McCain: No Romance With Lobbyist

Republican Candidate Denies New York Times Report Alleging Inappropriate Dealings With Female Lobbyist

(CBS/AP)  John McCain emphatically denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist on Thursday and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is "not true."

"I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood beside him during a news conference called to address the matter.

"I've served this nation honorably for more than half a century," said McCain, a four-term Arizona senator and former Navy pilot. "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust."

"I intend to move on," he added.

McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.

He made his remarks in Ohio before heading to Michigan, where he was scheduled to meet with executives from the Detroit Three auto companies and tour the Ford Motor Co. plant in Wayne where the popular Ford Focus is assembled. McCain was to speak with reporters on the assembly floor. He also had a Troy, Mich., fundraiser planned for Thursday evening.

The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. (Read the New York Times story) In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to steer clear of McCain. (Read the Washington Post story.)

"As the presumptive nominee, McCain left no wiggle room for himself or his party with his absolute denials of every key charge and insinuation raised by the New York Times article," said CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs.

Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting before the 2000 campaign after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about Iseman.

But McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation, and denied that his aides ever tried to talk to him about his interactions with Iseman.

"I never discussed it with John Weaver. As far as I know, there was no necessity for it," McCain said. "I don't know anything about it," he added. "John Weaver is a friend of mine. He remains a friend of mine. But I certainly didn't know anything of that nature."

Weaver released a statement about his written comments to the New York Times today.

"[Iseman's] comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less," he said.
McCain's wife also said she was disappointed with the newspaper.

"More importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America. He's a man of great character," Cindy McCain said.

The couple smiled throughout the questioning at a Toledo hotel.

The story ran counter to the image McCain has built for himself as a crusader against congressional earmarks and a proponent of campaign finance reform, stances that have made him a hero to "good government" advocates.

"Once you're setting yourself up as a paradigm, as the example -- the best example -- of how an ethical member of Congress should behave, then you've got to know people are gunning for you if you're going to make a mistake," Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

"We think the story speaks for itself," Times executive editor Bill Keller said in a written statement Thursday. "On the timing, our policy is we publish stories when they are ready."

The "Grey Lady" appeared to be stepping into a grey area, the head of the Project for Excellence in Journalism told Cordes.

"This is an odd situation where anonymous sources aren't alleging something," Tom Rosenstiel said. "They're alleging their feelings about something."

McCain's remaining rival for the Republican nomination, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, called McCain "a good decent honorable man" and said he accepted McCain's response.

"I've campaigned now on the same stage or platform with John McCain for 14 months. I only know him to be a man of integrity," Huckabee said in Houston. "Today he denied any of that was true. I take him at his word. For me to get into it is completely immaterial."

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship. Neither story asserted that there was a romantic relationship and offered no evidence that there was, reporting only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served.

---

In McCain Saga, Newspaper Becomes A Story
Horserace: Conservatives Rallying - At Least Against The Times

---

The stories also allege that McCain wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman's clients.

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

[watcher269-2009]

This is what McCain wants to continue! I bet you''''re really proud of these FACTS!

During the Austin debate last week, Barack Obama made this comment:

%u201CYou know, I%u2019ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon %u2014 supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon,%u201D he said. %u201CEnded up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn%u2019t have enough ammunition, they didn%u2019t have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.%u201D


Well, you had to know that a statement like that%u2013insinuating that life is not all wine and roses for our troops being sent for their third, fourth and fifth rotation into the Gulf%u2013was just going to make the wingnuts crazy.

ABC%u2019s Jake Tapper took a look at Obama%u2019s anecdote, and guess what? Pretty much confirmed it as true. Silly Jake, wingnuts don%u2019t care about the truth. But I give you full points for this little dig at the end:

I find that Obama%u2019s anecdote checks out.

Some are quibbling about whether or not the %u201Ccommander in chief%u201D can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.

[tucano2]

The NYT consistently fails the "truth test" on most of its stories, so why would anyone with a brain get all worked up by another NYT story of very questionable veracity?

[tbweb]

Leave poor ole John McCain alone. He has no shot at being President so stop picking on him. Who cares if he had an affair or not.

Posted by vmcneal2 at 01:01 PM : Feb 23, 2008,,,

The New York Times has actually obscured the real story with its claims of a McCain romantic link which is not the real story at all! The real story is McCains lobbyist ties! McCain attacks and rails against lobbyist on a regular basis and has a Holier than Thou attitude about it. Now we find out his entire staff are lobbyist, each and everyone of them and those that are not are employed by lobbyist! How ironic is that? Now McCain claims his lobbyist are of a pure breed, he doesn''t have "bad" lobbyist around him! lol Oh give me a break! This is like saying I smoke but my cigarettes have a lower nicotine count. Lobbyist are bad, smoking is bad, there are no good cigarettes and likewise no good lobbyist! C''mon John, double speak? The romantic claims are hiding the real story here!

[vmcneal2]

Leave poor ole John McCain alone. He has no shot at being President so stop picking on him. Who cares if he had an affair or not.

[tbweb]

I have been following the McCain story and the New York Times does have the goods on McCain, but it will take some time to glue it all together, so McCain better be careful! In one case his current account conflicts with an account he gave under oath about speaking with an Iseman client, he said he does not recall if he did, under oath he said he did speak with the Iseman client back in 2000. Is McCain''s I don''t recall a lie, not exactly, but its easy to see why he did not want to recall because he did speak with the Iseman client! Anyway David Brooks wrote a nice background article in the NYT today at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[changenow]

Bush/Cheney/Rove/McCain


As*shole Republicans.


Posted by jerr11 at 10:05 PM : Feb 21, 2008




YEAH!! ;-)

[thgdriver]

So, when I pointed out Bill Clinton''s BJ and Monica''s dress cleaning tab that was relevant because Hillary will have him back in the W house. You all shouted me down. Told me not to drag up the ancient past. You hypocrites even asked if that was all I had.

Now after some rag of a tabloid drags out something that supposedly happened eight years ago because hype sells, you HYPOCRITES can''t shut up about it.

I know, like your guru Owl Gore says, do as We say driver not as we do! LMAO.

[chitown639]

Long ago, one of McCains, long-haired, particularly gifted, elementary school classmate once said, ''let he who has no sin, cast the first stone''.

[radiob-2009]

Did anyone find a case of Viagra at McCain''s house''s, apts.?

[taotxzen]

No (Straight Talk) on Iraq Cost
by Joe Conason

As a presidential candidate, John McCain stands out not only for his vocal endorsement of the unpopular war in Iraq, but also because one of his own sons is a Marine Corps officer on active duty there. He supports the war, even at the price of his own career or the life of a child he loves.

Yet although the senator from Arizona is obviously no chicken hawk, he carefully avoids %u201Cstraight talk%u201D about the real costs of this war in dollars and debt. Like every other politician who agrees with the Bush policy of prolonged war and occupation, he still pretends that we can spend hundreds of billions on this endless misadventure without collecting enough tax revenue to pay the actual costs.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Hundreds of billions? Sorry, but that vague estimate is probably far too modest, according to a new book by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and author Linda J. Bilmes. In %u201CThe Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,%u201D they warn that the war%u2019s %u201Ctrue budgetary cost,%u201D excluding interest, %u201Cis likely to reach $2.7 trillion.%u201D Aside from the price of munitions, contractors, transport, fuel and other fixed costs, their calculations are based on the government%u2019s continuing obligation to provide medical care and disability payments for the thousands of wounded Iraqi and Afghanistani veterans over the coming decades.

Those costs represent a moral debt on which we cannot default-and they will grow larger every day that we maintain the occupation. Even if the war could be ended immediately, the fiscal obligations incurred by the invasion and occupation will continue. Beyond the mandatory disability payments, medical and psychiatric care and additional benefits to which our vets are entitled, the nation will face years of increasing military budgets to restore the equipment and readiness of our battered armed forces, especially the Army and the National Guard.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Even in the %u201Cbest-case%u201D scenario envisioned by Stiglitz and Bilmes, with our troop presence declining rapidly, the U.S. commitment in Iraq is still likely to cost no less than $400 billion over the next several years, on top of the $800 billion or so that we have spent to date. Those figures, which don%u2019t include veterans%u2019 benefits, add up to $1.2 trillion. What the authors call their %u201Crealistic-moderate scenario%u201D for a prolonged presence in Iraq will cost twice as much or more.

Having served at the highest levels of the federal government, both authors understand that the Bush administration%u2019s war budgeting has been a travesty-aided and abetted by lawmakers such as McCain, who have gone along all the way. Instead of accounting honestly for the war%u2019s costs and requesting the necessary funds to pay for them, the White House has routinely used %u201Cemergency%u201D supplemental requests as a device to hide the truth. The emergency process prevents the Office of Management and Budget as well as congressional staff from thoroughly reviewing the data. Inevitably, they explain, this lack of transparency and competence has resulted in waste, fraud and corruption in payments to contractors, most of them politically wired, while essential equipment and veteran care remain underfunded.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Compounding the disgrace is the fact that the Bush administration and Congress financed these %u201Cemergency%u201D budgets by borrowing, rather than raising taxes, as the United States has traditionally done in times of war. The Bush administration has insisted on reducing taxes, with most benefits accruing to the wealthiest individuals, while piling on debt for succeeding administrations and generations (and leaving the nation%u2019s infrastructure to rot away, too). Politicians like McCain who have cooperated in this outrage should tell us why they still call themselves %u201Cconservative.%u201D

Back in 2001, when he was still in his maverick phase, the Arizona senator voted against the Bush tax cuts. Today, he says that he objected to the budgetary flimflam that cut taxes without reducing program costs, but at the time he claimed to worry about the excessive premiums for the very rich. Now, he runs around promising %u201Cno new taxes%u201D just like every standard right-wing Republican.

In an unguarded moment, McCain once confessed that he doesn%u2019t know much about economics. Even he should be able to comprehend the disastrous fiscal effects of the Iraq war, which its proponents originally promised would cost us almost nothing. Perhaps he should ask an economist to calculate the real cost of occupying Iraq for a hundred years, as he imagines-and how many generations will pay dearly for this mistake.

[rushlimpdrug]

Did she change his Depends?

IF this guy were to be elected, I would predict he would be "Johnny Walker" before it was all through.

The man is obviously a liar.

[ioweign]

So Grandpa McPTSD is slipping the "Morals and Values" sausage to his favorite pet lobbyist? Does his wife know? HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Posted by FloydZepp at 04:53 AM : Feb 22, 2008

Does his wife care????

[formrusmcsgt]

You know, this is what I said, Mitt Romney had a clean life. And everybody said, "oh, he''''s too clean; oh, he''''s too perfect; oh, he''''s too slick". Well, here you go. You got your head up your *** on John McCain.
Posted by louthesz9 at 06:04 AM : Feb 22, 2008

Romney''s problem is that he believes in magic underwear. How can such a person be taken seriously?

[formrusmcsgt]

If McCain is to be believed, these former staffers of his are trying to torpedo his campaign.

They could have an axe to grind, sure.

Or it could be that McCain showed the same flawed morals that he did with Keating......

[keithle1]

The only reason McCain has a "trophy wife" is because he''s a Senator. Do you think she''d be with him if he cleaned the Slurpee machines at 7-Eleven?

How Americans can want 4 more years of a Republican administration is beyond me. Unless you''re rich & white.

NY TIMES endorsed McCain at the end of last month didn''t they? Why would they make this up if it wasn''t true? Why would they want to sabotage him for no reason?

[louthesz9]

See what I mean? Why would you believe that McCain is holier than now? You guys call him St. John, and McCain loves that kind of bearing that he''s purer than everyone else. Well, that''s the danger when he advertises and promotes himself as purer than everyone else, because none of us are pure and when he runs for president as Mr. Purity and he has a blonde female lobbyist who looks like his wife and sitting next to McCain in a private plane, the plane that belongs to Vicki Iseman''s client, well it all looks pretty bad. It''s like having a backup wife that you''re hanging out with. It''s strange.

You know, this is what I said, Mitt Romney had a clean life. And everybody said, "oh, he''s too clean; oh, he''s too perfect; oh, he''s too slick". Well, here you go. You got your head up your *** on John McCain.

[drinuk]

The whole bunch of ''em are taking "Backhanders" whether it be *** or money, lavish vacations, unpaid stocks, first class air fares, holiday homes abroad. Not to mention ridiculous fee''s for directorships and consultancies. Worst offenders ? Why Big Pharma of course, ASK Obama. Time we folks hunted down and hung the lobbyists and nailed the "Takers" to a cross.