McCain Leaves New York Times to Answer for Lobbyist Article

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: Fox News

John McCain said Friday morning he will no longer respond to questions about the article in The New York Times a day before, leaving the newspaper to explain why it chose to publish its lengthy profile suggesting the Arizona senator had a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist and did favors for her clients years ago.

McCain and his aides aggressively denounced The New York Times Thursday, saying the story was false and turning the tables on the newspaper, as conservatives and other prominent editors joined the chorus of criticism. The story, in the works for months, was published at a time when the Arizona senator is poised to lock down the GOP presidential nomination.

McCain said Friday in Indianapolis that he doesn’t have any more comment on the matter.

“I am moving on. … I addressed every question that was addressed to me. And I do not intend to discuss it further,” he said.

Read more: http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/22/mccain-leaves-new-york-times-to-answer-for-lobbyist-article/

[madaboutharry]

1. He is so full of shit.

He makes me sick. People who worked around him while he was Chairman of the Commerce Committee know the truth. This man is a fraud.

On edit: He is an arrogant bastard just like Bush.

[Drifter]

2. I think he is saying ...

Bring it on !

And I sure hope they do.
It would completely irresponsible for them publish that article without the the other shoe to drop on him when he denies it.

Cheers
Drifter

[Hepburn]

3. Yeah, right......confronted with the TRUTH and FACTS, Grampa McLame...

...beats a retreat.

:eyes: What total horseshit, IMO. And...so unlike his usual response. Tells me there is more to this NYT story.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop....:popcorn:

Edit for typo

[Tempest]

4. McCain surrounds himself with lobbyists

-- "His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications."

-- "His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways."

-- "Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae."

-- "McCain recently hired Mark Buse to be his Senate chief of staff. Buse led the Commerce Committee staff in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and was until last fall a lobbyist for ML Strategies, representing eBay, Goldman Sachs Group, Cablevision, Tenneco and Novartis Pharmaceuticals."

-- "McCain's top fundraising official is former congressman Tom Loeffler (R-Tex.), who heads a lobbying law firm called the Loeffler Group. He has counseled the Saudis as well as Southwest Airlines, AT&T, Toyota and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America."

[MADem]

5. He is a mendaciously clever. He has "inoculated" himself.

This whole little dramatic roll-out has done a bunch of things:

---It makes the conservative base rally around him, because the mean old LIBRUL NYT is attacking him. It gives him "cred" with the Thugs.

---It will cause anyone with any other 'dalliance' stories to be looked at as a disgruntled, punkass liar.

---He answered questons, and he stayed and answered questions until there were no more. He asked "Any more questions?" and got silence in response, so now he has EVERY right to "draw a line" under it.

BRILLIANT news management. Now, the base is fired up (they're best in whining defense mode) and the NYT and, to lesser extent, the WAPO are the designated bad guys and buffoons.

I think Romney's crew fanned those flames, and that's why Romney RACED to endorse McCain --- it was like he was saying "Hey, if any story comes out, it wasn't me, man, I had nothin' to do with it!"

Dan Rather knows how this shit works....flip the story, make the reporter "the enemy." Reports of the death of The "LIBRUL MEDIA BIAS" are premature....

Editors at The New York Times began to respond on its Web site Friday to the glut of reader questions and comments, many of which were negative.

After standing by the story Thursday, executive editor Bill Keller wrote on the site that “we all expected the reaction to be intense.”

He said the editors and writers knew some readers would disagree with the decision to publish and that they “wrestled” with their doubts, but that he was “surprised by the volume of the reaction.”

Keller wrote that at the time he issued the online response, there were more than 2,400 reader comments on the site.

He said he was surprised how “lopsided” public opinion was against the paper’s decision, but that few readers seemed to grasp the “larger point of the story.”

Keller said the article, an installment in a broader series of campaign profiles, was meant to point out how the candidate who “prizes his honor above all things” has a history of being careless about his reputation.

That’s where the suggestions about his relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman come into play, Keller said.

The original Times article, quoting anonymous sources, described how campaign aides to McCain’s 2000 bid for president wanted to keep him and Iseman apart during that election for fear the two were giving the impression they were having an affair. It also noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of Iseman’s while he was Commerce Committee chairman.

A Washington Post story Friday also detailed how several members of his 2008 campaign have worked as lobbyists, despite his anti-special interest message.

“Perhaps the defining narrative of Senator McCain’s career is his long, determined recovery from scandal,” Keller wrote.

He added that the paper believed the Iseman relationship was something readers would want to know about their potential president: “Clearly, many of you did not agree.”

[Virginia Dare]

9. Nah, he's tainted now...

he can't touch the subjects of lobbying reform, pork, or the evil Washington special interest insiders with a ten foot pole.

Regardless of all the faux outrage by the freeper base at the NYT, there is doubt in many people's minds as to whether he's being honest about the whole affair thing. By nature, people are cynical and will suspect the worst. This is why negative smear campaigning works so well.

[MADem]

14. Sure he can. He can be brazen and do it, and repeat his mantras

about the only thing he has are his HONOR and his INTEGRITY, and he has a LONG career of saying NO to lobbyists, and while this may have the APPEARANCE, the only reason it does is because he wanted the commission to move forward and make a decision--ANY DECISION--and he wasn't trying to influence them one way or another. And his talking points would continue thusly: You can choose ANY candidate--even one of the two Democratic Presidential prospects--and cull through THEIR records, and compare them to his, and his is much more favorable. In fact (his surrogates go on) you could take ANY Senator and compare their lobbying record to his, and he comes up clean as a hound's tooth. He'll throw down. And because of this imbroglio, people will be AFRAID to confront.

And he's already offered to answer every question, the reporters ran out of questions, he asked "Any more?" and there weren't any, and now he's drawn that line. They had their big bite of the apple, and he waited until they bit and chewed.

You watch, he'll get away with it. He's a master at this crap. Funny, it has been awhile, but he was absolutely BRILLIANT wriggling out of Keating Five (and he was the only Republican, to our party's chagrin). That old footage can only help him, because it marks his reinvention as a "champion" against "special interests."

The subject du jour in the papers and on the tee vee isn't McCain-Lobbyist, McCain--Banging Lobbyist....it's "Is the NYT a BAD newspaper, or a HORRIBLE newspaper?" "Is the Washington Post SLOPPY, or UNFAIR?"

In the DU bubble, that isn't how it is playing but out in the real world, those are the headlines. In a perverse, left is right, up is down, crazy is sane, way, that whole mess HELPED him. And he got it out of the way EARLY.

[Virginia Dare]

15. I don't see either Hillary or Obama letting him...

if they're that weak, then they deserve to lose.

[MADem]

18. I think the GOP wants Obama to be the nominee

because they figure he is a tabula rasa, and they can smear the shit out of him.

It's harder to smear Clinton, because her "smear level" has peaked, and even people who bought the bullshit just might say "Hey, WAIT a minute...this is over-the-top" if they try to bring up anything new, or even revisit the old lies. And her "likeability" has actually gone up with national exposure. She's never going to win over the "haters," but she doesn't need to.

It is also harder for McCain to be MEAN to Clinton. They have genuine regard for one another, and have gone on CODELs together. McCain may be have a (forgive the expression) "whoremaster" label from his younger days, but he has that old fashioned quality where you don't go belting women across the face.

Obama, on the other hand, is a new face. Even with his books that provide his "story," he is still easy to crap on. His time at Columbia is a total mystery, there's two years in NY after graduation that are shrouded, too. Lots of room for "creative writing" there.

Who remembers Alex Polier? Anyone? Here, a horrifying read: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/9221/

Kerry spent about a WEEK on that matter. A week where he was NOT talking about his agenda. A week, DENYING.

And of course, since Alex was in Africa, cut off from America, that served to delay "clarity" by several days. When clarity was achieved, it took another few days for the 'correct' story to percolate out to the media. And even then, plenty of people didn't hear the denials or the refutations. It was Swiftboat, Flip Flop, Polier, Fighting with Teresa. Lather, rinse, repeat. Smug insinuations, nudge, wink.

I suspect the Rovian forces have already gotten a few tales together that are all ready to roll out. Maybe a few old girlfriends that he will be accused of treating poorly, maybe a spare kid tucked away somewhere (they loved pulling that one out for Clinton), the old "Ooooooh, DRUGS!" which a LOT of people are UNAWARE of, the affiliation with "Commies" (that one just might take off with the rabid right), the old Muslim canards, and who knows what else.

His books only help if people bother to read them. Most of "the enemy" won't bother. They'll believe the innuendo repeated by Rush and the rest of the floggers. If it's not true, that doesn't stop them. Why let truth get in the way of a juicy story?

[Virginia Dare]

22. If they want McCain to look like an underdog..

then Obama is their man. Regardless of whether it's Hillary or Obama though, if they're crafty enough, McCain won't get through this campaign without looking like a racist or sexist POS. There will be a fierce smear campaign against whomever we choose, we can bet on that. This is the exact reason why we can't let him walk away from this unscathed. If there is ANYTHING to this story it needs to be ratted out. Keep up the questions, keep up the innuendo, it can only hurt him since he seems to want to run on his so-called "integrity".

[MADem]

26. They've got to watch the racist routine with Johnny Boy.

That could backfire HORRIBLY into a "How LOW will these people sink? ANYTHING to win!! Playing the RACE card? Come ON!!!"

People forget. He's been down the Black Baby road already, in South Carolina, in 2000. He's been a VICTIM of racism already.

He has a Special Needs adopted daughter from Bangladesh.



And as for a sexist, well, again, that's a tough one. He may be criticized for being "chivalrous" or "old fashioned" but then, remember who votes, too...there are more than a few "Over Sixty" types who find that sort of conduct a positive, not a negative.

[Virginia Dare]

28. Oh yes, I remember he was VICTIMIZED...

by this guy:



So what you're telling me, is I'm going to spend the rest of this campaign feeling so sorry for poor Grandpa Johnny McCain.

Poor Grandpa Johnny!..:cry:

[MADem]

29. But there's a flip to that story...

McCain has his hand on the stickshift of the Bush Administration, and he's driving the bus now.

[Virginia Dare]

30. No way...

McCain ain't driving the bus, anymore than shrubya was.

[MADem]

32. Time will tell. I'm starting to wonder if the deal was made, and the fix is in. nt

[Amerigo Vespucci]

10. Yes...take a look at this "Countdown" video I posted earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x96194

There is a segment in which Limbaugh rants on and on about how McCain should have "learned his lesson from this," how "liberals must be defeated, not trusted," etc. etc. etc.

So somewhere in all of this is McCain as "victim," McCain as "crusader," McCain as someone other than a politician who is in bed with lobbyists, both figuratively AND literally.

:patriot:

[MADem]

11. And Limbaugh, a week ago, was saying he couldn't vote for the guy.

It's all a big charade. McCain has to appear like a fighting underdog. There has to be an overlay of sympathy and "unfairness" so the morons can be motivated to turn out in sufficient numbers to either win, or game the system.

And if that isn't enough, DIEBOLD steps in, and say hello to President Popeye.

[Virginia Dare]

17. The fact that the counter-attack was so fierce makes me think..

there's something to the affair story. If Miss Vicki was running around bragging about her McCain conquest, you can bet lots of people knew. There's also the possibility that she was planted into Pappy McCain's hemisphere precisely because of the way she looked. Lobby shops employ both repubs and Dems, and D.C. is a small town. If the Dems have an O.R. shop worth a plug nickle they'll nail him.

[MADem]

19. She WASN'T, though. She was simply telling a few of her fellow lobbyists

that she had INFLUENCE with him. No allegations of sex, anywhere. If you want to keep those ties, that's something to not talk about, because that's the surest way to kill the goose that laid those golden eggs.

Even John Weaver, the only named source in that NYT story, sticks to that story VEHEMENTLY and says there was no discussion of an affair or of romance, just an "appearance of impropriety" and that is why he waved the woman off.

If she was schtuping him, she was a prize--because she was DISCREET. And she denies any sexual or romantic contact even today. That dog just won't hunt.

I do think your suggestion that she was sicc'd on him because of her appearance IS accurate. It's not unusual for a feller (or a lady, really) to "go to type." Carol The First and Cindy The Second have a similar look to them, too.

I also think that she will never tell, nor will the lobbying firm, nor will anyone else. If called to testify, they'll lie.

I think the reason the counter attack was so fierce is because McCain knew where it came from --that ALTERNET assertion that it was a couple of ex-McCainiacs who were working for ROMNEY I think is right on the money.

I think that's why Romney rushed to endorse McCain...to try to pretend it wasn't coming from his camp.

[Virginia Dare]

20. MADem, that is always the first reaction..

everybody vehemently DENIES it, then everybody waits to see if somebody's got proof. Clinton never in a million years imagined that he'd be caught out with proof.

If it did come from Romney, then he was a day late and a dollar short. But you could be right, and I would lay odds that it was somebody connected to the Bush family who gave it to him. It was odd how Romney and everybody named Bush all came out for McCain right around the same time. I also think that you're right that McCain knows exactly where it's coming from.

Who knows what demands are being made of him to keep anything more embarrassing from coming out. The man has sold his soul so many times, he's probably lost count.

[MADem]

23. Yeah, but the second reaction has been wagon-circling and cheering from the far right.

Limbaugh, Laura Ingrahm, Christian Broadcasting--they're all praising McCain to the skies. He's been attacked by the NYT, and that is good enough for them.

I posted a few articles downthread--even the GUARDIAN UK sees it as a victory for him. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3193584&mesg_id=3193799

And I think Romney's mistake was he threw forty million dollars in the way of the FOUR MORE YEARS train, which connects with the STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS.

Here's my take on the Bush-McCain relationship. They've come to an ACCORD. He stoops to conquer, perhaps? Remember how he "Came to Jesus" at that rally in FL and sweatily HUGGED Bush? Now, it's PAYBACK time, and the Quid Pro Quo is the Presidency, so long as McCain helps old George out a bit.

I think McCain has agreed to be a continuation of the BushCo White House, particularly with regard to shielding Bush from any assaults on "Executive Privilege" issues. He'll also be SURE to keep BushCo's papers private--Presidents can do that, now.

And THAT is why Bush has ENDORSED McCain.

Pictorially speaking,

He does NOT have to worry about THIS:



Because he's got THIS in the palm of his hand:

[Virginia Dare]

24. No doubt a deal has been cut...

probably several deals. I guess McCain will never learn he's dealing with the devil. It'll be a bumpy ride for him from here to November, that's for sure.

[MADem]

27. I think Cheney has smoothed that ride. Seriously.

Fat Rush turns on a dime, and goes from "I can't vote for him" to "We must stand behind our nominee?" The Christian Broadcasting Clowns go from DEVIL!!! to Angel??

I think it's more than a deal, I think it is an in-depth accomodation, it was made way back when, as Bush was running for reelection, and Bush is making good on his promise. For all we know, Huckabee was part of the equation--get in there and peel off Romney's support, we'll make sure you get favorable press, all you have to do is be CHARMING everytime we put you on MSGOP or Faux. And you'll be rewarded, too.

They were slow to roll it out, because they didn't want to make it look like he was the heir--given Bush's negatives of late, that wouldn't have helped him. It needed to look like he was, all by himself, the last guy standing. Not the pre-chosen nominee who was presold to the guppies.

[Virginia Dare]

31. I can't say that scenario doesn't seem possible..

the whole thing is a charade, on both sides. All we can do is sit back and see how the game is played out.

[Alexander]

12. Yes, making the press corps sit in the back of the plane is so clever...

:eyes:

[SpiralHawk]

6. That's the olde Sen. David Vitter (R) Diaper-sex-with-hookers defense

"Jeebus has forgiven me. I'm a republicon, so it's unreasonable to expect honesty or normality. Case Closed."

Sen. David "Republicon Sex Deviant" Vitter

[central scrutinizer]

7. He's got some 'splaining to do

As Karl Rove said, "If you are explaining, you are losing" meaning that if some of the dirt is starting to stick and you are on the defensive, it's time to stick a fork in, cuz you're done

[Virginia Dare]

8. LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening anymore...

ignore it and it will go away, he can only hope.

That's okay, it's early still, let him stew on it for a while. I hope the Dems have some crack O.R. teams on this.

[bdamomma]

13. “I am moving on. … I addressed every question that was addressed to me. And I do not intend to discu

sounds like a * comment he has learned well.

[underpants]

16. Oooh he turned the tables!! he WON!! He's a WINNER!!!

Nice bias there Fox News

[MADem]

21. Unfortunately, it ain't just Faux....

The spin, for the most part, is POOOOOOOOOR Johnny!!! They're being MEEEAN to him!

McCain Story Reaction Surprises NY Times http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5562785.html

NEW YORK — New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in an online forum Friday that he was surprised at the critical reaction to a story the paper published a day earlier which highlighted John McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist.

The story generated a storm of controversy online and in other media, largely due to its focus on concerns among unnamed officials in McCain's presidential campaign that the relationship may have become romantic. Both McCain and the lobbyist have unequivocally denied that it was....Keller, in an online forum to address readers' questions about the McCain story, acknowledged that he and his colleagues had expected the response to be "intense" and would "provoke at least a brief media firestorm."

Keller said he knew that some readers would disagree with the paper's decision to publish what it found....The Times also displays readers comments on some stories. McNulty said the 2,430 comments submitted on the McCain story was a record for the paper.

"Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site)," Keller said. "I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot."....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


New York Times faces backlash after McCain article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/22/johnmccain.uselections20081?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

The New York Times came under fire from an unlikely alliance of rightwing talk show hosts and liberal bloggers for a story that alleged John McCain had improperly used his influence on behalf of a woman lobbyist.

By this morning, the newspaper had received more than 2,400 email accusing it of a "hatchet job" and "gutter journalism" for reporting on the connections between McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, during the senator's first run for the White House in 1999.

McCain, who appeared at a subdued press conference in Ohio with his wife, Cindy, denied any romantic involvement with Iseman or using his influence on her behalf.

An editorial in the rival New York Post called the 3,000 word report a "drive-by shooting masquerading as a newspaper story".

McCain, meanwhile, was embraced by some who had been among his harshest critics with rightwing chat show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham holding up the story as evidence of a media conspiracy against the Republican party.

The Christian Broadcasting Network said the story by the Times was a "conservative badge of honour".

[McCamy Taylor]

25. McCain is not being protected by the MSM---CNN fears him because he

is a threat to Time-Warner's cable business. Same for ABC-Disney. The Pentagon has forced GE/NBC to suck up to this old washed up politician to the point that NBC now looks as ridiculous as FOX. All three of them would rather see him out of the race.

Newsweek caught McCain contradicting sworn testimony he made several years ago. This is why he will no longer be allowed to make statements. He is too feeble minded to keep track of his own lies, and there are too many journalists fact checking him.

Huckabee has also announced that he is in it for the long haul and hopes to have a brokered GOP Convention. Very funny, considering the lengths Rove and Buchanan have gone to create a brokered Dem Convention. McCain only has 5 million more he can spend in the primaries....

McCain is toast. Buttered side up.