the McCain lobbyist scandal

[Irvine511]

SO she had access to him. The teacher's unions ect. have access too along with countless other representatives of the interests of the citizenry.

What has he done that is wrong? Nothing.

it's not the access, it's the level of access that was so unusual it caused many close to McCain to panic.

and it's not that he's done anything wrong, it's that he's treading on thin ice holding himself up as a paragon of political virtue.

 

[Irvine511]

As for my post, there is a potential scandal heading Obama's way. If the press is not held to standards, then Obama is just as open to "inferred" scandal as anyone else. The fact that there are those on the left geefully happy that this is happening to McCain shows that once again, we could care less unless it happens to our guy.

and i guess i'm a little bit sad that any interest in a subject or topic is automatically read as "glee" simply because it is happening to the other side.

i find this story interesting on many levels, not least because i live in DC and know people who both work on the Hill and on K Street.

i also found it interesting how the "base" smelled some blood in the water, which only amplified their quite audible dissatisfaction with McCain, and the fact that Romeny has merely "suspended" his campaign.

but to make it sound as if these McCain stories are giving me a hard on ... not even close.

 

[Dreadsox]

You are ususally someone I believe looks at things factually. In this case, I am surprised by your posts.

Obama's day will come. I will be there for him too unless there are facts that prove otherwise.

 

[Irvine511]

i found this article and the articles and discussion surrounding it the most illustrative look into the "real" McCain that's come since he's been on the political radar.

 

[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 have been disappointed by his decisions and politics before, but I can handle that. I disagreed with him on Iraq, only to find that he very well has been correct about stabilizing the situation there. I disagreed with him on campaign finance, but, I find the fact that he was opposed to his party on this, refreshing.

Enough - I am excited for Obama - McCain. Two very different candidates. It should be fun.

 

[diamond]

and the fact that Romeny has merely "suspended" his campaign.

.

you're really worried about this, huh?

 

[Irvine511]

you're really worried about this, huh?

i think it would be great if he tried to come back to life.

he'd be destroyed by Obama and/or Clinton.

destroyed.

 

[diamond]

you do not know Romney or his character that well apparently.

dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

Well, he's willing to change all of his positions on a dime just to get a nomination. What does that tell you about his character?

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[Dreadsox]

As for people crying foul that McCain has lobbyists working on his campaign....

FactCheck.Org :

[Q]Lobbyists: The e-mail criticizes McCain for his reliance on lobbyists to raise campaign money, implying that his past crusades for stricter campaign-finance regulation and tightened congressional ethics laws were insincere efforts to "score political points":
DNC: After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign.

This is a reference to a recent report by Public Citizen, the group founded by Ralph Nader, which has tallied 59 persons who are or formerly were registered as lobbyists serving as "bundlers" (fundraisers) for McCain's campaign. That's more than for any other candidate, and Public Citizen said McCain's list is growing.

However, neither of the leading Democratic candidates are entirely innocent on this score. Clinton voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation in 2002, and nevertheless has 20 lobbyist-bundlers aiding her campaign, according to the Public Citizen report. And even Obama, who crusaded for congressional ethics legislation last year, has 10 fundraisers whom Public Citizen identified as lobbyist-bundlers. In his case, all are former lobbyists and none are now registered.

[/Q]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

 

[Diemen]

As for people crying foul that McCain has lobbyists working on his campaign....

FactCheck.Org :

[Q]Lobbyists: The e-mail criticizes McCain for his reliance on lobbyists to raise campaign money, implying that his past crusades for stricter campaign-finance regulation and tightened congressional ethics laws were insincere efforts to "score political points":
DNC: After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign.

This is a reference to a recent report by Public Citizen, the group founded by Ralph Nader, which has tallied 59 persons who are or formerly were registered as lobbyists serving as "bundlers" (fundraisers) for McCain's campaign. That's more than for any other candidate, and Public Citizen said McCain's list is growing.

However, neither of the leading Democratic candidates are entirely innocent on this score. Clinton voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation in 2002, and nevertheless has 20 lobbyist-bundlers aiding her campaign, according to the Public Citizen report. And even Obama, who crusaded for congressional ethics legislation last year, has 10 fundraisers whom Public Citizen identified as lobbyist-bundlers. In his case, all are former lobbyists and none are now registered.

[/Q]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

For someone who has built a reputation on not catering to the special interests, it does strike me as a little odd that out of all the candidates, he has the most lobbyists working on his campaign. Nearly 3 times that of the next closest candidate. That doesn't seem at least a little incongruous to you?

 

[anitram]

Nearly 3 times that of the next closest candidate.

Other than Hillary's vote for campaign finance reform, has she ever taken on an anti-lobbyist position? I admit I'm not particularly informed on her position here but I don't think she's ever represented herself as someone who would prefer not to employ lobbyists. In that sense, I'd actually expect her to be in the lead here, not to see a 3:1 ratio.

 

[Diemen]

That would've been my assumption, too.

 

[Dreadsox]

For someone who has built a reputation on not catering to the special interests, it does strike me as a little odd that out of all the candidates, he has the most lobbyists working on his campaign. Nearly 3 times that of the next closest candidate. That doesn't seem at least a little incongruous to you?

It actually makes me raise my eyebrow at them.

 

[Diemen]

Them being Clinton and Obama? Why?

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

 

[Dreadsox]

Them being Clinton and Obama? Why?

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

No the lobbyists.....lol

 

[Diemen]

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?

 

[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.

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)

 

[VintagePunk]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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/o...gin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

 

[diamond]

ppl who hate want this story to grow legs.

dbs

 

[Bluer White]

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.

 

[deep]

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 ?

 

[Irvine511]

[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/o...gin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&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.

 

[deep]

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

 

[Bluer White]

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.

 

[deep]

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 ?? -

 

[BVS]

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...