February 21, 2008
NY Times Draws McCain Ire Over Ethics Story
The headline for the above-the-fold NY Times story about presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk, doesn't quite prepare readers for the juicy insinuations waiting for them in the second paragraph. The first sentence notes that during McCain's 2000 presidential campaign advisers were worried because...
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.Um, what? The story is, on the surface, about ethics, but the hint of a possible close relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman - especially when McCain and Iseman deny any romantic relationship - makes this the kind of thing news pundits blow a gasket over. (Keith Olbermann was literally freaking out during Countdown last night while reporting about it.) And since the article appeared online last night, they've been bloviating about this for hours now.
The story, "part of a series of articles about the life and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations," has been decried by the McCain camp. McCain had previously called NY Times editor Bill Keller to complain (which is mentioned in the article - first hint that the story was being worked on was leaked to the Drudge Report last December) and his communications director Jill Hazelbaker said:
"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."
With wife Cindy by his side, McCain gave a press conference this morning denying impropriety, except for the fact that he and Iseman are friends, noting he did take plane rides but they were allowed back then, etc. He said, "I'm disappointed in The New York Times piece." Here's the McCain camp rebuttal to the article.
The NY Times, which had interviewed former McCain aide John Weaver for the story, says it stands by the story. McCain adviser Charlie Black said, "We’re going to go to war with [the Times] now. We’ll see if that hurts or helps.”
The Post doesn't note the McCain drama on its front page, opting for some fun Bill and Hill Photoshop, thus making this a golden opportunity for the Daily News.
|
SHE LOOKS JUST LIKE HIS WIFE. John, you're doing it wrong!
i'd do him.
Breaking non-news from 8 years ago.
MSNBC's Olberman was literally salivating last night. He couldn't contain his glee, repeating this "breaking story!" over and over again. Geeze...gimme a break.
my friends, I sure hope they have more on him because I'm tired of seeing their glib and smug faces. especially his stepford wife. ba ba ba baa baa iran.
my god, I know my LCD monitor is over 6 yrs old but that white guy don't look so good.
Since the Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination why would they be running a smear campaign? If the newspaper that endorsed you runs a story it's got to hold some water.
But, wow, a politician messing around on the side...heavens! What is the world coming to?
This news is boring, but who knows maybe this will be the final straw for conservatives and we can watch an independent a la Pat Buchanan split the Republican vote.
to make it clear since this was 8 years ago that would make the lobbyist 32 and mcOldie 63. that's still social security early retirement age.
I didn't hear McCain complain when the Times ran a story recently about Obama's early drug use. If the Times has numerous credible sources then it's a legit story. And if McCain's people didn't make such a big deal about it then few people would care.
I don't think it matters whether their relationship was romantic or not. To have any kind of a close personal relationship with any lobbyist(male or female, looking like his wife when she was younger or not) would be bad for McCain, being that he advertises himself as a campaign finance reform leader.
So, this is not just about an affair. It's more serious than that.
I'm wondering if this piece is actually designed to swing some support Hillary's way. Recognizing that this sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, here's how I see it.
(1) the NY Times publishes a dated story suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist sometime in 1999.
(2) It's not clear that anything happened, and even if it, most people don't care, but it gets people thinking about skeletons in the closet.
(3) Hillary's pitch recently has been that she is fully vetted -- Whitewater, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures trading, travelgate, filegate are all old news -- her insinuation being that there are things the public doesn't know about Obama's past that could damage his candidacy.
He didn't cheat on his wife and they didn't have a confirmed affair. What's the story here again? That he almost might have had some feelings for this woman?
Can't we get back to politics - this is the non-newsiest story ever.
I don't think it matters whether their relationship was romantic or not. To have any kind of a close personal relationship with any lobbyist(male or female, looking like his wife when she was younger or not) would be bad for McCain, being that he advertises himself as a campaign finance reform leader.
So, this is not just about an affair. It's more serious than that.
Let me get this straight: anonymous aides said they were worried that McCain might have been romantically involved with a lobbyist eight years ago? Snore.
This isn't a smear campaign it is a distraction campaign. Make the whole thing about a totally rebuttable accusation that he had an affair and suddenly it isn't about the fact that a lobbyist who was representing clients "on issues as diverse as government contracting and regulatory reform" appeared to have unprecedented access to sitting senator.
What if McCain passed away before he was officially nominated? Would Huckabee be the shoe-in?
Romney would be kicking himself.
Or...what if he passed away after nominated? What would happen?
captainblackout, the endorsement comes from the editorial board not the news department. The two are independent so the paper won't look biased.
Also I too hope there is more to this, because as it is, it's not that damning.
good use of "bloviating."
You can't see them as much in this pic, but can anyone tell me what the deal is with the hamster-like pouches on his face? Are they natural or are they the result of the war torture he endured? Or does he keep something in there?
So, this is not just about an affair. It's more serious than that. the article seems to be more about insinuating an affair than anything.
It isn't until the end of the NY Times article that you read "In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients’ hopes."
If the NY Times has some evidence that McCain was influenced by lobbyists in passing legislation, they should provide it. Without that, the whole thing really does look like a tabloid piece.
By the way, people, don't be naive. He was 63 years old. He's not exactly from the generation of men that hang around with pretty women who look like a younger version of their wives just because they're "good friends." Wake up. That kind of thing isn't in the DNA of their generation. They have no idea how to be with a woman unless they're lusting after them, or bossing them around. They only have two modes.
That said, like I care? If anything, she was taking him for a ride, old lecherous sucker that he must have been.
By the way, people, don't be naive. He was 63 years old. He's not exactly from the generation of men that hang around with pretty women who look like a younger version of their wives just because they're "good friends." Wake up. That kind of thing isn't in the DNA of their generation. They have no idea how to be with a woman unless they're lusting after them, or bossing them around. They only have two modes.
That said, like I care? If anything, she was taking him for a ride, old lecherous sucker that he must have been.
What a scary world we live in where this is news. The scarier news is the thought of this man being president...
bradedward- romney "suspended" his campaign. i'm guessing that language was used so he could come back in just such an event.
cuca -
he had skin cancer....
The NYT should be ashamed of itself. Just because they think that they are the arbiters of moral rights (read: endorsing Hillary and slanting the new s in hear favor) they think they can publish whatever they want and the public will eat it up.
This is black eye for the paper. It's poltical coverage has been warped from the beginning of this campaign and I will stick to reading CNN for my news updates.
Was Viagra even around 8 years ago?
If this is the worst they can dig up on the man, we can start calling him Mr. President now.
Was Viagra even around 8 years ago?
If this is the worst they can dig up on the man, we can start calling him Mr. President now.
SHE LOOKS JUST LIKE HIS WIFE. John, you're doing it wrong!
Exactly, it's too bad he's not into black or latino chicks - that could provide some inroads for his campaign...
I dunno, I think the piece reads like a fairly probing examination of his record on ethics, which comes up a bit short but is hardly a "smear." The aggressive statement from the campaign tacked on to the end is pretty jarring. Here's how you handle it, guys - just say "While I appreciate that some aides were once so concerned about my public image, I can assure you all that there was nothing inappropriate about my friendship with Ms. Whatsherface, and, really, if you look at the facts of the story, there's nothing to worry about."
Instead you get "It's the New York Times, they are liars!" which may play well in conservative middle america but will alienate some independents here.
McCain is a man, and a man has needs.
Let him be.
my friends, I don't know about the other candidates but I's has to have my poonany. I was in a POW camp for nine years, yo. I'm tired of rice and horizontal slit.
Isn't the whole point of a "smear" campaign to invite further scrutiny into someone's past, regardless of whether the deed in question has any truthfulness to it? Recall the Giuliani "police as chauffeur" scandal - the NYT ultimately apologized for it's inaccuracies but the damage had already been done...
I think the piece reads like a fairly probing examination of his record on ethics, which comes up a bit short but is hardly a "smear."
A front page story that was controversial even within the NY Times, that's "a bit short" on facts is a smear piece by a paper that used to hold itself to a higher standard. If the man did something unethical with respect to the treatment of interests represented by this, or any lobbyist, give the facts. Instead we are just told that 8 years ago his friendship with a lobbyist led to some gossip about an affair; and it doesn't sound like there's any evidence that McCain was giving special treatment to the interests she represented based on their friendship.
my friends, I'm disappointed in myself for not finding some tang that didn't look like my wife.
my wife was disappointed and I'm disappointed in America.
Perhaps this is the "miracle" that Huckabee has been praying for....
President Obama. Get used to repubs!!
"The NYT should be ashamed of itself."
This isn't the first time, and surely wont be their last.
With tabloid journalism like this, no wonder NYT's is loosing so much money. Hopefully their prestige will be next.
Shame on you NYT.
Yes, shame on the New York Times for publishing the truth (?). SHAME!
If they can back their story up with credible sources (And possibly some follow up interviews by those in the campaign on 60 Minutes), then I'll believe it.
Rush Limbaugh becomes entertainment editor of
the New York Times.
First assignment is to review John McCain's divorce
papers just before he went off with his "Trophy"
wife,Madame Mannequin.
What's the story here? The "truth" here is that through hearsay john mccain may have been infactuated with another woman. So is the truth here that he's human? God forbid! But wait, we don't know if he's human or not cause the rumors are unsubstantiated!
A front page story that was controversial even within the NY Times, that's "a bit short" on facts is a smear piece by a paper that used to hold itself to a higher standard.
See, I would not say that the story is short on facts. It has facts. Certainly, the recollections of the aides are factual, as is his record in general (as to how he voted.) Where it is short is in putting the facts together into a persuasive argument, and in that sense the article doesn't really work. If people were capable of actually reading and thinking for themselves, it would be harmless, and McCain's supporters would be smart to treat it as such instead of going ballistic.
Who cares?
This is the only non-Muslim country in the world where anyone cares who their politicians are shtupping.
This is the only non-Muslim country in the world where anyone cares who their politicians are shtupping
The point isn't whether we care about it, the point is that the Times is clearly implying that was taking place in 1999, but doesn't have anything to back that up except the fact that some people commented that they seemed to be spending time together. If there's a stained dress that's something else or a statement by the woman involved, that would be another story.
Edit last sentence to read: If there's a stained dress or a statement by the woman involved, that would be another story.
Something tells me this isn't the end of this, Times-wise. It will be interesting to see if the ball starts rolling here and other papers try to out the two staffers who told McCain (according to the article) to knock it off with the woman - even if he wasn't doing her, it just looked bad. The article says that McCain acknowledged that and backed off being seen with her. Today he says that conversation never happened. Let's see if these guys who said (anonymously) that they did have the conversation come forward.
Either way, McCain's in a no-win situation here. He can use this to gain support on the right, but that's not where this election is going to be won. It's going to be won among the independents and centrists, because both McCain and Obama draw so strongly from there. And the more hold McCain gets on the right, the more he loses among the center, who would have a real viable alternative in Obama.
Something tells me this isn't the end of this, Times-wise. It will be interesting to see if the ball starts rolling here and other papers try to out the two staffers who told McCain (according to the article) to knock it off with the woman - even if he wasn't doing her, it just looked bad. The article says that McCain acknowledged that and backed off being seen with her. Today he says that conversation never happened. Let's see if these guys who said (anonymously) that they did have the conversation come forward.
Either way, McCain's in a no-win situation here. He can use this to gain support on the right, but that's not where this election is going to be won. It's going to be won among the independents and centrists, because both McCain and Obama draw so strongly from there. And the more hold McCain gets on the right, the more he loses among the center, who would have a real viable alternative in Obama.
Gee! A middle aged man gets the hots for
a female attorney-lobbyist 20 years younger than he.
I am shocked! Devastated.
Seems like sexism to me. If the lobbyist was a man would they be hinting at an affiar. Am I to believe that a female lobbyist needs to sleep with people to get things done? Can you say tabloid?
Another thing that makes me think their was huge debate inside the times HQ is the stories location on the cover. How is this not the main story with a photo? If you are going to make accusations about the probable Republican presidential candidatee cheating on their wife and circumventing our democracy at the same time you need the goods! Two unnamed sources is just lame verification.
Seems like sexism to me. If the lobbyist was a man would they be hinting at an affiar. Am I to believe that a female lobbyist needs to sleep with people to get things done? Can you say tabloid?
Another thing that makes me think their was huge debate inside the times HQ is the stories location on the cover. How is this not the main story with a photo? If you are going to make accusations about the probable Republican presidential candidatee cheating on their wife and circumventing our democracy at the same time you need the goods! Two unnamed sources is just lame verification.
McCain should drop down onto his knees and give Bill Keller a blowjob for holding the story for so long. Had he run it four months ago, McCain would be on vacation with the other repugnican't wannabes, like Fred Thompson.
One thought... why do repugnican't women all look either like someone's cookie-baking grandmother or like cold, no-lipped, frigid bitches?
this honky needs a taste of my black snake.
I don't think Psychiatrists will go out of business
in this city.