Report on McCain's relationship with lobbyist angers campaign

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain's advisers are denying assertions The New York Times published that McCain once had a close relationship with a female lobbyist whose clients had business before his Senate committee

The newspaper reported in its online edition Wednesday that aides to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign were so worried about the relationship that they confronted McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.

"Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on special interests and placing the national interests before either personal or special interests," the paper quoted McCain's former top political adviser, John Weaver, as saying. "Ms. Iseman's involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort."

Soon after the article appeared, McCain advisers challenged its accuracy and questioned the newspaper's motivation.

"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," campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said in a statement.
Report on McCain's relationship with lobbyist angers campaign - CNN.com

This "story" equates to one thing; the Dems are scared of McCain in this election. Seems damn funny that NOTHING is coming out about the black candidate, or the woman candidate on their past dealings but good ol' liberal news finds this crap about a white male. Obama would throw out the race card and we've seen Hillary cry already.

Have a good one!:s4:

^^^^^ that chick was kinda hot for a lobbyist . . . i prolly would have bent her over, too. :pimp:

I would be surprised if he did have that relationship. Plenty of our past presidents and politicians have had a mistress/es

btw, ... i was, of course, just kidding around, i don't really believe any of this crap.


peace

The Treason Times (NY Times) has zero credibility. Most will pay this little, if any attention.




b0nger

The left wing on MSNBC are going after this "story". They "were" talking about whether or not the conservatives would rally around McCain? The New York Times has accomplished that.:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

It's true. :)

how would a personal relationship of any kind affect the way he would function as president in any way?

Because she's a lobbyist. Ya see, pussy for favors....

In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications â?? which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist â?? urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxsonâ??s chief executive, Lowell W. â??Budâ?� Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCainâ??s 2000 presidential campaign.

McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier.

Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, said McCainâ??s staff provided the Times with â??approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyistâ??s clients and her public relations firmâ??s clients,â?� but none of the examples were included in the paperâ??s story.
Lone Star Times » New York Times or New York Slimes?

Once again.....thank you to the New York Times.:thumbsup: The Dems are split the way it is and to have this type of false smear campaign. :D

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurnyBright

how would a personal relationship of any kind affect the way he would function as president in any way?

---

To most people it wasn't a matter of him having a relationship with someone else ... It was the fact that he has spent a large portion of his time talking about the need to "clean up" Washington and break legislative ties with special interest groups.

Obviously ... if he was having a sexual relationship with someone who REPRESENTS special interest, well .... that would be devastating to his character and integrity.

Either way, it's nothing more than speculation until they show some actual proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Once again.....thank you to the New York Times.:thumbsup: The Dems are split the way it is and to have this type of false smear campaign. :D

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Ehhhh ...? The overwhelming majority of Dems believe that either Hilary OR Obama would make great presidential candidates.
Obama is beating Hilary by more than McCain is beating Huckabee in recent primaries.

So I'm not sure how you can figure that the Dems are split? I'm not a Democrat ... but if I was, I think I would be pretty excited about what is going on with that party. While the Republican party is nothing more than a snooze fest to most people atm ... the Dems are getting all kinds of public support.

Just look at the amount of people voting on the Dem ballot compared to the amount of people voting on the Rep ballot. Not even close in most of these states if I remember right.

Just a fringe benefit of being rich and powerful in this country. You get all the pussy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Because she's a lobbyist. Ya see, pussy for favors....

In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications â?? which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist â?? urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxsonâ??s chief executive, Lowell W. â??Budâ?� Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCainâ??s 2000 presidential campaign.

McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier.

Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, said McCainâ??s staff provided the Times with â??approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyistâ??s clients and her public relations firmâ??s clients,â?� but none of the examples were included in the paperâ??s story.
Lone Star Times » New York Times or New York Slimes?

Once again.....thank you to the New York Times.:thumbsup: The Dems are split the way it is and to have this type of false smear campaign. :D

Have a good one!:s4:

---

It doesn't look like a Democratic smear campaign to me. The sources all seemed to be former McCain campaign staff. THEY were the ones most worried about how the relationship with this lobbyist would look when McCain's main issues were about inappropriate lobbyist influence in Washington. It could be a NY Times smear, but the sources were not Democrats --- they were McCain's people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

To most people it wasn't a matter of him having a relationship with someone else ... It was the fact that he has spent a large portion of his time talking about the need to "clean up" Washington and break legislative ties with special interest groups.

Obviously ... if he was having a sexual relationship with someone who REPRESENTS special interest, well .... that would be devastating to his character and integrity.

Either way, it's nothing more than speculation until they show some actual proof.

---

Yes. This is what it is about. If it were true, it would undermine his credibility on his signature issue. I agree it is not proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

Ehhhh ...? The overwhelming majority of Dems believe that either Hilary OR Obama would make great presidential candidates.
Obama is beating Hilary by more than McCain is beating Huckabee in recent primaries.

So I'm not sure how you can figure that the Dems are split? I'm not a Democrat ... but if I was, I think I would be pretty excited about what is going on with that party. While the Republican party is nothing more than a snooze fest to most people atm ... the Dems are getting all kinds of public support.

Just look at the amount of people voting on the Dem ballot compared to the amount of people voting on the Rep ballot. Not even close in most of these states if I remember right.

---

Yes, the Democrats are fired up! The media is making a lot out of the close race and trying to portray it as a potential problem for the Democrats. As long as it doesn't get too nasty (Hillary, behave!) and as long as it doesn't go to a brokered convention, a very large majority of Democrats would be happy with either candidate. A large number of Republicans do not consider McCain a true conservative. They would never vote for a Democrat, but the danger for McCain is that they just might not vote at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

Just a fringe benefit of being rich and powerful in this country. You get all the pussy.

---

I think that politicians should stop bending us over the table, and also should avoid banging lobbyists. That's what interns are for!

Voters are tired of being screwed by politicians, espcially when there is no dinner, wine, flowers or music --- and politicians always want to go up the backside! Where's the love? C'mon, Mr. Politician, make me feel special.

And getting it on with a lobbyist is a worse perversion than necrophilia. Doing a corpse is bad, of course, but sleeping with someone who would rape and murder their own grandmother for money and political influence is really unaccaptable, don't you think?

But who can blame a politicain for diddling a hot, young, starry-eyed intern? They are generally willing, unlike the rest of us voters, and they won't want a billion dollar government contract afterward, like a lobbyist would. Just be sure to pay for their dry cleaning, and give them a good recommendation to add to their portfolio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

It could be a NY Times smear, but the sources were not Democrats --- they were McCain's people.

---

And you don't think that the Dems would be behind a NY Times smear campaign? McCains people.....WHO? The chumps never named as much as one source. For something like this to even be implied there should be at least one credible witness with a NAME.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

And you don't think that the Dems would be behind a NY Times smear campaign? McCains people.....WHO? The chumps never named as much as one source. For something like this to even be implied there should be at least one credible witness with a NAME.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

It's not like this is breaking news .... this article was in the works for awhile and even McCain admits that he knew about it last year. This isn't exactly something the Dems "leaked" to the news ... it's something the paper had been working on.

And since when do reporters give up their sources? Just doesn't happen. (unless a court orders it) :wtf:

For all those voters out there dont vote for Mcain he is a senator for my state and he sucks Vote for Obama (or Hilary)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

And you don't think that the Dems would be behind a NY Times smear campaign? McCains people.....WHO? The chumps never named as much as one source. For something like this to even be implied there should be at least one credible witness with a NAME.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Here's the link to the original NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

No where in this thread were there any links to the actual story, just links to stories about the story. So if we are going to discuss the story, we should all read the story.

The named source is John Weaver a former strategist for McCain. He claimed to have warned the lobbyist to keep away from McCain events and to stop claiming to have special access to McCain. Apparently she was claiming to have special access, and this is what concerned the campaign.

There are two other unnamed sources who were former campaign staffers who are now "disillusioned." The NY Times says that they were interviewed independently and their stories corroborate each other and are supported by other independent sources. It's always better to get them on record. but if they won't go on record, the standard of ethics requires independent corroboration, and it looks like they got it.

If you read the whole article, it is not really a smear. There are parts that reflect well on McCain. Opposing points of view are included in the article. McCain was offered interviews, but he and his staff declined. He issued a statement, and it is included in the article. The NYT certainly does have a bias, but it looks like to me they followed ethical journalistic standards with this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

It's not like this is breaking news .... this article was in the works for awhile and even McCain admits that he knew about it last year. This isn't exactly something the Dems "leaked" to the news ... it's something the paper had been working on.

And since when do reporters give up their sources? Just doesn't happen. (unless a court orders it) :wtf:

---

Yes, they have been working on it since October, and McCain new about it, and he was invited to be interviewed on several occaisions. The NYT has been working on it for some time, and they STILL endorsed him, so I don't see it as an ambush or a smear.

On the sources thing: Generally papers try to get sources on the record, and they name them and quote them directly. If a source is "off the record," then they are not named directly, but they may be identified as a "former staff member" or a "source close to the campaign" or some other kind of description that does not name them outright, and they may still be quoted in the article. If a source is only willing to provide "deep background," then they are not identified or quoted in any way, and the information they provide is only used to aid research --- it might lead to other sources who can be quoted, but it cannot be quoted directly. In the case of "off the recourd" or "deep background" sources, then info must be independently corroborated before it can be used ethically. It's the "off the recourd" or "deep background" sources that a paper will refuse to identify, even with a court order, but most stories the source is identified right in the story.

While watching FOX news I seen this story and I don't really believe it. And that says a lot b/c I hate McCain.



However they stressed that the NY Times simply alluded to an affair. They never printed it.



I wouldn't trust the story. Theres no name sources and theres A LOT of stupid speculation. All their trying to do is sell copies of a news paper that has been going down the crapper for the last few years. Maybe they realize how much all the gossip mags are selling and are trying to cash in. All I know is that their stock is down by more than 59% and the ammount of sales are down by just as much.

This looks like a desperate attempt to stimulate a flagging sell revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

Ehhhh ...? The overwhelming majority of Dems believe that either Hilary OR Obama would make great presidential candidates.
Obama is beating Hilary by more than McCain is beating Huckabee in recent primaries.

So I'm not sure how you can figure that the Dems are split?

---

Just like here in the forums....my social circle is predominately democrat. The majority are Clinton backers BUT there is one common theme. IF their candidate doesn't get the nomination they'll either NOT vote or vote for McCain. The ones going for McCain are once again predominately Clinton backers while the Obama ones would sit to home on election day. The more they flame each other the worse this will get.

As for the PAST split in the GOP....the New York Times has managed to strike the nerve that is uniting the party. Better to compromise with McCain than to back a bias lib rag like the New York Times. Like the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". McCain may not be considered a "friend" yet but is surely an enemy of their enemies.

McCain is anti-Club Gitmo, anti-torture and unlike his Democratic contenders, hasn't been a slave to the earmarks. Seems from the debates last night both Obama and Clintons version of change doesn't include pork projects. There is nothing transparent in moneys allocated that haven't had a chance to be debated in either Congress or Senate.

Have a good one!:s4:

first i wuold like to say wow smebody still watches debates. i am so tired of all the debates. but good for you P4B.

now about this storie. i first heard about it on msnbc, and their spin on it. then i watched fox put their spin on it. ironicaly i didnt se anything on bbc about it. i hear everything from hes an evil bastard to the ny times are flat out lying. basicaly it the evil bastard press trying to discredit anything they can. seems a trend with them now a days.

i remember a time wen i could watch th news, no matter wich station, and get a good storie that was fact and formulate my own opinion. then at the end of the broadcast the last 3 min or so someone, usally like senior editor, would come on and give a short commentary on his opinion. now the entire program is nothing but opinion. its a sad situation in our press

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Just like here in the forums....my social circle is predominately democrat. The majority are Clinton backers BUT there is one common theme. IF their candidate doesn't get the nomination they'll either NOT vote or vote for McCain. The ones going for McCain are once again predominately Clinton backers while the Obama ones would sit to home on election day. The more they flame each other the worse this will get.

As for the PAST split in the GOP....the New York Times has managed to strike the nerve that is uniting the party. Better to compromise with McCain than to back a bias lib rag like the New York Times. Like the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". McCain may not be considered a "friend" yet but is surely an enemy of their enemies.

McCain is anti-Club Gitmo, anti-torture and unlike his Democratic contenders, hasn't been a slave to the earmarks. Seems from the debates last night both Obama and Clintons version of change doesn't include pork projects. There is nothing transparent in moneys allocated that haven't had a chance to be debated in either Congress or Senate.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

:wtf: Just because there is a division in your "social circle" doesn't mean there is a split nationally. Again, on EVERY poll I've seen ... the majority believe BOTH Hilary and Obama will make great Dem candidates. Hillary and Obama have both stated that opinion many times as well, including once again last night.

Again, you also have the fact that Obama is beating Hillary in recent states by more than McCain is beating Huckabee.
This would leave one to believe that so far the Dems have been more certain who their candidate should be than the Reps.

It will be interesting to see the next vote results ... To see if the Reps are indeed more in defense of McCain now. If this incident is suppose to unite more Reps with McCain ... then Huckabee should start losing votes and not gaining them.

I agree with McCain on the issue of "Pork" spending ... unfortunately that isn't a major political issue to me.

If the government is creating jobs, keeping them here, keeping us safe, protecting our rights, and remembering that they are civil servants of the people ... frankly, I don't care about the pork. If all American's were doing well ... I doubt they would care about the "pork". Besides, not all "pork" is bad.

I'd much rather have our government "slipping in" grant and financial assistance to local districts then watch them start trillion dollar wars.

We went to war with the last 2 Republican presidents we have had in this country .... In the past 15 years I've seen plenty of Rep politicians claim they are "Reagan-men" only to see them display the lack of patience that RR certainly did not have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

:wtf: Just because there is a division in your "social circle" doesn't mean there is a split nationally. Again, on EVERY poll I've seen ... the majority believe BOTH Hilary and Obama will make great Dem candidates. Hillary and Obama have both stated that opinion many times as well, including once again last night.

---

This is what I've been seeing too. Almost all Democrats would be happy with either candidate. The two are very close on most issues, so there is no issue wedge to split the party. Democrats are mostly excited about their choice, and will give thier full support to either one.

That's not the case for the Republicans. Many Republicans do not think McCain is a real conservative. The religious right does not trust him. Many hate him for his campaign finance law. And many others hate him for his position on immigration. There are deep issue differences between him and large segments of his party. I doubt he can get the full support of those groups. They won't vote for a Democrat, but if they aren't excited about McCain, they won't get out to raise the money, knock on doors, put up signs, handle the phones, and all the other things that win campaigns. They might not even go to the polls on election day. McCain is in serious trouble no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

If the government is creating jobs, keeping them here, keeping us safe, protecting our rights, and remembering that they are civil servants of the people ... frankly, I don't care about the pork. If all American's were doing well ... I doubt they would care about the "pork". Besides, not all "pork" is bad.

---

If you are strictly Kosher, then all pork is bad. I think they should have spending that accommodates those with dietary restrictions due to health, religious or moral beliefs. The should be a menu:

Spending

• Pork Spending
• Kosher Pastrami Spending
• Halal Lamb Spending
• Vegan Tofu Spending

* All spending served with a side of national debt and burden on future generations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yokinazu

i remember a time wen i could watch th news, no matter wich station, and get a good storie that was fact and formulate my own opinion. then at the end of the broadcast the last 3 min or so someone, usally like senior editor, would come on and give a short commentary on his opinion. now the entire program is nothing but opinion. its a sad situation in our press

---

AMEN to that one!:thumbsup: People bitch about FOX, I bitch about MSNBC.....but I still watch both so I get both sides though. There's times when I could drive my foot through the screen with MSNBC but still gotta check it out. LOL....same goes for FOX on certain issues.

Just gotta pile up all the bullshit and then try to look for the proverbial hidden needle.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

:wtf: Just because there is a division in your "social circle" doesn't mean there is a split nationally. Again, on EVERY poll I've seen ... the majority believe BOTH Hilary and Obama will make great Dem candidates. Hillary and Obama have both stated that opinion many times as well, including once again last night.

Again, you also have the fact that Obama is beating Hillary in recent states by more than McCain is beating Huckabee.
This would leave one to believe that so far the Dems have been more certain who their candidate should be than the Reps.

---

There was more of a turnout with the GOP when there were more candidates. Since the field has narrowed down it seems that the "lock" is being taken for granted.

Then there are those like me that voted for Clinton in the primary with the feeling that she is the weaker candidate and also to keep them at war against each other. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

I agree with McCain on the issue of "Pork" spending ... unfortunately that isn't a major political issue to me.

---

Everybody is speaking of "change" though. Part of change is getting ahold of the budget. How can a person proclaim himself/herself as being the leader of change when they ARE, and have been, part of the current problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecurious1

We went to war with the last 2 Republican presidents we have had in this country .... In the past 15 years I've seen plenty of Rep politicians claim they are "Reagan-men" only to see them display the lack of patience that RR certainly did not have.

---

Shit is starting to fly in Kosovo again.......when did Clinton get us into that one. War is a bipartisan issue. Hell, Obama is all about bombing Pakistan whether they like it or not. Not to mention his current proclamation about ending the genocide in Darfur. How do ya end that without troops on the ground?

Have a good one!:s4:

Good Cartoon from Boston Globe re NY Times

Correction: Boston Herald.

Sorry 'bout that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

AMEN to that one!:thumbsup: People bitch about FOX, I bitch about MSNBC.....but I still watch both so I get both sides though. There's times when I could drive my foot through the screen with MSNBC but still gotta check it out. LOL....same goes for FOX on certain issues.

Just gotta pile up all the bullshit and then try to look for the proverbial hidden needle.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

[COLOR="Green"]I used to peek at fox but they've gone too radical for too long to be believed on any subject, white house talking points are the norm, plus the only show I basically watch on MSNBC is Keith Olberman. I watch some of their other commentary shows and political wanks, But Keith does it for me. His commentary on the current regime is outstanding and seems to mirror my sentiments exactly, Go Obama![/COLOR]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by medicinal

[COLOR="Green"]I used to peek at fox but they've gone too radical for too long to be believed on any subject, white house talking points are the norm, plus the only show I basically watch on MSNBC is Keith Olberman. I watch some of their other commentary shows and political wanks, But Keith does it for me. His commentary on the current regime is outstanding and seems to mirror my sentiments exactly, Go Obama![/COLOR]

---

Seriously though, don't ya find him as being the left version of Hannity? Personally I can't hardley handle watching the dude.

Have a good one!:s4: