like bennet.), now?
With Obama, and his stellar family life to parade, the media will have a field day, day after day, until the election with Johnny and the Republican party and the contrast between all three.
What will be Johnny's October surprise?
You McCainics, your emotionalism about his hero
status and the war in Iraq will cost the Republicans not just POTUS, but SCOTUS, and both houses in landslides. Congrats.
President Obama. |
|
Congratulations to everyone who said, "just wait until he's the nominee, then they'll feed him to the wolves!"
The old MSM makes this too easy.
So in a "change" election, do we put any stock in accusations of a tired, worn-out, institution like the NYT? |
|
"someone in your youth with a narcissistic desire to see your name in print"
and my name is?????
Kind of bugs you doesn't it. While I have your attention, maybe you can answer a question I've been asking the RINOs here for the past month without a single response: Can you provide JUST ONE major accomplishment by McCain in his 25 years in the Senate that didn't involve co-sponsoring a landmark piece of liberal Democratic legislation? Take your time. No one else has come up with on either. I'm sure it's not that people are just ignoring me either since knowing DNC Joe, he would have been plastering the place with links and "cut and paste" jobs. |
|
McCain Campaign Banked on Taxpayer-Funded Bailout
Mr.Clean not so clean?
TPM-As The Washington Post reported on Saturday, John McCain’s campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there’d be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing.
It’s an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, “This places McCain’s grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists’ influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts.”
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/mccain-campaign-ba nked-on-taxpayer-funded-bailout |
|
|
You are a pompous ignorant phony. Either get into the discussion or go away. You aren't fooling anyone. |
|
|
|
has done it again. They had this story in the fall, but held itl because they didn't want to hurt McCains chances in the early primaries. Thanks a lot. Many of us who follow politics closely know that the media made perception of Mccain as a moral and upstanding person is pure malarky. Lobbyists run his campaign, he has been involved in the Keating 5 and other unethical dealings and smeared both Bush and Romney. The South Carolina race in 2000 was classic. McCain insinuated that people were being called and told that he had fathered a black child. Funny thing is that no news agency, including the NYT, or any public person could find that any such calls ever took place. A willing news media, of course, used it to tarnish Bush. This year, McCain lied about Mitt Romneys position on the war and put out millions of robo calls lying about Romneys record and even impugning his religion. But, of course the willing media and Huckabee claimed that it was Romney, who had the audacity to run ads telling what the Huckster and Mccain stood for, was the "negative one."
What the media giveth, the media can taketh away. And so it is written. |
|
Do you McCainiacs have buyer's remorse yet? We knew the MSM would unload as soon as he had the nom wrapped up. We knew McCain cheated on his first wife. We knew all about McCain's past, and that he's not above dishonesty. We also knew that McCain would be horrible against Obama. We also knew the polls showing only McCain could beat the dems (which Joe posted ad nauseum) were suspect.
So, here we are pining for Romney, whose character is beyond reproach, and who is the only one who ever stood a chance against Obama.
Way to go! McCain supporters! We really appreciate it . . .
|
|
has done it again. They had this story in the fall, but held itl because they didn't want to hurt McCains chances in the early primaries. Thanks a lot. Many of us who follow politics closely know that the media made perception of Mccain as a moral and upstanding person is pure malarky. Lobbyists run his campaign, he has been involved in the Keating 5 and other unethical dealings and smeared both Bush and Romney. The South Carolina race in 2000 was classic. McCain insinuated that people were being called and told that he had fathered a black child. Funny thing is that no news agency, including the NYT, or any public person could find that any such calls ever took place. A willing news media, of course, used it to tarnish Bush. This year, McCain lied about Mitt Romneys position on the war and put out millions of robo calls lying about Romneys record and even impugning his religion. But, of course the willing media and Huckabee claimed that it was Romney, who had the audacity to run ads telling what the Huckster and Mccain stood for, was the "negative one."
What the media giveth, the media can taketh away. And so it is written. |
|
McCain-Feingold, let's see, yep, that's Democrat legislation. Anti-free-speech, too.
McCain-Kennedy, yep, Democrat legislation, good thing for us we defeated it.
McCain-Leiberman, yep, Democrat legislation, still time to defeat that one. |
|
The NYT's is going after little stuff like this when McCain has done much worse.
For instance...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0&feature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g |
|
|
I blame my computer. May I add one more thing to this. A lot of people are commenting on the alleged affair, but the point of the entire article is McCains not so stellar character and his hypocritical political career. |
|
Can anyone imagine Romney calling the NYT and begging them to spike a story?
Romney was right - McCain is Washington, and Washington IS broken.
|
|
|
Their just warming up. There's a lot more goodies in their bag. |
|
"I predict it will do more to unite Republicans in the long run and it will be helpful to McCain..."
You have to be kidding, right? Please tell me your kidding. |
|
|
so much hatred for McCain are going to be happy when Huckabee is the nominee. I'm sure all you Mormon blowhard women will be just thrilled with that. |
|
|
|
|
The wingnuts, who have blasted anything from the NY Times, now is using this hit piece as an "I told ya so". Amazing how we can't trust anything they print until it suits your personal agenda. Some people on this site truly define hyppocrisy at it's worst. |
|
|
What are you talking about? Huckabee is a non-entity at this point. |
|
|
of people so completely guilty of identity politics as the Mormons. I believe something like 99% of Mormon's voted for Mitt Romney because of his religion. Granted, some of them agree with his positions, but 99%? And if the women who post here are any example, the obsessive zeal for this guy is really borderline nuts, especially since he dropped out (okay, suspended his campaign). I voted for Mitt, but I'm over it. I know he's good looking, but that's no reason to vote for someone either. And I'm Catholic and I would never in a million years vote for somebody like Rudy just because he claims to be Catholic. |
|
McCain is what you guys wanted and McCain is what you got. Don't blame anybody else. Don't tell me you really believed, just because the NYT endorsed him ,that they actually liked him. They just had more goodies in their bag to use against him.
Grow up. |
|
|
First of all, Fred was my first choice, so sorry he's gone. Huckabee is not a non entity yet. He's still in the campaign. Granted, it's a huge long shot. But what do you think Huck is staying in the campaign for? What is it that he has been saying all along? He says that anything cna happen in a campaign, and if some super scandal drives McCain out, who's left standing? Not that I think it will happen, but would these women posting here prefer Huckabee, who I'm certain they consider the devil incarnate? |
|
|
You are a complete idiot, proven by the fact that you shoot your mouth off about me when you know absolutely nothing about who I voted for. I'm sure you got your comment from the same place all your opinions come from. I supported Duncan Hunter, then Fred Thompson, and voted for Romney in the California primary, smegma for brains. |
|
|
Since it appears that you now support the Democrat ticket, you better keep your hands on your own goodies, which is where I'm sure they are most of the time anyway. Because Obama has promised he'll have the IRS coming after them. |
|
You are so omniscient that you can tell I went to school in Maine? Lo Ciento, Paco. I received my education elsewhere. Nice try though.
You seem to have a problem with goodies. The "Big Boys" steal your Halloween candy again? Did you report it to your mommy? |
|
This shows how truly stupid you are.
Why not ask boverpuke what "smegma" means? He's the one that wrote it. |
|
Why did he block any chance at getting back anymore POW's or MIA'S from Vietnam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0&feature=related
Then view this one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g |
|
Gone off your meds?
The next message after you blasted me for making an assumption of who you voted for (based upon the post where you said you voted for Mitt but now you are over it), you then assume I support the democrats? You seem like the complete idiot. You probably would do well by going to bed and sleeping it off. Things will look brighter in the morning.
|
|
|
you seem to forget the Mormons have stood behind the Republican establishment for how many years? Mormons tend to be very conservative, and Romney was nearly alone in this category. Mormons like Romney because he is squeaky clean in his personal life. Mormons have supported candidates based on where they stand on issues. I have NEVER heard UTAH complaining that they can't support a Jew or Baptist or any other group because of religious affiliation. Mormons care deeply about preserving the Constitution and traditional family values and they don't care what Church you do or don't go to. So, back off the generalities you throw up. Romney just happened to be of the same faith. I really doubt Mormons are thrilled to have Harry Reid as a high profile member. I imagine 99% of the Mormons can't stand Dingy Harry. |
|
|
Con4fred, if you knew of my accuracy in political predictions, you would have no doubt that I am right on. This "will" benefit McCain and it "will" hurt the Times. Watch and see the wonder of my instincts in all political matters. |
|
I don't know where you get your stats about 99% Mormons voting for Romney, but you need to know that the LDS voters are the most conservative voters in America. They voted for Bush in the 90% + range. Last time I checked he wasn't LDS.
Maybe your vote is based on shallow reasons, but mine isn't. I supported Romney because he was the most qualified, capable conservative running. But I would have happily voted for Fred or even Rudy. It had NOTHING to do with Mormonism, and everything to do with character, conservatism and skill. I couldn't care less what he looks like, but it's a plus that he is a real family man.
The 2 worst candidates are left standing, (even though Huck isn't really standing, just posturing.)
|
|
|
Now that McCain has won, he is nowhere to be found. |
|
|
My young voting record thus far: 1996 - voted for a Catholic (Pat Buchanan); 2000 - voted for an Evangelical (Bush); 2004 - voted again for Bush; 2008 primary - voted Mormon. I thought, and still think Mitt was our best choice. But now I am going to support the Baptist McCain. I love all types. |
|
|
Ok so the NY Times spiked the story and still endorsed him knowing he would lose in Nov.if they played thier cards right..I guess they consider this journalistic integrity? The idiotic voters in Florida gave us this debacle of a candidac by falling in line with MSM endorsements. The herd mentality fools in this country are supposed to be on the left.It was bad enough to hold your nose to vote for McCain to begin with,now you have to put a plastic bag over your entire head to do it. |
|
That's why when THEY endorsed McCain & attacked Mitt Romney Conservatives should have taken notice.
WAKE UP people...the left wing nuts CHERRY PICKED our candidate!
They were affraid of Romney...his optimistic outlook & goals for America would have been a huge challenge. Unattackable for Conservative & Reagan Dems. McCain reached over so far & for so long that now he's having to reach over to the Republicans...& they love it.
I don't believe McCain had an affair...but get ready Republicans...the smear begins!!!
|
|
|
|
This story is almost as bad as "Rathergate!"
There is ZERO proof to this tale. The article "suggests" and provides no evidence. Both McCain and the woman have denied the affair, unlike Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones Monica Lewinsky, etc. I can understand running this story if the woman involved came forward and provided evidence. The New York Times should be ashamed of themselves!
|
|
|
|