the McCain lobbyist scandal - Page 8 - 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 02-24-2008, 12:26 AM   #106
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Them being Clinton and Obama? Why?

...and I know a thing or two about raising eyebrows!
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 12:29 AM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Them being Clinton and Obama? Why?

...and I know a thing or two about raising eyebrows!
No the lobbyists.....lol
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 12:36 AM   #108
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Ah, ok.

You dont see anything odd about McCain the anti-special interests maverick carrying 3 times the lobbyists in his campaign as the other candidates, though?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 12:47 AM   #109
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:18 AM
I would be more concerned if there was a shred of evidence that this has caused him to vote or use his position to help them one way or another.

His record on this issue, from the Keating Give forward is enough to give me confidence that the man has integrity.

Even with the issue the NYT brought up, the written record, as well as statements by other lobbyists, and the FCC Chair who apparently dispised McCain, all support that his is a man of integrity and above being bought.

I am really hoping that nothing comes out to prove me wrong:O)
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 03:20 AM   #110
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I guess I do not see his relationship as a problem. He is operating in a system in which groups of people have hired lobbyists to represent their interests. The reality is, the average Joe doe not have access to the politicians to voice concerns ect, and that is why the system is what it is. So her having access does not bother me, at all. If you look at this man's record, he has bucked the party, bucked special interests, bucked popular opinion when he feels it is in the better interests of the country. And that record, stands for what it is.

As for this 'scandal". I believe that there was a rift within his advisors. I believe that there were firings and terminations that have resulted in this coming to light in a manner that is lacking in substance. It brings out the juiciness of the scandal without there being evidence of a scandal. I find it wrong and offensive, that the article sat, sat, was rewritten three times, sat again, and was published because there was an article being published about the rift it was causing in their paper. It was not published because it was newsworthy.

That said, like with Obama, if there is evidence of wrong doing and him using his political influence inappropriately, then I will be so disappointed.

I've been following this story since it broke, and that's pretty much how I perceive it, as well. Much ado about nothing. And I'm a left-wing socialist Canadian.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 12:18 PM   #111
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I would be more concerned if there was a shred of evidence that this has caused him to vote or use his position to help them one way or another.



but what's at issue here isn't the trail of favors that he provided to whatever lobbiest, but about the "access" he provied to whatever lobbiest, as that is how lobbiests work their magic. it really isn't about results, it's about the perception of proximity to a candidate.

she clearly had an unusual level of access to McCain.

that is undisputed.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 01:39 PM   #112
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:18 AM
I know what you feel the issue is however, the public editor of the New York times pressed this issue inquiring, why couldn't they have run the article without the hint of the "sexual relationship" this is what was said -

[Q]But in the absence of a smoking gun, I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
[/Q]

But if Keller is telling the truth, why does the other editor say this?

[Q]I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed. [/Q]

So the truth is, the AIDES were not worried about his political relationship?


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/op...nt&oref=slogin
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:12 PM   #113
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:18 AM
ppl who hate want this story to grow legs.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:53 PM   #114
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 10:18 AM
If the story has been lurking under the surface for months, it's a credit to Mitt Romney and his handlers that it wasn't leaked to some overzealous reporter on the campaign trail.

There would probably be a different Republican nominee today.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:07 PM   #115
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White
If the story has been lurking under the surface for months
the NYT has said it had this information for months


but, still they gave McCain their BIG endorsement?


and now we hear they are surprised
about the reaction?

they expected this to be big trouble for McCain


and if it was ?


what might have happened ?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:26 PM   #116
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

[Q]I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed. [/Q]

So the truth is, the AIDES were not worried about his political relationship?


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/op...nt&oref=slogin


couldn't the aides have been worried about two things? the appearance of this close relationship to one particular lobbyist, as well as the possibility of an affair going on between the two? and when it comes to publishing an article, it's the former that's more able to be substantiated by anonymous sources, combined with lots of information that hasn't been disputed by anyone, to get to the essential truth that, in a nutshell, the aides were concerned that the appearance of a relationship, sexual or otherwise, between "Maverick" McCain and a lobbyist. there was the possibility of a sexual component to this, but to prove something like that, Keller is right, you'd need more than what the story has. but it does seem to me that they are perfectly fine discussing the fact that McCain does have some issued to deal with, that go back over 10 years.

it's a very, very slippery place to be, i agree. so if you don't say sexual, you miss at a truth. but when you do, people cry foul and say "YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF."

it's a slippery area, i agree, but i feel the general discussion has pretty much missed the issue, the NYT could have been more skillfull about this, but i think the fundamental assertion of the story is 100% correct.

and, again, i think there is more here. you don't get to be an editor of the NYT without having some serious skills.

we wait and see.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:42 PM   #117
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


and, again, i think there is more here. you don't get to be an editor of the NYT without having some serious skills.

we wait and see.
it is really interesting these days

watching you grasp
and give benefit of the doubt

I have said before
we all have bias

I try and check and identify mine









aside from that
I have a different theory

and as I have no proof
I hesitate to put it out
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:42 PM   #118
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

but, still they gave McCain their BIG endorsement?

and now we hear they are surprised
about the reaction?

they expected this to be big trouble for McCain
I agree it doesn't seem to add up, could be the paper simply wanted to print the story before another organization beat them to it.

You'd think the Times must have more concrete evidence of an affair. But then for McCain to come out and categorically deny any affair, and not hedge at all on it......if there is real evidence it will be ugly for him.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:52 PM   #119
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


I agree it doesn't seem to add up,
keep in mind


a crippled, damaged McCain would still limp to the GOP nomination.

so what's the point?

a crippled McCain would open the the door for......

enter:

stage right? - no

stage left? - no

STAGE CENTER ?? -
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:58 PM   #120
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


You'd think the Times must have more concrete evidence of an affair. But then for McCain to come out and categorically deny any affair, and not hedge at all on it......if there is real evidence it will be ugly for him.
Well this is the part I find interesting. The story doesn't even really mention an affair, yet McCain's team were very quick to deny an affair...
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 10:18 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