the McCain lobbyist scandal - Page 2 - 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, 03:33 PM   #21
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,670
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
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?
__________________

Diemen is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:35 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


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
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:38 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:21 AM
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.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 03:44 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:21 AM
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.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 04:18 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:21 AM
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.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 04:20 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,212
Local Time: 05:21 AM
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.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 04:21 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:21 AM
It's a stretch. I wouldn't dismiss it entirely, but it's a stretch. My betting instincts would say the story dies.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 04:23 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,212
Local Time: 05:21 AM
If they had the same set of alleged facts about Senator Obama or Senator Clinton would they have published it?
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 04:40 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 05:14 PM   #30
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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...
BVS is offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 05:16 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:21 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 offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 05:45 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:21 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, 06:10 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:21 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, 06:23 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:21 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, 06:39 PM   #35
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 69,257
Local Time: 05:21 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 offline  
Old 02-21-2008, 06:53 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:21 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, 06:55 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:21 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, 07:11 PM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,717
Local Time: 05:21 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, 07:25 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:21 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, 07:33 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: 04:21 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  
 

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 04:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×