the McCain lobbyist scandal - 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, 02:25 PM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:26 PM
the McCain lobbyist scandal

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?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 02:41 PM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Here's an article that talks about how this story had been sat on for months:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...a_n_87704.html



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

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 02:50 PM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:26 PM
^ 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?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:05 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 03:26 PM
Re: the McCain lobbyist scandal

Quote:
Originally posted by 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?
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.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:23 PM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:42 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:26 PM
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.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:45 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 03:26 PM
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." ??
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:46 PM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:26 PM
i honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:51 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Varitek
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
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:52 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:26 PM
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...ll&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 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:55 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:26 PM
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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:57 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Varitek


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 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 04:03 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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...ll&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?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 04:06 PM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

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.ht...d-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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 04:12 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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?



Quote:
"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."
__________________

__________________
deep 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 03:26 PM.


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