McCain: No Romance With Lobbyist

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

(CBS/AP) 
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. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain's request "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" and "could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties."

McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company's jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.

"Riding on the airplane was an accepted practice," McCain said Thursday, adding that he supported a change in rules since then. As for the letters, he said: "I said I'm not telling you how to make a decision; I'm just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. I believe that was appropriate."

Since The New York Times story was published Wednesday night, the McCain campaign has sought to discredit it, distributing lengthy statements and deploying senior advisers to appear on news shows. The campaign calls the story a smear campaign to destroy the Republican nominee-in-waiting.

"This is like the worst kind of tabloid journalism," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told CBS' The Early Show. "We think it's unfair, unjust and inaccurate."

In a statement issued by his presidential campaign Wednesday night, McCain spokeswoman 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."

Iseman's firm, Alcalde & Fay, also denied the charges in a strongly worded statement.

"The allegations and malicious innuendo reported by the New York Times yesterday are completely and utterly false," said Kevin Fay, president of the firm. "Alcalde & Fay’s relationship with Senator McCain has been professional, appropriate and consistent with his legislative, jurisdictional and constituent duties. The story is based upon the fantasies of a disgruntled former campaign employee and is without foundation or merit. Ms. Iseman is a hard working professional whose 18 year career has been exemplary and she has our full support. It is beneath the dignity of a quality newspaper to participate in such a campaign of character assassination."

Keller, the Times editor, explained that the paper's judgment that the story was ready to print "means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."

Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, told NBC's "Today" show that McCain's staff provided the Times with "approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist's clients and her public relations firm's clients," but none of the examples were included in the paper's story.

"There is no evidence that John McCain ever breached the public trust and that is the issue and the only issue," said Bennett, who once represented former President Clinton, on Thursday.

McCain said he won't allow the reports to distract him from his presidential campaign.

"I will focus my attention in this campaign on the big issues and on the challenges that face this country," he said.

He defended his integrity last December, after he was questioned about reports that the Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican and that his aides had been trying to dissuade the newspaper from publishing a story.

"I've never done any favors for anybody - lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record," he told reporters.

McCain and four other senators were accused two decades ago of trying to influence banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate Ethics Committee ultimately decided that McCain had used "poor judgment" but that his actions "were not improper" and warranted no penalty.

McCain has said that episode helped spur his drive to change campaign finance laws in an attempt to reduce the influence of money in politics.

[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.