the McCain lobbyist scandal - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2008, 06:16 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


there's really no liberal bias here.

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...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-21-2008, 06:45 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

and note that the McCain camp hasn't denied any of the specific charges in the piece.
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?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 07:10 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
What, if anything from the original article do you see is necessary for him to deny?



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]




Quote:
With his press conference this morning, what should they be saying to deny what you think they should be denying?


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 07:23 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:45 AM
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.....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 07:39 PM   #35
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,367
Local Time: 09:45 AM
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.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-21-2008, 07:53 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
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?
[/B]


this is why i think there is more to come.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 07:55 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
You are not giving me ANY specific charges the man is supposed to deny.


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.



Quote:
He is supposed to deny that someone on his staff had concerns about his relationship? That is the big story?


from what i can tell, yes.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 08:11 PM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:45 AM
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]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 08:25 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


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.
I do not understand what he is supposed to deny. The aid that is the ONLY source for the story who would go on the record, has said MCCAIN did not know he spoke to the lobbyist.

Nothing much to deny.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 08:33 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
U2@NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Back in Buenos Aires
Posts: 4,281
Local Time: 09:45 AM
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...
__________________
U2@NYC is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 08:37 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.


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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 08:52 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:45 AM
[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/pbcs...plate=nextpage
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 09:07 PM   #43
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 07:45 AM
All the news thats fit to print? Me thinks not. Shame on you, NYT
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 09:52 PM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:45 AM
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 10:03 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:45 AM
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]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com