Another case of da Dems trying to make something out of nothing.

What a bunch of diseased warts.

Yeah, demanding consistency on your part is, indeed, a demand that’s too “ridiculous” to respond to. Good job running away, though. Kudos!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

“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.

Yes it seems McCain cannot take care of or think for himself.

He has admitted as much as to the economy as well.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Republics are just hypocrites by nature.

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.

Blessings All!!

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.

Just how well do you know Vicki Iseman? :)