the McCain lobbyist scandal

[Irvine511]

i think it needs it's own thread.



[q]McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

TOLEDO, Ohio — Senator John McCain said on Thursday that an article in The New York Times about his close ties to a woman lobbyist was untrue, that he had no romantic relationship with the lobbyist and that he had no confrontations in 1999 with worried staff members who told him to stay away from her.

“Obviously, I’m very disappointed in the article — it’s not true,” Mr. McCain said at a morning news conference in Toledo, where he was campaigning for president. “At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest or would favor anyone or organization.”

Asked if he ever had a romantic relationship with the woman, Vicki Iseman, 40, Mr. McCain, 71, responded, “No.” He described his relationship with Ms. Iseman as “friends” and said he had last seen her “several months ago” at an event.

Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, stood at his side throughout the news conference. She told reporters that she was also disappointed with The Times. “And more importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America,” Mrs. McCain said. “He’s a man of great character.”

Mr. McCain said he knew nothing about an account in The Times from John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, who told the newspaper that he met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station at the time of Mr. McCain’s first run for president in 1999 and told her to stay away from the senator. “I don’t know anything about it,” Mr. McCain said. “Since it was in The New York Times, I don’t take it at face value.”

Mr. McCain also said he knew nothing about confrontations the newspaper described between Mr. McCain and staff members who were worried that the senator’s relationship with Ms. Iseman would jeopardize his career. “I don’t know if it happened at their level, it certainly didn’t happen to me,” Mr. McCain said.

In response to Mr. McCain as well as media commentary about the timing of the publication of the article, The New York Times released this statement from Bill Keller, the newspaper’s executive editor:

“On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. 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.”

Asked at his news conference if he thought the article would be damaging or distracting to his presidential run this year, Mr. McCain replied: “It does distract, and it keeps me from talking about the big issues and the not so big issues, and hopefully we can get this thing resolved and behind us and move forward with the campaign.”[/q]



does this story have legs?

 

[BVS]

Here's an article that talks about how this story had been sat on for months:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/why-did-the-nyt-hold-mcca_n_87704.html



There's even a theory that evengelicals had a little push in this because now it will help Huckabilly.

 

[Irvine511]

^ from the above article:

[q]"Everyone accuses the New York Times of liberal bias," political analyst Keli Goff speculated on CNN. "If they wanted to play politics, they could have sat on the story and waited until you have perhaps an Obama-McCain match-up and drop this baby in October when it really matters. I think that this idea of...them playing politics with it to, you know, harm the Republican Party, I don't know if we can really agree with that."

Timely competitive pressures also may have been in play. As the McCain story was making the rounds on the cable news networks Wednesday evening, news surfaced that The New Republic had been slated to do a piece of its own. The magazine's blog noted that a story on the Times' foot-dragging will appear on the site on Thursday.

Regardless of the paper's motives, conservative pundits were left fuming, noting that the Times had, at once, spared McCain at the point of his greatest vulnerability (when his campaign was still a long shot) and denied his primary opponents perhaps the knock-out blow. Would the GOP have a different candidate on its hands had things been handled differently?

"Oh, there's no question it would have impacted [the race]," Bay Buchanan, a former adviser of ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, told CNN. "I think John McCain would not have won this primary if there's any evidence whatsoever that surfaces that these stories are true... McCain's lawyers went into the New York Times and said do not touch this story. Do not move on this story. And there's no question this was beneficial to McCain to hold the story. No question. His nomination was very much threatened by this story if it broke too early. So what they did was hurt the Republican Party by not allowing this to be aired properly at the time they received this information[/q]



fascinating.

i wonder if this is why Romney only "suspended" his campaign?

 

[2861U2]

i think it needs it's own thread.



[q]McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

TOLEDO, Ohio — Senator John McCain said on Thursday that an article in The New York Times about his close ties to a woman lobbyist was untrue, that he had no romantic relationship with the lobbyist and that he had no confrontations in 1999 with worried staff members who told him to stay away from her.

“Obviously, I’m very disappointed in the article — it’s not true,” Mr. McCain said at a morning news conference in Toledo, where he was campaigning for president. “At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest or would favor anyone or organization.”

Asked if he ever had a romantic relationship with the woman, Vicki Iseman, 40, Mr. McCain, 71, responded, “No.” He described his relationship with Ms. Iseman as “friends” and said he had last seen her “several months ago” at an event.

Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, stood at his side throughout the news conference. She told reporters that she was also disappointed with The Times. “And more importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America,” Mrs. McCain said. “He’s a man of great character.”

Mr. McCain said he knew nothing about an account in The Times from John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, who told the newspaper that he met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station at the time of Mr. McCain’s first run for president in 1999 and told her to stay away from the senator. “I don’t know anything about it,” Mr. McCain said. “Since it was in The New York Times, I don’t take it at face value.”

Mr. McCain also said he knew nothing about confrontations the newspaper described between Mr. McCain and staff members who were worried that the senator’s relationship with Ms. Iseman would jeopardize his career. “I don’t know if it happened at their level, it certainly didn’t happen to me,” Mr. McCain said.

In response to Mr. McCain as well as media commentary about the timing of the publication of the article, The New York Times released this statement from Bill Keller, the newspaper’s executive editor:

“On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. 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.”

Asked at his news conference if he thought the article would be damaging or distracting to his presidential run this year, Mr. McCain replied: “It does distract, and it keeps me from talking about the big issues and the not so big issues, and hopefully we can get this thing resolved and behind us and move forward with the campaign.”[/q]



does this story have legs?

No. In a few days, nobody will be talking about this. Remeber John Edwards' supposed love child? The NYT article is terrible and without sourcing.

 

[Irvine511]

No. In a few days, nobody will be talking about this. Remeber John Edwards' supposed love child? The NYT article is terrible and without sourcing.

the conservative punditry doesn't seem to agree with you. and John Edwards wasn't the presumptive nominee, and there wasn't an article in the NYT about it.

i agree that there are problems with the NYT story. but Drudge and the venerable New Republic all knew about this story.

and with wild conservative dissatisfaction with McCain, we might see this become a bigger issue.

or it could die.

i remain fascinated.

 

[deep]

One thing this whole 2007- 2008 election process has taught me?


Is that our bias' cause many, if not most of us to be fascinated or dismissive about what the press chooses to put out there.



What has legs???

What does that even mean?

What is legitimate?

Could be a better question.


But in this current process the legs question may win the day. (primary day, election day)

And one short lived cycle (properly timed) legitimate or not, can give us a 2004 or 2000 election night result. Followed by a four year term that the American people are not behind.

 

[Varitek]

I'm sorry, are you saying that Obama's campaign is going to employ Rove-like tactics?

edit: wow, guess I should have quoted you deep. You said something like "Karl Rove knew this. Obama's people know this." ??

 

[Irvine511]

i honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[deep]

I'm sorry, are you saying that Obama's campaign is going to employ Rove-like tactics?

sorry,

I pulled an all-nighther

and rambled into another discussion

 

[Dreadsox]

While it could use its own thread, I agree....isw it too much to link to the actual article -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

And maybe we should be discussing the fact that this an article that spends a majority of it it rehashing the Keating Five long before it comes CLOSE to presenting a single FACT in it.

What is the fact - two aides - no longer employed by the Sentor thought that maybe there was somethig goig on with the Senator and another woman.

This is journalism? I mean when they took down Gary Hart in 1988 at least they had a photograph.

Not a shred of proof. They thought maybe there was something, but they were not sure?

If there were proof, then so be it. But there is NOTHING HERE? It's a story about what they think may have been happening.

Wow.

 

[Dreadsox]

One thing this article seems to have done on the airwaves is galvanize some unity among the pundits on the airwaves.

I have heard two of the more conservative radio voices here in Boston (who have ripped apart McCain) come to his defense over this.

I have also heard the more liberal radio voices come to his defense.

The NYT should have more than this I would think, or they have stepped in it.

 

[deep]

edit: wow, guess I should have quoted you deep. You said something like "Karl Rove knew this. Obama's people know this." ??

(I realize i am going a bit off the topic of this thread, but I want to answer)


it is Bush-like and therefore Rove-like to campaign on vauge slogans, and gut feelings

who would you rather have a beer with in 2000?

the over-whelming answer was W over Gore


and the whole Obama mistique is based on likeability
do a survey,
who would you rather a beer with?

Obama, Hillary or McCain?


I know what my answer is?

 

[deep]

While it could use its own thread, I agree....isw it too much to link to the actual article -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

And maybe we should be discussing the fact that this an article that spends a majority of it it rehashing the Keating Five long before it comes CLOSE to presenting a single FACT in it.

What is the fact - two aides - no longer employed by the Sentor thought that maybe there was somethig goig on with the Senator and another woman.

This is journalism? I mean when they took down Gary Hart in 1988 at least they had a photograph.

Not a shred of proof. They thought maybe there was something, but they were not sure?

If there were proof, then so be it. But there is NOTHING HERE? It's a story about what they think may have been happening.

Wow.

Does anyone believe that this was out there during the 2000 election and Bush/ Rove, who were doing a complete slash and burn on McCain, chose not to use it?


The whole Bush/ Rove campaign was empty slogans
"I will restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse"
tainting Gore with the Monica scandal?

 

[Irvine511]

This is journalism? I mean when they took down Gary Hart in 1988 at least they had a photograph.

The New Republic has a long but very interesting article that might get at some of your questions behind why the NYT chose to run this article.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24

i find it interesting that the 4 reporters felt good about this story, but it was the bigwigs at the times who sat on it for so long.

i don't know enough to really make any judgments yet. i think those looking for media bias will be able to build a case.

my opinion: the Times thought it was going to get scooped by TNR, and the Post (which also had a story in the works), and Drudge was already tinkling out some details. so they said, "fuck it," and just went for it.

i do think that some who would say that these were liberal reporters out to do a hit job on McCain, *or* that these people were fed by Romney/Huckabee/Limbaugh malcontents are probably simplifying all this quite a bit.

anyway, for me, the issue is not sex, if there is any. the issue is his closeness to a particular lobbyist.

 

[deep]

anyway, for me, the issue is not sex, if there is any. the issue is his closeness to a particular lobbyist.

So if I post information about Obama and lobbyists it will be an issue for you?

"One thing this whole 2007- 2008 election process has taught me?


Is that our bias' cause many, if not most of us to be fascinated or dismissive about what the press chooses to put out there."

 

[U2democrat]

anyway, for me, the issue is not sex, if there is any. the issue is his closeness to a particular lobbyist.

I agree. I could care less if it includes romantic involvement. It's the possibility of an utter inappropriate professional relationship with a lobbyist. Sure it happens in Washington all the time, but when McCain has built himself upon his integrity, this will hurt. IF true.

 

[Irvine511]

So if I post information about Obama and lobbyists it will be an issue for you?

dude, what's the deal?

 

[deep]

I have no candidate in this election

I will vote this November

I believe everyone should make an informed decision on the best qualified person

I am disappointed that a large portion of the electorate is going on “gut feeling”.



Who would I rather have a beer with?

The dancer that rents an apartment form me
or perhaps, you.

But, I don't think any of the three of us are qualified to be President.

Of the last seven presidents, and I can personally remember - having lived through their terms. Bill Clinton is by far the best and was the best for the country.

My strong preference is to have a President again like him.
Obama is far from that mark.

 

[Diemen]

So if I post information about Obama and lobbyists it will be an issue for you?

Seriously, deep, we get it. You don't like Obama. That you turn everything into a dig at him makes that quite clear. Could you, for once, y'know, not turn everything into a dig at him and just discuss the issue?

 

[deep]

It was put out there that if McCain has a relationship with lobbyists it is an issue.

It is not reasonable to ask if this issue should apply to other candidates?

 

[Diemen]

My strong preference is to have a President again like him.
Obama is far from that mark.

Could you elaborate on this? What were the qualities that made Bill such an effective president in your eyes? And which of those qualities is Obama lacking?

 

[deep]

Could you elaborate on this? What were the qualities that made Bill such an effective president in your eyes? And which of those qualities is Obama lacking?

fair question

I will get back to it, later

 

[Irvine511]

the Obama vs. Hillary question is easy for me.

i want to win. she will have a harder time in the general than he will. the Republican Part as we know it -- the uneasy marriage of rabid free-marketers and religious fundamentalists combined with pro-war national greatness sentimentalists -- is on the verge of total collapse due to the growing realization that the GWB presidency has been a near total disaster, and that he's possibly the greatest gift the left has been given at least in my lifetime. they have a candidate widely and loudly disliked by the "base" of the party.

the *only* person who can unite them is Hillary Clinton.

as for the lobbyists ... this isn't all that important an issue for me in general. what i was saying was the problem, here, in this specific situation, was not any sex but the closeness of one particular lobbyist and the so-called Maverick.

this does not bother me in a cosmic sense.

i know i won't be voting for McCain in November.

 

[Dreadsox]

I still fail to see from the article that there was anything inappropriate going on. Sexual or otherwise.

Like it or not, lobbyists represent corporations and groups of people and the congress has a responsibility to work for the common good for all, including the people lobbyists represent.

It does not matter who the candidate is, there will be contact on some level.

I fail to see a single thing in the article that demonstrates he used his position in her favor. Period.

 

[Irvine511]

in my opinion, there's more to this story than the NYT has published. perhaps they are waiting for more confirmation.

it seems odd to me that they would publish something so explosive -- and something, you'll note, that has not been denied, no one has actually questioned the reporting -- that they sat on for so long, and obviously deliberated, without having something else up their sleeves.

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

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think it's just a bunch of innuendo and anonymous sources signifying nothing. That's based upon what I have seen on the news about it, I haven't had time to read the article.

 

[phillyfan26]

It's a stretch. I wouldn't dismiss it entirely, but it's a stretch. My betting instincts would say the story dies.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

If they had the same set of alleged facts about Senator Obama or Senator Clinton would they have published it?

 

[Irvine511]

If they had the same set of alleged facts about Senator Obama or Senator Clinton would they have published it?

i think so.

there's really no liberal bias here.

what we have is a bias towards getting the "scoop" -- being first, and being right, and breaking big stories. that sells newspapers, that gets website hits, that gets the pundits talking.

again, i can't help but think that there's more going on here. they sat on this story for a long time. and the McCain people have been worried about it for months, and they hired Bill Clinton's lawyer.

i think something's here. but it's all very weird.

 

[BVS]

in my opinion, there's more to this story than the NYT has published. perhaps they are waiting for more confirmation.

it seems odd to me that they would publish something so explosive -- and something, you'll note, that has not been denied, no one has actually questioned the reporting -- that they sat on for so long, and obviously deliberated, without having something else up their sleeves.

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

Yeah I too feel there has to be more to this. It's all very weird that it gets printed now. I mean others knew about this, yet both sides are being pretty vague about it. McCain talked about it today and it was almost as if he was more concerned that it was former aides than the actual story. I also think his wife speaking up for him was a bad move, that's usually a bad sign when that happens, it was almost pre-imptive because there wasn't any real alledged sex, just inappropriate relationship that could have resulted in favoring this lobbyist.

I almost wonder if it was printed in order to encourage someone to step up that has been reluctant...