BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511 said:
If there was bias I think they would have sat on it a little longer when it was actually McCain vs the Democratic nominee. Or two months ago when this could have given more votes to Mitt or Huck...
the McCain lobbyist scandal
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If there was bias I think they would have sat on it a little longer when it was actually McCain vs the Democratic nominee. Or two months ago when this could have given more votes to Mitt or Huck...
Irvine511 said:
What specific charges? I see nothing to deny.....
His former aides think that there appeared to maybe be something inappropriate.
How do you dey that?
----------------------------------
What, if anything from the original article do you see is necessary for him to deny?
With his press conference this morning, what should they be saying to deny what you think they should be denying?
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
here's what the NYT said:
[q]The New York Times is defending its story on McCain. Here's a statement from Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, released by the paper today:
"On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready.
" 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it." [/q]
here's what the McCain people said:
[q]"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."[/q]
there is no denial of fear about the inappropriate relationship amongst McCain's inner circle, nor do they deny the veracity of the quotes given by the anonymous sources.
You are not giving me ANY specific charges the man is supposed to deny.
He is supposed to deny that someone on his staff had concerns about his relationship? That is the big story?
Here is the aides public statement from a few hours ago about the whole thing - the man the times based a chunk of their story on:
[Q]John Weaver Speaks
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."
[/Q]
It sounds like SHE - meaning the lobbyist was running of the mouth beyond what her relationship was with the senetor. His staff moved to protect him.
I would expect them too.....
He is supposed to deny that someone on his staff had concerns about his relationship? That is the big story?
Here is the aides public statement from a few hours ago about the whole thing - the man the times based a chunk of their story on:
[Q]John Weaver Speaks
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."
[/Q]
It sounds like SHE - meaning the lobbyist was running of the mouth beyond what her relationship was with the senetor. His staff moved to protect him.
I would expect them too.....
this is like two middle schoolers starting a rumor about joey and suzie kissing behind the bleachers, only being published by the new york times.
it's asinine. this is something that tmz or perezhilton would do, not the times. i mean really... how can you run a story about a guy having an (potential/alleged) affair ("inappropriate relationship") with absolutely no proof whatsoever?
ponderous.
it's asinine. this is something that tmz or perezhilton would do, not the times. i mean really... how can you run a story about a guy having an (potential/alleged) affair ("inappropriate relationship") with absolutely no proof whatsoever?
ponderous.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Headache in a Suitcase said:
this is why i think there is more to come.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
he's not being accused of a crime. there's not a "charge" here. what there is is a narrative, and he hasn't disputed it at all.
from what i can tell, yes.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
thinking about it, we're missing the Story for what we think is the story.
this isn't about McCain having an affair.
it's about his reputation as a "maverick" having ties to lobbyists that would make Tom DeLay green with envy.
here's a fascinating post i found on Talking Points Memo:
[q]I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not what extraordinary things McCain did for Iseman; it's what extraordinary access Iseman claimed to McCain.
One lesson of the Abramoff scandal, which gave us the best look at Washington access peddling we've ever had, is that real clout is often less important to lobbyists than the perception of real clout. So long as they're seen as having special access, it doesn't always matter how effective they are at delivering favors.
That's the one undisputed aspect of this scandal. Whatever the reality of the relationship, Vicki Iseman was clearly going around Washington, telling people she had special access to the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. It's also clear she raked in huge sums of money in lobbying fees as a result of peddling that access. And, his denials aside, it's pretty clear that McCain knew that's what she was doing - and far from stopping her, continued to be seen with her in public and in private. Whether or not he delivered favors is only half the question; the biggest favor he delivered was to Iseman, in allowing her to trade in on their relationship. And that's fairly scandalous, in itself.[/q]
this isn't about McCain having an affair.
it's about his reputation as a "maverick" having ties to lobbyists that would make Tom DeLay green with envy.
here's a fascinating post i found on Talking Points Memo:
[q]I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not what extraordinary things McCain did for Iseman; it's what extraordinary access Iseman claimed to McCain.
One lesson of the Abramoff scandal, which gave us the best look at Washington access peddling we've ever had, is that real clout is often less important to lobbyists than the perception of real clout. So long as they're seen as having special access, it doesn't always matter how effective they are at delivering favors.
That's the one undisputed aspect of this scandal. Whatever the reality of the relationship, Vicki Iseman was clearly going around Washington, telling people she had special access to the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. It's also clear she raked in huge sums of money in lobbying fees as a result of peddling that access. And, his denials aside, it's pretty clear that McCain knew that's what she was doing - and far from stopping her, continued to be seen with her in public and in private. Whether or not he delivered favors is only half the question; the biggest favor he delivered was to Iseman, in allowing her to trade in on their relationship. And that's fairly scandalous, in itself.[/q]
U2@NYC
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Tomorrow the Washington Post will publish that Obama cheated on an exam and, due to this, he should be banned from running for President.
I guess the embarassing part of the campaign is starting...
I guess the embarassing part of the campaign is starting...
Irvine511 said:
I am not talking about the "affair" I am talking about the fact that there is not one - not a single shred of evidence in the article that he did ANYTHING inappropriate based on his position of power for her.
[Q]here's a fascinating post i found on Talking Points Memo:
[q]I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not what extraordinary things McCain did for Iseman; it's what extraordinary access Iseman claimed to McCain.[/Q]
So McCain is somehow responsible for what she claimed around town? I have had this happen to me within the context of my job recently.
Apparently the scandal is that his staff did something about it?
[Q]One lesson of the Abramoff scandal, which gave us the best look at Washington access peddling we've ever had, is that real clout is often less important to lobbyists than the perception of real clout. So long as they're seen as having special access, it doesn't always matter how effective they are at delivering favors.[/Q]
Again, his staff did somethig about it. Real or not, perceived or not when his staff heard she was claiming things(things that apparently there is no evidence of yet) , they did something about it.
[Q]That's the one undisputed aspect of this scandal. Whatever the reality of the relationship, Vicki Iseman was clearly going around Washington, telling people she had special access to the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. It's also clear she raked in huge sums of money in lobbying fees as a result of peddling that access. And, his denials aside, it's pretty clear that McCain knew that's what she was doing - and far from stopping her, continued to be seen with her in public and in private. Whether or not he delivered favors is only half the question; the biggest favor he delivered was to Iseman, in allowing her to trade in on their relationship. And that's fairly scandalous, in itself.[/q] [/QUOTE]
Give me a break. Again, his staff worked to fix this. There is no evidence he abused his position. He can no more control what she said around town, than you or I can. As for appeareces in public, there is nothing that shows them showing up together. As a member of the senate they are going to be at functions together otherwise she would not be doing her job.
When there is a piece of concrete evidence that this man abused his position, I will reevaluate. Until then, stoke the fires all you want.
What bothers me is that more and more is that intelligent people on the right and left take particular glee in these situations without caring one shite about evidence, proof, ect. unless it is happening to their guy.
[Q]Lanny Davis, a former special adviser to President Clinton and longtime Democratic activist, challenged reports today that Sen. John McCain may have done a favor for a female lobbyist with a deal pending before the Federal Communications Commission — calling them meritless.
Mr. Davis, who was lobbying on the same deal, said Mr. McCain refused the lobbying team"s request for an elaborate letter to the FCC supporting the proposed sale of a television station.
Mr. Davis said the likely Republican presidential nominee would only write a "neutral" letter inquiring about the status of a communication company"s effort to buy the station. In the letter, Mr. McCain only urged the FCC to act "soon."
The New York Times and The Washington Post this morning reported on Mr. McCain's ties to lobbyist Vicki Iseman and questioned some of Mr. McCain's efforts on behalf of Paxson Communications, a client of hers in late 1999 that was trying to buy a Pittsburgh television station.
Mr. Davis said the Post"s story omitted comments he gave a reporter four weeks ago when asked about the likelihood Mr. McCain aided a lobbyist. He also said the paper disregarded quotes it previously published from him that defended Mr. McCain"s actions. Mr. Davis said the New York Times never contacted him.
"It is sad and unfortunate that facts are not included to make a fair story and that good journalism rules were not followed," said Mr. Davis, who emphasized he doesn't support the Arizona senator"s presidential bid.
"I am unhappy. I am sad that McCain"s actions are being described as improper when we went beyond the pale to avoid looking like he was violating an FCC rule."
At the time of the implied transgressions, Mr. McCain was the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which had jurisdiction over the FCC. He wrote two letters to the FCC that year urging it to make a decision, though he said he did not intend to take sides in the deal.
Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain's campaign, said the campaign gave the New York Times a lot of information defending Mr. McCain that was left out of the report. That included a list of 13 bills Mr. McCain introduced over the past decade that were at odds with clients of the lobbyist's firm, Alcalde & Fay.
Mr. Black also said Mr. McCain's Senate office chief of staff also went back and reviewed the records for a three-year period to determine how Mr. McCain had positioned himself on issues in which the lobby firm was involved.
"McCain was against them on two-thirds of those issues," he said, adding that information was provided to the Times. "They don't have a single one where it looks like McCain did them a single favor."
At a press conference today, Mr. McCain said he wrote to the FCC only after the process had gone on nearly twice as long as usual.
"In the letter, I said I am not telling you how to make a decision, I'm just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. And I believe that was appropriate," he said.
The Times report cited unnamed former McCain staffers who said they had warned Mr. McCain about the lobbyist and said they took steps to keep her away from Mr. McCain.
In a statement released after Mr. McCain"s event, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller defended the paper's story.
"On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready," Mr. Keller said, adding that the story was checked by lawyers.
" 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception." he said.
The newspaper used the anecdote as an opportunity to examine Mr. McCain's record, including accusations nearly two decades ago that he and four other senators used their influence on behalf of Charles Keating, a McCain supporter who ran a savings and loan.
Mr. McCain, standing with his wife, Cindy, at his side at this morning's press conference, also denied he had a romantic relationship with the lobbyist, and said the Times piece was "not true."
Eight years ago, Mr. Davis defended Mr. McCain in a Jan. 6, 2000 Washington Post story "McCain Defends FCC Letter; GOP Hopeful Urged Action on Donor's TV Station Purchase," by Susan B. Glasser and Dan Balz.
The Post article stated: "Lanny J. Davis, a lobbyist with Patton Boggs who was the Clinton White House's special counsel during the campaign finance scandal, agreed with the this-is-how-Washington-works defense. 'All McCain is doing is saying you have no right to refuse to act,' " Davis said. "If the member of Congress with jurisdiction over the FCC doesn't have an obligation to write that letter, that means the FCC has no oversight at all.' "
"Davis's role in the lobbying battle waged over the Pittsburgh station deal was to enlist support from Democratic members of Congress, and he said his firm was responsible for three letters to the FCC —from Reps. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Ron Klink (D-Pa.) — supporting the complicated sale of WQED's broadcast license."
"Several other lawmakers also wrote the FCC to endorse the plan, and both lobbyists professed to be disappointed that McCain's missive had stopped short of advocating the sale. 'He refused to do what Paxson wanted him to do and take a position on the merits, unlike a number of Democrats," Mr. Davis said in the story. 'If anything, this exemplifies Senator McCain's refusal to do the bidding of a contributor.' "
[/Q]
I love how they did not report the quotes from sources supportive of McCain in their article.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc...80221/NATION/536873821/1001&template=nextpage
Mr. Davis, who was lobbying on the same deal, said Mr. McCain refused the lobbying team"s request for an elaborate letter to the FCC supporting the proposed sale of a television station.
Mr. Davis said the likely Republican presidential nominee would only write a "neutral" letter inquiring about the status of a communication company"s effort to buy the station. In the letter, Mr. McCain only urged the FCC to act "soon."
The New York Times and The Washington Post this morning reported on Mr. McCain's ties to lobbyist Vicki Iseman and questioned some of Mr. McCain's efforts on behalf of Paxson Communications, a client of hers in late 1999 that was trying to buy a Pittsburgh television station.
Mr. Davis said the Post"s story omitted comments he gave a reporter four weeks ago when asked about the likelihood Mr. McCain aided a lobbyist. He also said the paper disregarded quotes it previously published from him that defended Mr. McCain"s actions. Mr. Davis said the New York Times never contacted him.
"It is sad and unfortunate that facts are not included to make a fair story and that good journalism rules were not followed," said Mr. Davis, who emphasized he doesn't support the Arizona senator"s presidential bid.
"I am unhappy. I am sad that McCain"s actions are being described as improper when we went beyond the pale to avoid looking like he was violating an FCC rule."
At the time of the implied transgressions, Mr. McCain was the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which had jurisdiction over the FCC. He wrote two letters to the FCC that year urging it to make a decision, though he said he did not intend to take sides in the deal.
Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain's campaign, said the campaign gave the New York Times a lot of information defending Mr. McCain that was left out of the report. That included a list of 13 bills Mr. McCain introduced over the past decade that were at odds with clients of the lobbyist's firm, Alcalde & Fay.
Mr. Black also said Mr. McCain's Senate office chief of staff also went back and reviewed the records for a three-year period to determine how Mr. McCain had positioned himself on issues in which the lobby firm was involved.
"McCain was against them on two-thirds of those issues," he said, adding that information was provided to the Times. "They don't have a single one where it looks like McCain did them a single favor."
At a press conference today, Mr. McCain said he wrote to the FCC only after the process had gone on nearly twice as long as usual.
"In the letter, I said I am not telling you how to make a decision, I'm just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. And I believe that was appropriate," he said.
The Times report cited unnamed former McCain staffers who said they had warned Mr. McCain about the lobbyist and said they took steps to keep her away from Mr. McCain.
In a statement released after Mr. McCain"s event, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller defended the paper's story.
"On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready," Mr. Keller said, adding that the story was checked by lawyers.
" 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception." he said.
The newspaper used the anecdote as an opportunity to examine Mr. McCain's record, including accusations nearly two decades ago that he and four other senators used their influence on behalf of Charles Keating, a McCain supporter who ran a savings and loan.
Mr. McCain, standing with his wife, Cindy, at his side at this morning's press conference, also denied he had a romantic relationship with the lobbyist, and said the Times piece was "not true."
Eight years ago, Mr. Davis defended Mr. McCain in a Jan. 6, 2000 Washington Post story "McCain Defends FCC Letter; GOP Hopeful Urged Action on Donor's TV Station Purchase," by Susan B. Glasser and Dan Balz.
The Post article stated: "Lanny J. Davis, a lobbyist with Patton Boggs who was the Clinton White House's special counsel during the campaign finance scandal, agreed with the this-is-how-Washington-works defense. 'All McCain is doing is saying you have no right to refuse to act,' " Davis said. "If the member of Congress with jurisdiction over the FCC doesn't have an obligation to write that letter, that means the FCC has no oversight at all.' "
"Davis's role in the lobbying battle waged over the Pittsburgh station deal was to enlist support from Democratic members of Congress, and he said his firm was responsible for three letters to the FCC —from Reps. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Ron Klink (D-Pa.) — supporting the complicated sale of WQED's broadcast license."
"Several other lawmakers also wrote the FCC to endorse the plan, and both lobbyists professed to be disappointed that McCain's missive had stopped short of advocating the sale. 'He refused to do what Paxson wanted him to do and take a position on the merits, unlike a number of Democrats," Mr. Davis said in the story. 'If anything, this exemplifies Senator McCain's refusal to do the bidding of a contributor.' "
[/Q]
I love how they did not report the quotes from sources supportive of McCain in their article.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc...80221/NATION/536873821/1001&template=nextpage
Abomb-baby
The Fly
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2004
- Messages
- 209
All the news thats fit to print?
Me thinks not. Shame on you, NYT
Me thinks not. Shame on you, NYT
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dread, i think we're talking about two different things here -- i don't think the article is leveling an accusation, there's no "i did not have sexual relations with that woman" to be said.
what the article -- and let's not forget that this isn't some rogue NYT thing; the subject matter was being investigated by the Post, the New Republic, and certainly Drudge -- is about is not sex or an inappropriate relationship, but about McCain's potential hypocrisy when it comes to the relationship between lobbyists and politicians.
that's really all i can say at this point. there's much more to come, i think.
i can't believe the NYT -- which is still the best paper in the world, and which is fully aware of it's position, and which is fully aware that it's a beloved boogeyman of the right -- doesn't think there's more to go on here.
and i'm honestly much more interested in the mechanics of all this than i am aroused by the whiff of scandal.
what the article -- and let's not forget that this isn't some rogue NYT thing; the subject matter was being investigated by the Post, the New Republic, and certainly Drudge -- is about is not sex or an inappropriate relationship, but about McCain's potential hypocrisy when it comes to the relationship between lobbyists and politicians.
that's really all i can say at this point. there's much more to come, i think.
i can't believe the NYT -- which is still the best paper in the world, and which is fully aware of it's position, and which is fully aware that it's a beloved boogeyman of the right -- doesn't think there's more to go on here.
and i'm honestly much more interested in the mechanics of all this than i am aroused by the whiff of scandal.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
this from Slate:
[q]Few Times critics quarrel with the historical part of the article, of course. What gets their dander up are the piece's thinly sourced beginning and conclusion. The story portrays McCain as way too close to lobbyist Iseman and cites unnamed advisers who believe that the relationship was "romantic," although McCain and Iseman deny that specific allegation.
The piece fails for these critics because the newspaper does not produce sheets from McCain and Iseman's enseamed bed to prove their intimacy. My friend Anne Applebaum denounces the Times article as "an extended piece of insinuation" in a brief Slate "XX Factor" blog item today.
Applebaum argues that if the Times has "evidence that he showed improper favoritism toward a lobbyist, they should come out with that, too. The fact that they do neither—most of the article rehashes old stories—must mean they don't have anything at all; perhaps they are hoping the blogosphere will produce it."
What Applebaum and others miss is that the Times doesn't have to produce photographic evidence of the hot dog meeting the bun to cast suspicion upon the McCain-Iseman intimacies. If McCain were as close to a male lobbyist as he is Iseman, I'd want the Times to report it. That McCain may have voted against the interests of Iseman's clients is no vindication. Her extreme proximity to a self-styled political ethicist is.
Consider these undisputed points reported by the Times:
McCain flew on the corporate jet of an Iseman client who was seeking the senator's support. Iseman, who is a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, "represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain's commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns." The paper also reports that "Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications." Two former McCain associates anonymously tell the paper that they confronted McCain over his relationship with Iseman because they thought it was putting his career and campaign at risk. Former top McCain strategist John Weaver sent an e-mail about his Iseman worries.
Where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn't expose a raging blaze isn't sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him.[/q]
[q]Few Times critics quarrel with the historical part of the article, of course. What gets their dander up are the piece's thinly sourced beginning and conclusion. The story portrays McCain as way too close to lobbyist Iseman and cites unnamed advisers who believe that the relationship was "romantic," although McCain and Iseman deny that specific allegation.
The piece fails for these critics because the newspaper does not produce sheets from McCain and Iseman's enseamed bed to prove their intimacy. My friend Anne Applebaum denounces the Times article as "an extended piece of insinuation" in a brief Slate "XX Factor" blog item today.
Applebaum argues that if the Times has "evidence that he showed improper favoritism toward a lobbyist, they should come out with that, too. The fact that they do neither—most of the article rehashes old stories—must mean they don't have anything at all; perhaps they are hoping the blogosphere will produce it."
What Applebaum and others miss is that the Times doesn't have to produce photographic evidence of the hot dog meeting the bun to cast suspicion upon the McCain-Iseman intimacies. If McCain were as close to a male lobbyist as he is Iseman, I'd want the Times to report it. That McCain may have voted against the interests of Iseman's clients is no vindication. Her extreme proximity to a self-styled political ethicist is.
Consider these undisputed points reported by the Times:
McCain flew on the corporate jet of an Iseman client who was seeking the senator's support. Iseman, who is a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, "represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain's commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns." The paper also reports that "Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications." Two former McCain associates anonymously tell the paper that they confronted McCain over his relationship with Iseman because they thought it was putting his career and campaign at risk. Former top McCain strategist John Weaver sent an e-mail about his Iseman worries.
Where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn't expose a raging blaze isn't sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him.[/q]
When there is evidence of something I will continue to discuss this.
I have posted the original article - Which containes nothing other than innuendos.
I have posted the quotes from the articles ONLY source that would go on record.
I have posted another lobbyist's quotes - who was involved in dealing with McCain on the exact issue the article implied he was showing favoritism on.
My judgement at this time is that this story is not a story. His staff did what they should have done, they went to her EIGHT years ago when she began running of the mouth. THey told her to knock it off.
Senator MCCain's record demonstrates that he did not show her group any special treatment as evidenced by his record and the quotes from the lobbyist.
If they had a story they should have run it months ago when it was finished.
So if/when there is more I will gladly come back to this issue.
I agree with deep, if it were Obama this would be quite a different story in the forum and out of this forum. I would defend Obama as I have McCain...but there would be more of an outcry.
Irvine - If there is more to the story, and I do not think there is. They have had three more months since the story was finished to add to it. THe fact that the other news agencies did not run the story (and drudge counts in your book now as credible?) supports my position even more, that this is JUNK.
Peace
One more thing - the Pittsburgh deal that the article writes about was brought up years ago - and here is a quote from someone who did not get along with MCCain at the time of the incident about the letter the times implies was inappropriate:
Hundt Supports McCain on Pax
In another example of strange political bedfellows, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt last week defended Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) for McCain's letter to the FCC urging members to vote in favor of Paxson Communications' deal with a Pittsburgh TV station. In a missive to The Washington Post, Hundt wrote: "Nothing was objectionable in the letters that you mysteriously find offensive If you think John McCain's opinions and actions can be bought, your opinion flies in the face of all my experience of the man." McCain and Hundt, a powerful Democrat, often found themselves at odds during Hundt's 1993-98 tenure at the FCC. January 24, 2000
McCain's actual letter:
[Q]McCain's Letter to F.C.C. and Excerpts From Replies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Article
Campaigns: White House 2000 -- John McCain (R)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ollowing are a letter dated Dec. 10, 1999, from Senator John McCain to William E. Kennard, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and excerpts from the replies of Mr. Kennard and Commissioner Gloria Tristani:
Mr. McCain's Letter
On Nov. 17, I wrote you expressing concern over the protracted pendency of the pending applications for assignment of licenses of WQEX-TV and WPCB-TV, Pittsburgh, Pa. I requested that the commission take final action on these applications at its open meeting in December, if it had not acted on them in the intention pursuant to the notation voting process. I enclose a copy of this letter for your reference.
I have in hand a copy of the public notice setting out the agenda for the commission's open meeting on Dec. 15. These applications are not listed for consideration. Nor has my public notice yet been issued indicating that the commission has taken final action on these applications pursuant to the notation voting process.
In light of these considerations, I respectfully request that each member of the commission advise me, in writing no later than close of business on Tuesday, Dec. 14, 1999, whether you have already acted upon these applications in the course of the notation voting process. If your answer to the latter question is no, please state further whether you will, or will not, be prepared to act on these applications at the open meeting on Dec. 15. If your answer to both of the proceeding questions is no, please explain why.
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.
Mr. Kennard's Reply
As you know, this application raises important and very difficult policy issues. I wholeheartedly agree that prompter commission action on this matter would have been preferable.
Your letter, however, comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process as the individual commissioners finalize their views and their votes on this matter. I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending. I am concerned that inquiries concerning the individual deliberations of each commissioner could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.
Ms. Tristani's Reply
Respectfully, I cannot comply with your request. In order to preserve the integrity of our processes, it is my practice not to publicly disclose whether I have voted or when I will be voting on items in restricted proceedings prior to their adoption by the full commission.
[/Q]
I have posted the original article - Which containes nothing other than innuendos.
I have posted the quotes from the articles ONLY source that would go on record.
I have posted another lobbyist's quotes - who was involved in dealing with McCain on the exact issue the article implied he was showing favoritism on.
My judgement at this time is that this story is not a story. His staff did what they should have done, they went to her EIGHT years ago when she began running of the mouth. THey told her to knock it off.
Senator MCCain's record demonstrates that he did not show her group any special treatment as evidenced by his record and the quotes from the lobbyist.
If they had a story they should have run it months ago when it was finished.
So if/when there is more I will gladly come back to this issue.
I agree with deep, if it were Obama this would be quite a different story in the forum and out of this forum. I would defend Obama as I have McCain...but there would be more of an outcry.
Irvine - If there is more to the story, and I do not think there is. They have had three more months since the story was finished to add to it. THe fact that the other news agencies did not run the story (and drudge counts in your book now as credible?) supports my position even more, that this is JUNK.
Peace
One more thing - the Pittsburgh deal that the article writes about was brought up years ago - and here is a quote from someone who did not get along with MCCain at the time of the incident about the letter the times implies was inappropriate:
Hundt Supports McCain on Pax
In another example of strange political bedfellows, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt last week defended Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) for McCain's letter to the FCC urging members to vote in favor of Paxson Communications' deal with a Pittsburgh TV station. In a missive to The Washington Post, Hundt wrote: "Nothing was objectionable in the letters that you mysteriously find offensive If you think John McCain's opinions and actions can be bought, your opinion flies in the face of all my experience of the man." McCain and Hundt, a powerful Democrat, often found themselves at odds during Hundt's 1993-98 tenure at the FCC. January 24, 2000
McCain's actual letter:
[Q]McCain's Letter to F.C.C. and Excerpts From Replies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Article
Campaigns: White House 2000 -- John McCain (R)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ollowing are a letter dated Dec. 10, 1999, from Senator John McCain to William E. Kennard, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and excerpts from the replies of Mr. Kennard and Commissioner Gloria Tristani:
Mr. McCain's Letter
On Nov. 17, I wrote you expressing concern over the protracted pendency of the pending applications for assignment of licenses of WQEX-TV and WPCB-TV, Pittsburgh, Pa. I requested that the commission take final action on these applications at its open meeting in December, if it had not acted on them in the intention pursuant to the notation voting process. I enclose a copy of this letter for your reference.
I have in hand a copy of the public notice setting out the agenda for the commission's open meeting on Dec. 15. These applications are not listed for consideration. Nor has my public notice yet been issued indicating that the commission has taken final action on these applications pursuant to the notation voting process.
In light of these considerations, I respectfully request that each member of the commission advise me, in writing no later than close of business on Tuesday, Dec. 14, 1999, whether you have already acted upon these applications in the course of the notation voting process. If your answer to the latter question is no, please state further whether you will, or will not, be prepared to act on these applications at the open meeting on Dec. 15. If your answer to both of the proceeding questions is no, please explain why.
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.
Mr. Kennard's Reply
As you know, this application raises important and very difficult policy issues. I wholeheartedly agree that prompter commission action on this matter would have been preferable.
Your letter, however, comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process as the individual commissioners finalize their views and their votes on this matter. I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending. I am concerned that inquiries concerning the individual deliberations of each commissioner could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.
Ms. Tristani's Reply
Respectfully, I cannot comply with your request. In order to preserve the integrity of our processes, it is my practice not to publicly disclose whether I have voted or when I will be voting on items in restricted proceedings prior to their adoption by the full commission.
[/Q]
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
this too shall pass.
dbs
dbs
MaxFisher
War Child
diamond said:
right.
and in the meantime all its done is helped galvanize the GOP base with the "big bad mean 'ol NY Times" hatchet jobing a Republican.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Has it though?
I haven't seen any galvanizing... I've seen some Huckabilly supporters smile.
I haven't seen any galvanizing... I've seen some Huckabilly supporters smile.
AnnRKeyintheUSA
War Child
McCain? Really? He's so old! But then again don't they all have a secret mistress somewhere?
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
There's no scandal here folks.
The only scandal here is it's scandalous that the NYT can get away with crap journalism -innuendo and no proof.
It's also curious to see how Huckabee and his supporters are handling this, perhaps their true colors are showing.
dbs
The only scandal here is it's scandalous that the NYT can get away with crap journalism -innuendo and no proof.
It's also curious to see how Huckabee and his supporters are handling this, perhaps their true colors are showing.
dbs
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Oh you'll be jumping back on the Mitt train if this story does actually surface anything, for Mitt will call off his suspension and you'll go back to morally condemning McCain.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
the Post published an article yesterday, and there was one in the works at TNR.
make of it what you will.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
AnnRKeyintheUSA said:
see, this is what misses the point.
it's not about sex.
the story here is that even a politician like McCain, who claims to be so devoted to ethics, is as apparently as compromised as much as any other.
the story is this:
[q]"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."[/q]
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
claiming mccain to be unethical is like claiming bill clinton is celebate.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:claiming mccain to be unethical is like claiming bill clinton is celebate.
i think you want to rethink that sentence.
U2isthebest
ONE love, blood, life
diamond said:claiming mccain to be unethical is like claiming bill clinton is celebate.
So, you think McCain is unethical then?
This statement is confusing to me.
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
no, i really don't.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
Just wait till I get to link all your posts attacking McCain's character when Romney was still in the race.
I think you do want to rethink that sentence.
I think you do want to rethink that sentence.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
so you're saying McCain *is* ethical?
you sure about that?
Similar threads
