Report on McCain's relationship with lobbyist angers campaign

[thecurious1]

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.

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.

thecurious1 Reviewed by thecurious1 on 02-21-2008. 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 Rating: 5

[killerweed420]

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

[dragonrider]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Psycho4Bud]

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:

[thecurious1]

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:

[smokey91]

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)

[dragonrider]

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.

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.

[rebgirl420]

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.

[Psycho4Bud]

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:

[yokinazu]

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