Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

NY Times: For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk


Tastes Like Chicken

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard 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.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.

But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.

Follow the link for the rest of the story

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20mccain-190a.jpg

He likes blondes...

Sex

Lobbyists

Hypocrisy

The New York Times better have some "new" information to run this story now. Buchanan just said he heard they killed the story around the time of the Iowa Caucus.

It does sound bad, if true, to literally be "in bed" with a lobbyist. :)

I think the time this was going on was the last time I liked McCain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20mccain-190a.jpg

He likes blondes...

Sex

Lobbyists

Hypocrisy

The New York Times better have some "new" information to run this story now. Buchanan just said he heard they killed the story around the time of the Iowa Caucus.

It does sound bad, if true, to literally be "in bed" with a lobbyist. :)

I think the time this was going on was the last time I liked McCain.

Of course they did. THey wanted him to be the Republican nominee

Now that he is, the MSM/McCAin love fest will come to an end very quickly

Great being manipulated by the media, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article was pretty weak ... but I guess this is the kind of thing you publish in February when nobody is paying attention. Some poor reporter has probably been sitting on this for eight years. After working on in 2000, his editor probably told him, "We'll run it if McCain becomes the nominee." So this week, he goes into his editor's office and says, "How about now?" He says, "Sure, why not."

...Unless some more evidence turns up (which is highly unlikely on a trail that has been cold for eight years), I don't think this story goes anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain has much larger skeletons in hs closet. Just wait and see.

Especially considering they just had a democratic prosecutor on the news who said he tried to prosecute this for the Supreme Court and said not only did he find NO evidence, but found McCain to be about one of the most honest politicians.

This article is given no credibility by either dems or republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now hang on.. I don't know which to believe.

A/ the New York Times is using tried and true smear tactics to go after a candidate they don't like

or

B/ a politician scored some ass.

OK, for one second, lets pretend he did screw this woman.

Can we be honest enough with ourselves to say that a VAST many Americans, including many reading right now, I'd wager, have screwed around on their spouse or other serious partner?

Can we be honest enough with ourselves to say that if you look hard enough, you'd find that practically EVERY politician has done so?

I mean power being the ultimate aphrodisiac and all.

Honestly, can we just stop being such a nation of loudmouthed hypocrites for a change?

Oh, what will we do if he's president! He screws around on his wife! How can we trust him? says the clown at the bar chatting up the girl who's not his wife.

Oh no! He's been secretly screwing someone! How can we believe him? says the guy who just got a 10 dollar hummer in an alley by a hooker...

Please. Give it a rest. We're a nation who lives in a glass house, and we love nothing more to do than throw rocks around.

Man it gets tiresome.

Now, you find out that any of these candidates raped someone, or killed someone, then ok. But seriously, having sex? Who REALLY thinks it is important? Who REALLY thinks that it is any different than any other person in power, from the Mayor of Podunk all the way to the POTUS?

Anyone still so damned naive that they're still waiting for Mr. Perfect to come along and lead us?

Don't hold your breath.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked their running it now and not during the General election.

Why? It's really to help Hillary. Now the McCain supporters in TX. OH & PA will probably (using the NY Times calculus) not be predisposed to support Obama and thereby hurting their (the NY Slimes candidate-Hillary).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now hang on.. I don't know which to believe.

A/ the New York Times is using tried and true smear tactics to go after a candidate they don't like

or

B/ a politician scored some ass.

OK, for one second, lets pretend he did screw this woman.

Can we be honest enough with ourselves to say that a VAST many Americans, including many reading right now, I'd wager, have screwed around on their spouse or other serious partner?

Can we be honest enough with ourselves to say that if you look hard enough, you'd find that practically EVERY politician has done so?

I mean power being the ultimate aphrodisiac and all.

Honestly, can we just stop being such a nation of loudmouthed hypocrites for a change?

Oh, what will we do if he's president! He screws around on his wife! How can we trust him? says the clown at the bar chatting up the girl who's not his wife.

Oh no! He's been secretly screwing someone! How can we believe him? says the guy who just got a 10 dollar hummer in an alley by a hooker...

Please. Give it a rest. We're a nation who lives in a glass house, and we love nothing more to do than throw rocks around.

Man it gets tiresome.

Now, you find out that any of these candidates raped someone, or killed someone, then ok. But seriously, having sex? Who REALLY thinks it is important? Who REALLY thinks that it is any different than any other person in power, from the Mayor of Podunk all the way to the POTUS?

Anyone still so damned naive that they're still waiting for Mr. Perfect to come along and lead us?

Don't hold your breath.

~Bang

Certainly the affair part may damage him in the eyes of some evangelicals (which it stupid imho). But the major issue in this story is that he gave preferential treatment to her lobbying group because he (allegedly) had sex with her. He claims the ethical high ground, so he's gonna be held to a higher standard. Just like Obama will be if he only enacts the policies of the DNC if he's elected. :2cents:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article was pretty weak ...

...Unless some more evidence turns up (which is highly unlikely on a trail that has been cold for eight years), I don't think this story goes anywhere.

John McCain is actually going to hold a press conference about it today.

The article was terrible. Who are the sources? Disgruntled ex-aides. We all know that McCain is a tough nut and get angry easily. I wouldn't be surprised if he just ticked some people off and fired them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. But seriously, having sex? Who REALLY thinks it is important?

~Bang

Having an affair certainly speaks to the character of the man. You'll forgive me if I have a higher standard for those who would lead us. I'm not a hypocrite in this area, as I suspect many aren't. There are plenty of men in this country who don't cheat on their wives. It isn't a hard thing to remain faithful.

I don't put any stock in these allegations as there is no proof. In fact, there isn't really an outright allegation that they were romantically involved. Just vailed inuendo. In the political arena, we've gone from "it's true if you say it" to "it's true if you imply it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about an overhyped non-story.

Here it is in a nutshell:

1. Noone is claiming he actually slept with this woman, but the story emphasizes "unnamed sources" stating they heard his advisors say he shouldn't be seen too often publicly with her. Oh the horror.

2. He never asked that her company be granted federal approval, but simply that the bureaucrats wouldn't drag their feet and go through the process promptly. Again, what's the big deal? You won't find a politician anywhere at ANY level who hasn't made some kind of similar request. As long as he's not trying to influence the actual outcome of the process, there's nothing remotely wrong with this.

So essentially there's a fluff article that can't claim McCain did anything wrong that presents itself as a scandal-breaking piece, even though its "unnamed sources" don't have any damning statements to make. What a total, useless hit job. Did the Times replace Jason Blair with Nunyo Demasio?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a horrible excuse for "journalism." No matter what your political affiliation is. The new media should never get away with a sliming like this. The NYT is utter garbage, barely any better than the Washington or LA Times.

We should be thankful that we have the Washington Post. It's a great newspaper by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...