The New York Times didn’t back up its article questioning whether John McCain had an improper relationship — physical or professional — with a lobbyist eight years ago. McCain and the woman deny that they had an affair or that McCain gave special treatment to companies that the women represented. The Times’ only evidence of a possible affair was some former staffers who said that they were concerned about the amount of time McCain was spending with the woman and that they intervened to protect McCain from himself. McCain says that his staff never talked to him about this and that he and the women were just friends.
The article was in the context of how McCain has built his political image on being a warrior against special interests, yet his dealings haven’t always seemed to match his crusading rhetoric — the same argument that President Bush made when he campaigned against McCain in 2000.
134 Comments
Keating Five, anyone? Anyone?
How about you, Bueller, there in the back?
Keating Five?
I see the NYT is maintaining its recent journalistic standards. Innuendo, unnamed sources. The venerable shady lady.
Unsubstantiated. Unfounded. Unproven. Course, those words don’t mean anything here, do they? Attack, attack, attack. Pretty pathetic.
“….they intervened to protect McCain from himself.”
Even if that’s all there is?
Isn’t that enough?
We’ve HAD seven years of a staff intervening to protect the bush from himself. And with mixed results! But who protected anyone AGAINST bush?
And who will protect the world from “bomb bomb Iran” McCain?
Surprised, anyone?
To the liberal media, anyone who attacked McCain, prior to McCain’s nomination, was unfair, unkind, or un-American.
Now, the NYT realeases a story it has been sitting on for several months?
The New York Times is a worthless, dishonest rag.
They should continue to lose money, subscribers and advertising.
The New York Times is the used toilet paper of objective journalism. It is so politically slanted it will resort to not only unsubstantiated ‘reporting’ but lies and fiction to convey it’s goals.
That paper is on the rocks with falling circulation, and advertising revenues, laying off employees, etc. and should be a classic example of the pitfalls of saying you are one thing (that they are a actual newspaper) but being something entirely different, a left wing rag.
“We’re still a bit incredulous on this one, but a top level U.S. Department of Justice official is telling Big Head DC that Michael Musto’s rumor about Hillary Clinton fooling around with one of her top female aides Huma Abedin is based in reality!
“I am close enough to Hillary and Huma to tell you that this ‘rumor’ is true,” the official says. “It is well known inside her campaign that Hillary and Huma are an item.”
Isn;t is enough?
Econ is talking about Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and their many lesser imitators.
They hate McCain more than the so-called liberal media.
I just learned the other day that McCain’s wife was a partner with Keating on a shopping mall deal, McCain didn’t think there would be a conflict of interest because he and his spouse had a prenuptial contract! So, he joined up with the Keating five to try and get regulators off of the back of the Keating S&l, whose failure resulted in 3.5 bil. cost to taxpayers.
Makes Whitewater look like a petty incident even if all allegations could have been proven.
Econ101,
I am not trying to copy you, so help me. I composed my post apparently just behind yours but before I saw it.
Apparently we thing somewhat, ha, along the same lines.
The thrust of the NYT article is that McCain intervened for a lobbyist who was at least a close personal friend, and one who had apparently been peddaling her influence with McCain around town.
By the way, I consider my 12:27 post just another piece of campaign crap, unsubstantiated rumor. That was the point. The whole McCain thing is also a piece of campaign crap, and unsubstantiated rumor.
No difference, except the target. That was my only point in bosting above
I would have preferred a straight forward “I did not have sex with that woman”.
Phantom
15 different people were convicted of Crimes, in the Clinton Whitewater/Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan scandal.
Business failure, in itself, is NOT a crime.
However, Hillary was on retainer, for $2,000.00 a month, to Madison Guarantee.
How good of an attorney is she, if 15 people were convicted of crimes, and she was supposed to be the attorney for that company?
McCain’s position is that he is a man of great integrity and would never do anything like this to disappoint his family or his country belies the truth of his history, i.e., “experience.”
His role in the Keating Five and his affair with his current wife while still married to his first wife demonstrate that he is capable of everything this story portrays.
Whay can’t the press put this into context, look at his actual record (not the one he claims), and ask him the tough questions that logically follow?
The New York Times is the used toilet paper of objective journalism.
So what does that make the Washington Times? The stuff on the toilet paper?
…he and the women were just friends.
Women?
Yeah, I’ve heard the “we’re just friends” story, too. ;)
You mean Hillary and Huma are NOT an item?
Damn…..
So Weblog, why do a thread on a lie? Why not let the lie, die?
Oh yes, I forgot: Bring question and disrespect to the republican candidate – regardless of truth.
NeVERmind.
I see Dan Rather, and CBS news all over again…..
The obvious play here is that it’s not John McCain’s fault (or, possibly, his wang’s), but the Times’ fault for reporting on it.
The Times has an on-the-record confirmation from John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, regarding an aide to the senator warning Iseman at a Union Station meeting to stay away from the boss. Weaver e-mailed that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her…
The McCain strategy, of course, is to make the Times the issue. The senator’s statement doesn’t deny any of the specifics in the piece.
I told you. It doesn’t matter whether it is true this time. It doesn’t mater that it HAS been true in the past. NO REPUBLICAN will allow this to make any difference other those those who already support Huckabee.
Linda-
I am a REpublican and it does matter.
It does make a difference whether it is true this time. Not for the campaign, but for the journalistic integrity of the NYT. Me, I don;t like McCain, consider him a two timing sob on many different counts. If Obama is the candidate, I will vote for Obama, even thought I really don;t like his politics. Hillary vs McCain, same oh same oh. I vote for McCain, only because he is slightly less distatesful in my book than Hillary. Integrity matters. WHether it is from a politician, or from a news source.
ksfarrrmgrl-
Sorry to disappoint you. :)
I noticed that also, MonkeyHawk. Make the Times article the issue, not the substance or lack thereof of the story itself.
ha HA!!
Full on kook right meltdown! May they all suffer apoplexy!
“Surprised, anyone?
To the liberal media,”
Yea – the “liberal media” that helped sell George WMD Bush’s stupid war.
Interesting commentary on the response of Sen. McCain and his campaign to the Times article. I agree with the reporter; very deft and at least facially effective.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/behind_mccains_counterattack.php
Carol Shepp anyone?
Ben
Lots of Liberals supported getting into this war.
They are STILL liberals.
I hate to admit it, but I have to agree with econ and outlander on the NYT source (ok, all you decent folk, fit me for the 13 loop necktie).
that said, you have to admit, while the Times practices their enhanced (like the Windows tech rep says, that’s not a bug, it’s an enhancement)form of yellow journalism, they do bring to light many questionable activities that while not substantiating the claims of the paper would go unnoticed without their false/unsubstantiated/exagerated claims.
If I’m rambling, just slap me.
Whitewater cost taxpayers 70 mil., Keating 3.5 bil.; Taxpayers paid an additional 70 mil. investigating the Clintons. How much was spent investigating the Keating scandal?
If they successfully frame the arguement (which they are frantically trying to do) as one of “Journalistic Integrity”, there will be no fall out from this for McCain. We’ve seen this process repeated many times over the past 7 yrs. and it’ll be as effective today as then. If you can fool them many times, you can fool them again.
The New York Times is a joke.
Look at all of these cartoons:
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/NYTimes/main.asp
“Daddy, tell me a fairy tail”
“Ok dear, — “Once upon a New York Times”
It was long, prehensile, and began right at the base of her wings…
Oh, you meant tale.
(cheap shot from a person always harping about other people harping about typos)
appologies
“Daddy, tell me a fairy tail”
“Ok dear, — “Once upon a New York Times … there was a guy named Curveball … and there was a hero named George …”
Wasn’t Brother Neal also involved in the S&L business? Silverado?
The New York Times is a joke.
Look at all of these cartoons:
What an amazingly astute argument. X is not credible, look at these cartoons. Very impressed Econ.
Ben, that is my recollection.
Ah yes … $1.6 BILLION …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis
Silverado Savings and Loan
Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.6 billion. Neil Bush, son of then Vice President of the United States George H. W. Bush, was Director of Silverado at the time. Neil was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
The Keating Five (or Keating Five Scandal) refers to a Congressional scandal related to the collapse of most of the Savings and Loan institutions in the United States in the late 1980s.
The Savings and Loan problems were primarily economic and NOT criminal.
By and large, the crimes we know about would never have been discovered, if not for the fact that the regulators had a chance to look at all the records, after the failures of various S & L’s.
Business failure is NOT a crime. We do not have “debtors prisons” in this country. In fact, we encourage risk taking.
Not all S and L failures are “equal” — and the amount of the failure is not important, as to the question of any crime being involved.
The Savings and Loan failure was a direct result of something called an “inverted yield curve” and the fact that they were loaning money at a lower rate than what they could borrow.
Again, we found out about the illegal activity BECAUSE of the failures.
By and large, the illegal activity did not CAUSE the failures.
Meanwhile, back in the Bush economy – STAGFLATION returns.:
Worries about 1970s-style stagflation have moved to the forefront to rival recession fears. Should the Fed be more worried about rising prices?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/21/news/economy/inflation/index.htm?postversion=2008022114
“Not all S and L failures are “equal” — and the amount of the failure is not important, as to the question of any crime being involved.”
TRANSLATION: If it is PaulTheCon’s allies involved – no wrongdoing. If his enemies – totally criminal.
and
Sol Dev
Lots of people are laughing at the New York Times.
That rag is going down the tubes faster than any other public media outlet.
That was true before this trash came out.
It will only get worse now.
Ben
Well, 15 people WERE convicted, in the Madison Gurantee Savings and Loan scandal.
Hillary WAS the attorney for that S and L.
Also, Bill and Hillary were business partners, with that S and L and with the various owners and board members.
““Daddy, tell me a fairy tail”
“Ok dear, — “Once upon a New York Times”
Hi folks. I speak con.
Let me translate.
“WAAAAAAAaaaaah! Damn you New York Times! Why didn’t you run this before Willard Romney dropped out!”
JR
Yes, you are right, they should have run it earlier, if it was WORTH running.
However, the editors for SEVERAL other media outlets have now stated, publicly, that the NYT should NOT have run this story.
This story will hurt the NYT worse than it will hurt McCain.
Time Magazine
US News and World Report
Take a look at what THEY think of the NYT on this, would you?
Thompson was asleep. So that’s why he didn’t find this.
Willard must have been working on his re draft of the Constitution or something to have missed this.
Or maybe he is still planning something sneaky at the convention and was waiting for this bomb to go off.
Has Mike Huckabee commented yet? And what does Ron Paul have to say?
The Neocons were all FOR the NY Times when Judith Miller was propagandizing FOR George WMD Bush and the run up to the War of Choice on Iraq.
Now they are all AGAINST the NY Times because they said a bad word about a Republican.
HIPPO-crites.
The NYT story “lacked evidence?” Of what? Adultery? The story doesn’t allege it. Rather, it merely REPORTS on suspicions regarding an affair. By the rules of today’s “he said/she said” media, that is COMPLETELY permissible–even in the present case in which ‘he’ and ’she’ are saying the same thing.
So, then, evidence of what? McCain’s susceptibility to influence peddling by a well-placed (and attractive) lobbyist? No lack of evidence for that; she paid the money, and he successfully lobbied the FCC on her behalf.
“In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson’s chief executive, Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.
McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain’s request “comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process” and “could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission’s deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.”
McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company’s jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1715096,00.html
People with integrity try to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest, much less actual ones. McCain seems not to think that the rules about such optics apply to him.
McCain is a rat. Whether he cheats on his wife is hardly the issue; that he cheats on his constituents by whoring his office out for the vote, THAT’s the issue for which there’s PLENTY of evidence.
And, as usual, I see Econ101 has his thong panties is a wad over the NYT. It wouldn’t be a Thursday if he didn’t.
I offer the following piece from the New Republic, which details, to the extent possible, its investigation into the internal debates, etc., concerning the New York Times story which is the focus of the thread. I found it interesting in many respects. It is also interesting that the Drudge Report went with a post concerning this back in December, which, if anything, seemed ill-timed.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24
I found this interesting to read and consider. No warranties, express or implied.
Huckster isn’t saying much about all this.
He may some ’splainin of his own to do though!
Yikes look what I found.
While the Houston morning crowd was small, those attending the Wednesday rally in Plano said there were more than 1,500 people.
On Thursday, he also likened himself to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat while discussing those who say he is staying in the race because of ego or because he likes to fly around in airplanes.
dang, vaughn, does that site have a big foot print, or do you just have everyone looking? I’ve stopped it twice and the 3rd time still isn’t loading.
(When vaughn speakes, everyone listens)
JR,
Bingo. Smart money is that The Huckster has played this thing JUST right.
http://demosthenes.blogspot.com/2008/02/yippee-kay-yay-gop.html
Dear Repukes,
Where’d you all go? CF2K wonders why you’ve all clammed up so tight once the discussion shifted to “Straight Talk” McCain taking lobbyist money and doing lobbyist bidding.
Just for that, Wingnuts, here’s a whole Digby post, where she nails the issues right to your door.
“The meat of this thing has to do with favors he did for this lobbyist in his position as Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and I frankly don’t care whether he did it for money or sex or just because she made him feel young again,it’s unethical and hypocritical coming from someone who’s running as a reformer.
Marcy Wheeler in her typically thorough fashion gets to the nub of it in her post about two of the big communications companies lobbyist Iseman represented and what they were up to — Paxson and Sinclair. Both of those names also jumped out at me when I looked at her client list because they are both big right wing media players.
Sinclair, you’ll recall, was involved in all those controversies in 2004, canceling a Nightline episode which silently ran the names of the Americans killed in Iraq and then running that rubbish Swift Boat documentary “Stolen Honor.” Marcy notes that McCain failed to condemn the documentary instead attributing any problems with it to “media consolidation.” And that ties back in to Iseman and Paxson.”
(snip)
“The press has always fawned over McCain. But it isn’t just because McCain likes to tell dirty stories from his Navy days to the boys on the bus, although that’s a potent inducement I’m sure. He also was, for many years, the powerful Chairman of the Commerce Committee which oversees the FCC and regulates media concerns. There were many reasons why media lobbyists, media moguls (and yes, ambitious, boss pleasing editors and reporters) would have been interested in cozying up to John McCain when the Republicans were in the majority, which is why McCain’s staffers were so upset that said lobbyist Iseman was bragging about doing that all over town.”
(snip)
“It really is rich that McCain continues to pretend he’s a big reformer when his unpaid campaign manager, Rick Davis, is a lobbyist for shady Russian oligarchs and countries like Montenegro…Perhaps an intrepid reporter would like to ask McCain whether that will have any influence on his decision making as president. Especially since the Balkans are blowing up again at this very minute.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Repukes, your guy’s in balls deep–and I don’t mean with Iseman. “Straight Talk” has some ’splainin’ to do, as does the media that he appears to have snake charmed.
Fraud was the reason for 20% of the S&L failures, but here’s another important reason: “Dereliction of duty on the part of the board of directors of some savings associations. This permitted management to make uncontrolled use of some new operating authority, while directors failed to control expenses and prohibit obvious conflict of interest situations”
Funny how many of the institutions had pollitical connections or pollitical connected board members.
McCain has been very influential in protecting monopolies in the Cable industry. That helps keep rates high for consumers.
“The NYT story “lacked evidence?” Of what? Adultery? The story doesn’t allege it. Rather, it merely REPORTS on suspicions regarding an affair.. By the rules of today’s media…”
Facts do not matter. Therefore, we should question everything printed or reported.
Can’t trust a newspaper reporter to get it right, becuase they are no longer in the report mode.
Readers don’t know what to believe. No wonder readership and sales are down.
It’s all slanted and full of personal opinions.
But a perfect example of a newspaper being full
of “spin”.
There are NO rules.
Phanton – think Niel Bush had political connections? Maybe having Daddy appoint the AG and other prosecuters helps?
When this rumor first appeared, Chelsea Clinton was still crawling around in shitty diapers. There was nothing to it then and it’s even less credible today. I think I just heard a big back-fire.
American Way,
What you conveniently pretend isn’t the case, of course, is that the McCain camp–just as the Bush Administration has done–spent months bullying the NYT to keep them from publishing the story. They only went to press when they learned that the New Republic was going to press with an inside account of the NYT’s “deliberations” about not running the story.
So spare us the nihilistic blaming of the NYT victim, AmWay. The problem is NOT that the press prints “opinions” rather than “facts.” The problem, rather, is that the public senses the disconnect between what is happening and what the media refuses to print for fear of incurring Repubican instituitional wrath. The NYT can’t win with you Repukes; they cower in fear of you, and still you kick them to the curb.
I’m wondering if it wasn’t the Republican Romney supporters that put this article in play, before Romney dropped out and it is now coming back to bite the party in the butt.
Be interesting to know who initiated the contact, the source or the paper.
“McCain article lacked evidence.”
There’s an understatement. The left’s chosen “respectable” shill rag lacked evidence, yet still printed a hit piece.
Shocked, I am.
I’ve even more shocked that the left defends this rag. Ok, well, I’m not. I’m rarely surprised by most of the writers on this blog; they’re entirely predictable. JR sees conspiracy around every corner (still manning those barricades for the coming coup, JR?); CF breathlessly defends a half-asses story based on a half-assed anonomous staffer passing on a half-assed rumor, and offers, additionally, digby. Yea, digby. Be still my heart.
Let’s see: John McCain, as a Senator, meets with LOBBYISTS!!! Yes, Lobbyists!!! It’s true, people. How will I sleep at night?
Wow. I must reassess my world view now. Yeesh.
You do understand that EVERYONE in Washington meets with lobbyists, don’t you, CF? gosh, I bet Hillary’s met with a lobbyist or two. And even that Obama fellow. Second verse, same as the first.
When do the adults come back to the blog?
CF2K, I’m not a fan of McCain or the NYT. So you can drop me off that list of NEOCON’s (whomever they are).
If the newspaper had a story, then THEY were responsible for publishing it – when THEY wanted to.
The spin will be the “pressure not”, but the truth is, the newspaper coulda shoulda published the story (if there was one) before the NH primary.
The ONLY reason they ran it now – is there competitor was going to beat them to the punch and capture the headlines.
Selfish? Or creditable reporting?
Wow, methinks gmc doth protest too much…
there = their
McCain writes letters intervening in an active matter, you conveniently left out, might not have gotten so much attention if he hadn’t branded himself as the ethics crusader.
I was going to post the rude pundit’s take on the lobbying aspect of this, but I gotta tell ya…
It’s almost too rude for me! So you know how rude it must be.
Oh well, someone’s gotta do it. Usual warnings. And really, this is some of his rudest yet.
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
kfg, I must say that was indeed rude. He does make a valid point that if there is something to the story, it is all about lobbying and influence and not the innuendo hinting at some sexual goings-on. IF there is anything there in the area of special interests, given Sen. McCain’s promotion of his being “a warrior against special interests”, then the Times needs to present it. I think it appropriate, BTW, to view this promotion by the senator with a bit of cynicism, given some prior history in the S&L area discussed hereinabove.
If any of the reich-wing jeenyouses had taken the time to read the actual article they would have found that it discussed a list of “appearances of improprity,” out of which one was his overly-friendly relationship with a comely, younger lobbyist.
The fact that he did her bidding like the paid shill he is was highlighted much more than the possible sex.
But I almost forgot . . . there’s only one sin to the bible-beating right-wing: sexual sin. Everything else is just good clean greed and violence.
Econ says >>>>
Business failure is NOT a crime. We do not have “debtors prisons” in this country. In fact, we encourage risk taking.
______________________________
Well, 15 people WERE convicted, in the Madison Gurantee Savings and Loan scandal.
Hillary WAS the attorney for that S and L. Also, Bill and Hillary were business partners, with that S and L and with the various owners and board members.
______________________________
OK,, so which is it??
Let us remember.
The story is not all told yet.
This was just the lead. More to come.
Heh heh heh
You cons are shameless. If this had come down a month of you ALL of you would have wanted McCains head on a chafing dish.
dance DANCE!
Killing thousands of civilians in Iraq is foreign policy.
Getting a blowjob is an impeachable offense.
GMC70,
Once again, another episode of “If it quacks like a duck, it isn’t a duck” and “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?” brought to you by the casuist par excellence, GMC70.
Sorry there isn’t a blue dress you can get your head around, GMC70. But if giving money doesn’t buy votes, then why do lobbyists give money? And why do elected officials lap it up? Try thinking like an “adult,” GMC70; ever heard of cause and effect?
Even funnier is to see you–the guy who straight-facedly denied that Fox News has Right-Wing bias–whining that the NYT is a left wing “shill rag.” Well, GMC70, here’s your sophomoric epistemological relativist argument thrown right back at you: there’s no bias at the New York Times. You just see it that way because you see it that way–and your imputation to it of bias is just a function of your own way of seeing things.
You like that, GMC70? That’s YOUR argument, that you levelled against my imputation of Right Wing bias by Fox News, turned back on you. So if you were right that time, I’m right now, and you have NO ANSWER. None. All you have is a smarty-pants pretense to gainsay my arguments, that, frankly, GMC70, doesn’t seem very “adult.”
Your criticism is as empty as the rest of your whiny and smug attempt to defend “Straight Talk.” Shoot blanks much, GMC70?
American Way,
And had The New Republic NOT gone public with their story, you’re conceding that the NYT would NOT have published theirs?
Therefore, you’re making MY point that they would have punted to story indefinitely, in response to McCain’s pressure and legal threats.
Chas
It really is not that hard to figure out.
I made the point that business failure, by itself, is NOT a crime.
I also made the point that 15 people WERE convicted of crimes, who were involved with a firm that Hillary Clinton worked for: Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan.
What is so hard to understand?
Most S and L failures were NOT due to crimes.
I do not even think Madison Guarantee failed due to illegal activity.
However, the AUDITS that happen, after a failure, sometimes result in prosecutions.
Is that so hard to understand?
Yea,hard to figure out what Hillary’s retainer fee has to do with anything… related to her candidacy?? You mention it so frequently… And from what I understand her retainer isnt all that high priced in that sort of case…
CF writes: “You just see it that way because you see it that way–and your imputation to it of bias is just a function of your own way of seeing things.
“You like that, GMC70? That’s YOUR argument . . .”
Oooh, ouch! That’s gotta hurt.
Right on the mark.
That’s GMC’s stock-in-trade–”you only dislike the Electoral College because it caused your guy to lose,” or on the Torture Thread,”most people think ‘unconstitutional’ means whatever they believe should be illegal.”
News flash, GMC. Not everyone is as cynical as you nor as incapable of objective thought.
The idea that a huge corporate-run media machine shilling for advertiser dollars could be “left-wing” is patently absurd. Facts and evidence that refute your world-view, GMC, can still be true whether you label them “left-wing” or not.
“appearances of improprity,”
“overly-friendly relationship with a comely, younger lobbyist.”
So you know what we read Capn?
Maybe you should read what the New Republic says about the article in the NYT:
“Beyond its revelations, however, what’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence
The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves
At one point, the piece suggestively states: “In 1999 (nine years ago)..
In mid-January, Keller told the reporters to significantly recast the piece after several drafts had circulated among editors in Washington and New York. After three different versions,
Baquet told TNR this morning. He added: “Nothing forced our hand. Nothing pushed us to move faster other than our own natural desire that we wanted to get a story in the paper that met all of our standards.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24
The allegation of sexual misconduct dates back over seven years. And there is not one shred of evidence to support it.
McCain had released his congressional correspondence WITH the NYT, which was made available today. It specifically states that McCain was not looking for political favors – in writing to the FCC.
Not only is there zero sexual “sin” Captain, but there is zero misconduct. Spin on.
Let me know when you have any evidence to present to the blog.
C2, they didn’t publish an old hearsay story for seven plus years – because they had no FACTS.
Their greed for the spotlight, and pride resulted in them running the story.
Turn it around. Are you saying they got the green light from McCain?
You have no proof.
As FARK says, “Hey, dude, you’re 90. Go with it!
I still think there is a possibility that somewhere out there is a burning desire to pull the rug out from under Drudge… which would be a good thing.. He has posted so many lies on his web site, that he probably cant tell the true ones from the lies… I find myself wondering if the NYT ran this story to attempt to get to the bottom of where the Garbage style of POOR journalism is coming from… AND… who it is that is paying for junk like Drudge puts out as incontravertible facts…
Any thoughts??
AmWay missed this pargraph in the story . . . and quite a few others apparently:
“When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s [Ms. Iseman's] client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.”
Nothing to see here. Best Senate representation money can buy.
This is the kill shot. This is what does McCain in.
“Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”
Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.”
THAT is a direct quote and confirmation that McCain’s staff was at least concerned with the PERCEPTION of impropriety.
Where there’s smoke…
SOMEtimes where there’s smoke, there is just simply wet firewood!! LOL
Drudge, mostly, is a linker.
“…some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.””
How is that a story? If the story was, “aides objected to McCain knocking the bottom out of it”
that would be a story. Aides fear? Nothing. Yet.
Okay, children, quick review on what we learned today. There are times when named sources are not important, and times when they are important.
1. (not important) When outing an Undercover CIA agent.
2. (important) When exposing the hypocrisy of a Republican Presidential Candidate.
“2. (important) When exposing the hypocrisy of a Republican Presidential Candidate.”
I think that is the point of this whole thread. The NYT failed to expose anything. Except their shoddy selves. I’m no fan of McCain, but this was cheap stuff.
BUT… The NYT also exposed the “source” of their story… Matt Drudge… Find out who pays Drudge the big bucks, and who feeds him phony stories, and you find the source of many stories LIKE this one, that have no foundation, but yet take up much news time, and blog space, both stupid and worthwhile…
MAYbe even find out how much Ms. Monica got paid to keep a stained dress for FIVE YEARS… until it was “deemed time” to drag it out??
And lest we forget, Drudge broke THAT story as well… I have a crazy hunch that there is a LOT more to this story than John McCain (in fact McCain is most likely a minor part of it) — But we shall have to wait and see if anybody now goes after Drudge, and his money bag!! :roll:
I think the rude pundit is correct. I think the NYTs put a little bit of sex scandal innuendo, so that people would bother to read that dreary article.
It’s premise, as near as I can tell, is “McCain is so convinced of his ethical superiority that he may not be able to see when he is being less than ethical.” In fairness that seemed to be the point. It was a little on speculative side – a discussion that might have worked in a case conference in the 1950’s Karl Menniger’s office – but to my sense a little dated and just a little useless.
“Find out who pays Drudge the big bucks, and who feeds him phony stories,…”
That sounds crazy. No evidence. No nothing. Like the NYT story.
If you got it, bring it. If you don’t got, bring it anyway. Something might stick.
Don’t forget that McCain was one of the “Keating Five” of the Savings and Loan scandal of the great “Moral high-ground” Reagan era. McCain had to pay back $15,000 for accepting gratuities from Franjk Keating and also was accused of intervening in the justice departments investigation and and asking for special treatment to Frank Keatings banks so they would not be siezed by regulators. McCain is the same old corrupt hot air that is the GOP’s calling card. He can’t deny it and since he has been accused of this before hispast record stands for what it is.
One point Fleet… Yea, I know its pretty thin on Drudge… But ask yourself… Did Drudge have any more on McCain??
Second point… I can make a reach and stretch case against Drudge, the same way Drudge does on hundreds of others every year… time to put some pressure back on him!!
Chas
Drudge is not much more than a clearing house for news articles from several different sources.
As far as the “Keeting 5″ issue, well LOTS of Savings and Loans had trouble, back then.
Unfortunately, the demise of S & L’s, back then, has much to do with the “sub prime” problems of today.
However, the vast majority of S & L failures were due to economic reality: You can not lend at a lower rate than what you borrow, and stay in business very long.
Elected officials are SUPPOSED to act on behalf of constituents.
Of the 5 members of the “Keating 5″ — 4 were Democrats.
The Clinton Administration didnt worry too much about the Keating scandal:
“DeConcini was appointed by President Bill Clinton in February, 1995 to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Econ101
Posted February 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm | Permalink
Surprised, anyone?
To the liberal media, anyone who attacked McCain, prior to McCain’s nomination, was unfair, unkind, or un-American.
“facts” just seem to appear out of thin air in your brain.
Phillip Brownlee defends another really creepy republican.
anyone surprised?
bob bennett is quickly hired to defend mccain against… what??
holy cow…
mccain’s wife’s eyebrows reach all the way up to the sky.
KP
Well, if you are right and I am wrong, what did the NYT learn, exactly, in the last several days, that the NYT did NOT know, back in December?
And, lots of media outlets were supportive of McCain, and were critical of anyone who attacked McCain, prior to McCain being the presumptive Nominee.
Econ101
Posted February 21, 2008 at 8:08 pm | Permalink
Chas
As far as the “Keeting 5? issue, well LOTS of Savings and Loans had trouble, back then.
didn’t mccain pay back $14,000.00 to keating??
of course, many senators pay back money “given” to them for no reason.
Elected officials are SUPPOSED to act on behalf of constituents.
of course they are supposed to work for the public too.
but then, when was the last time you gave a senator numerous FREE trips on your private jet with your young lobbist ??
btw, just before the senator introduced a bill or voted on a bill to radically change the way you can conduct your business and that bill allows you to make millions from those changes.
“Drudge is not much more than a clearing house for news articles from several different sources.”
HA!
The only more busted liar and distorter of information than Drudge is probably you paulie!
And he would have played this card himself. But he held it too long. And now he didn’t have anyone to play it for!
Keep spinning away.
No link or proof provided tonight to put any dirt on McCain.
Still waiting for links to any factual information.
Much speculation, as the press anticipated and desired.
All of it on events of many years ago. But great material for headlines for a day.
Tomorrow it will all be made known. And forgotten.
Move along sheep. What will they reveal tomorrow for us?
Gooo Obama@!
Well hey there James.
Got out “American way” for us huh?
How’s that meetup you are all having coming along?
Oh this story is not going away. It only awaits further developments.
J R why don’t you grow up? (sigh)
Anyone at any time can email the editor of the blog are report NIC-switching, or inappropriate postings.
Most people can read back and see my posts and make a determination as to me.
I shouldn’t even bother posting back to you. You seem to be fixed on being disruptive.
So, the story originated with disgruntled former McCain campaign staffers and the “liberal” NYT failed to effectively capitalize on Republicans turning on one another.
Liberals should never stoop to the level of Republicans. They’re not good at that kind of rolling around in muck.
Some interestig stuf on the Reagan/Bush S&L debacle:
There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today. Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).
Between 1981 and 1989, when George Bush finally announced that there was a Savings and Loan Crisis to the world, the Reagan/Bush administration worked to cover up Savings and Loan problems by reducing the number and depth of examinations required of S&Ls as well as attacking political opponents who were sounding early alarms about the S&L industry. Industry insiders were aware of significant S&L problems as early 1986 that they felt would require a bailout. This information was kept from the media until after Bush had won the 1988 elections.
Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56 million loan from Broward Federal Savings in Sunrise, Florida. After federal regulators closed the S&L, the office building that Jeb used the $4.56 million to finance was reappraised by the regulators at $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The taxpayers had to pay back the remaining 4 million plus dollars.
Neil Bush was the most widely targeted member of the Bush family by the press in the S&L scandal. Neil became director of Silverado Savings and Loan at the age of 30 in 1985. Three years later the institution was belly up at a cost of $1.6 billion to tax payers to bail out.
The basic actions of Neil Bush in the S&L scandal are as follows:
Neil received a $100,000 “loan” from Ken Good, of Good International, with no obligation to pay any of the money back.
Good was a large shareholder in JNB Explorations, Neil Bush’s oil-exploration company.
Neil failed to disclose this conflict-of-interest when loans were given to Good from Silverado, because the money was to be used in joint venture with his own JNB. This was in essence giving himself a loan from Silverado through a third party.
Neil then helped Silverado S&L approve Good International for a $900,000 line of credit.
Good defaulted on a total $32 million in loans from Silverado.
During this time Neil Bush did not disclose that $3 million of the $32 million that Good was defaulting on was actually for investment in JNB, his own company.
Good subsequently raised Bush’s JNB salary from $75,000 to $125,000 and granted him a $22,500 bonus.
Neil Bush maintained that he did not see how this constituted a conflict of interest.
Neil approved $106 million in Silverado loans to another JNB investor, Bill Walters.
Neil also never formally disclosed his relationship with Walters and Walters also defaulted on his loans, all $106 million of them.
Neil Bush was charged with criminal wrongdoing in the case and ended up paying $50,000 to settle out of court. The chief of Silverado S&L was sentenced to 3.5 years in jail for pleading guilty to $8.7 million in theft. (Keep in mind that you can get more jail time for holding up a gas station for $50.)
Today Neil Bush is working on closing a deal in Florida, where his brother Jeb is governor, to sell a software package to schools with
Vicki Iseman?
Damn, I know her… well, it proves nothing happened.
McCain’s against almost everything Bud Paxson has been championing.
I gotta hand it to McCain… he’s loyal.
He’s only the cable industry’s bitch.
MrC,
Just how well do you know Vicki Iseman? :)
Just funnin’ with ya, MrC.
4 members of the “Keating 5″ were Democrats.
Bill Clinton gave one of them a job, long after the Keating scandal. That job was REGULATING financial services firms.
—-
liberals, show me a Democrat that does not take gifts and contributions from lobbyists, would you please?
This is nothing.
Good night; Good luck; and
God bless; whatever you conceive
God to be!
Blessings All!!
You know damned well, Rossell, that if this story was about a Democrat, you and yours would be screaming to the Heavens that they should resign and drop out of the presidential race.
You know that is true.
If nothing else is factual, we know that Republicans are hypocrites. It’s just your nature.
I am not saying that McCain has been boinking a lobbyist and has granted favors based on his position, but you know damned well that the right wing would be all the FORK over this story if it was about a Democrat.
Hypocrisy is just in your blood.
Give it up, man, you can’t win this one.
Just one thought Paul — You might just think Drudge is nothing much… But follow the money… as in where does he get his… THEN you will find out much about who is behind these muckraking garbage news stories, that are only intended for flaming…. Check it out… Follow the money, and THEN you will have one huge story… IMHO bigger than the Keating 5 (Which was over before Clinton was ever President)
Republics always think that their linens are bright and sparkling clean and fresh, while the Democrats ALWAYS have dirt and grime on theirs, regardless of the facts…………………….
Republics are just hypocrites by nature.
“This is nothing.”
You seem awfully worried about this “nothing” paulie.
This is the icer. You and yours are going into the deep freeze for a good long time.
But hey beg plea and dance.
I find it most amusing.
Phantom – great information. THANKS!
This story has no legs. Only hard case leftists like some you find here are putting any stock in the story. Here we have a story that consists of nothing more than innuendo and unnamed sources. Yet the left talking point is that the story is not being addressed? What story? And that the source is being attacked. Well duh!
The NYT (The Shady Lady) did accomplish one thing with its unsourced speculative smear. It is helping bring the Republican party together like nothing else.
Outlander,
Evidently, there’s no such thing in Republican Fantasty Camp as a conflict of interest–or hypocrisy, given “Straight Talk” and his apparent holier than thou-ness.
Oh, and Outlander? I know your Wingnut marching orders commanded you to use the phrase ‘unnamed source,’ but get your facts right: the source in the story is JOHN WEAVER, a former top McCain campaign manager.
CF2K, there is also a thing known as “journalistic ethics”. Sort of like “liberal logic”, I fear, an oxymoron these days. Basically that means that as a supposed respected newspaper, you don’t print a weak story just because you would like it to be true.
As for Mr. Weaver,
John Weaver, a former senior aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the man in the middle of maelstrom surrounding the Arizona senator’s relationship (or lack thereof) with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, just spoke to The Fix in an attempt to clarify his role in all of this.
Here’s Weaver’s statement:
“The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn’t identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman.
Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.
I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.
From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day — not one –has gone by that I haven’t reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm.”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/john_weaver_speaks.html?nav=rss_blog
outlander
Great post!
So liberals, John McCain’s friends saw an appearance of impropriety, not in anything that McCain did, but it what a lobbyist SAID McCain would do for her.
Those close to McCain protected McCain.
This lobbyist is not like the “bimbo’s” that Hillary took care of. She seems a bit smarter and better looking.
However, McCains people protected McCain from any appearance of impropriety, an appearance that became a problem due to this lobbyist and her own bragging, and NOT due to any sexual relationship.
CF2K
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
This story will DIE — because a similar story, or DOZENS of similar stories, could be printed about Hillary and about Obama and about EVERY member of Congress.
“Those close to McCain protected McCain.”
Yes it seems McCain cannot take care of or think for himself.
He has admitted as much as to the economy as well.
JR
Hillary protected Bill, Hillary was in charge of “Bimbo Eruptions”
Does this mean that Bill could not take care of himself?
As Henry Kissinger said:
“Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
I worked on a political campaign a few years back where the op-research people discovered incontrovertible evidence our opponent sired and abandoned out-of-wedlock child. Our candidate blocked any use of the isssue saying, “I don’t want to win like that.” Turns out, he’d been boinking a lobbyist for months and figured maybe he couldn’t take the moral high ground on that issue.
McCain hired high-powered attorneys (Bob Bennett, f’r chrissake!) to challenge everything the New York Times’ investigative reporters determined in the McVickie scandal.
And if you can keep your pheromones in check for a moment, the jist of the story isn’t that somebody has videotape of McCain doing the nasty with Vickie, it’s that every time Vickie showed up in hotels, private jets, in McCain’s private office, and at fundraisers… Johnny Mac came through for the girl who looks a lot like his first and second wives, only younger and sexier.
McCain left his starter wife for Cindy’s daddy’s money. She knows Johnny Mac’s devotion to marriage vows and family values.
McVickie is Huckabee’s miracle.
Mrs Huckabee likes to stay at Hooters Vegas.
LOL
Hey, I like Hooters myself. — But it is a dumb idea for politicians or their spouses to hang out there, don’t you think?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/21/MND9V5PR8.DTL
Cindy McCain had an affair with John McCain while he was married to his first wife. She married him less than one month after his divorce from the “starter wife”. She later stole and consumed controlled drugs to fuel her drug habit and pled guilty to charges related to the theft and consumption of drugs. She fired her employee that tipped-off authorities of her theft and drug use and then later settled with the employee for wrongful firing. In 2004 she suffered a stroke and now has memory loss. So, if Cindy was standing by her man and smiling – she may have had many – or no reason to smile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Hensley_McCain
Outlander,
One “shouldn’t print a weak story just because one would like it to be true?”
Well, guess that does it for the entire Right Wing publishing industry financed by Richard Mellon Scaife. It’s all lies, all the time. For that matter, guess it does it to Fox “News” as well, given their penchant for telling boldface lies that are designed to
If you’re going to attack the NYT, Outlander, out of some unctuous assertions about ‘journalistic ethics,’ one might imagine you ought to similarly attack right wing media outlets that publish tendentious stories. Unless, of course, Outlander, one admits that you’re as lacking in consistency as the next partisan hack.
Econ101,
So “this story will die,” eh? Well, Econ101, I’m not dead, and as long as John McCain actions continue to be so at odds with his public “image,” this story will continue to grow legs–as it apparently has today.
McCain is as dirty as the day is long. In that respect, I don’t know why the Repubican Party hasn’t embraced him: he’s clearly one of them.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
A Hole in McCain’s Defense?
An apparent contradiction in his response to lobbyist story.
By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 22, 2008 | Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET Feb 22, 2008
A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.
On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman’s clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.
Just hours after the Times’s story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. “No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC,” the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.
But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. “I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue,” McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. “He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint.”
While McCain said “I don’t recall” if he ever directly spoke to the firm’s lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—”I’m sure I spoke to [Paxson].” McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could “possibly be an appearance of corruption”—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.
McCain’s subsequent letters to the FCC—coming around the same time that Paxson’s firm was flying the senator to campaign events aboard its corporate jet and contributing $20,000 to his campaign—first surfaced as an issue during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. William Kennard, the FCC chair at the time, described the sharply worded letters from McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, as “highly unusual.”
The issue erupted again this week when the New York Times reported that McCain’s top campaign strategist at the time, John Weaver, was so concerned about what Iseman (who was representing Paxson) was saying about her access to McCain that he personally confronted her at a Washington restaurant and told her to stay away from the senator.
The McCain campaign has denounced the Times story as a “smear campaign” and harshly criticized the paper for publishing a report saying that anonymous aides worried there might have been an improper relationship between Iseman and McCain. McCain, who called the charges “not true,” also told reporters Thursday in a news conference that he was unaware of any confrontation Weaver might have had with Iseman….go to web site for pg 2
“One “shouldn’t print a weak story just because one would like it to be true?”
Well, guess that does it for the entire Right Wing publishing industry financed by Richard Mellon Scaife. It’s all lies, all the time. For that matter, guess it does it to Fox “News” as well, given their penchant for telling boldface lies that are designed to”
—————
That is your defense of the NYT on this? “It’s all lies, all the time.” Well hell CF, I guess that leaves only left wing rags, websites and Keith Olbermann who tell the whole truth.
That is just too ridiculous to respond to.
outlander,
Yeah, demanding consistency on your part is, indeed, a demand that’s too “ridiculous” to respond to. Good job running away, though. Kudos!
It was investigated, it was reviewed legally, the Justice Department found nothing (that was on Clinton’s watch.)
Another case of da Dems trying to make something out of nothing.
What a bunch of diseased warts.
One Trackback
[...] WE Blog wrote an interesting post today on McCain article lacked evidenceHere’s a quick excerpt … always seemed to match his crusading rhetoric — the same argument that President Bush made when he campaigned against McCain in 2000…. [...]