Posted on 12/20/2007 7:47:55 AM PST by sitetest
Edited on 12/20/2007 9:24:12 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY
Thu Dec 20 2007 10:56:57 ET
Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!
McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.
MORE
The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation.
The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.
Rutenberg, along with reporter David Kirkpatrick, has been developing the story for the last 6 weeks.
Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday, sources reveal, but editor Keller expressed serious reservations about jounalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election.
McCain campaign officials Rick Davis, Charlie Black and Mark Salter are also said to have met with the NEW YORK TIMES in an effort to halt publication.
Developing...
I refer you to #171:
“At this point, it’s just speculation.”
and:
“But here’s the hint...”[emphasis added]
In that working with lobbyists is inherently a form of special treatment, and one that is hardly the stuff of scandal, one must ask the question, what’s the big deal?
Maybe there is none. But that rather leaves wanting an explanation for the fact that Mr. McCain has apparently hired Mr. Bennett.
If all this were about a lobbyist helping to write a piece of legislation that wasn’t even passed, I think that Mr. McCain would be chuckling at the feebleness of the attempt to smear him.
We’ll see what comes of this, but as far as speculations go, sex scandal is at least as good as any.
sitetest
I sense skepticism on your part.
Well right now.... Just another yawn.
The silliness will give way to one standing viable candidate: DUNCAN HUNTER.
This is what I know about the Keating 5:
“Although the evidence is in conflict on this, it appears that Senator McCain at some point communicated to Senator DeConcini that he was unwilling to put a lot of pressure on Chairman Gray or to negotiate on behalf of Lincoln. This was passed on to Charles Keating.
Senator McCain’s refusal to go along with Mr. Keating’s agenda regarding the regulators caused Mr. Keating to call Senator McCain a wimp. Word of this remark reached Senator McCain through Senator DeConcini’s office. As a result, when Senator McCain and Mr. Keating met on March 24, 1987 to discuss the upcoming meeting with Chairman Gray, they had a heated argument. . . . Mr. Keating left in an angry state. This argument ended Senator McCain’s personal relationship with Charles Keating.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7D61138F935A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Is there something different that you know?
“Toast....right. This is what I know about the Keating 5:
“Although the evidence is in conflict on this, it appears that Senator McCain at some point communicated to Senator DeConcini that he was unwilling to put a lot of pressure on Chairman Gray or to negotiate on behalf of Lincoln. This was passed on to Charles Keating.
Senator McCain’s refusal to go along with Mr. Keating’s agenda regarding the regulators caused Mr. Keating to call Senator McCain a wimp. Word of this remark reached Senator McCain through Senator DeConcini’s office. As a result, when Senator McCain and Mr. Keating met on March 24, 1987 to discuss the upcoming meeting with Chairman Gray, they had a heated argument. . . . Mr. Keating left in an angry state. This argument ended Senator McCain’s personal relationship with Charles Keating.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7D61138F935A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Is there something different that you know about the Keating 5?
McCain has a long history of stifling consumer choice out of deference to the telecom and cable lobbies. You would pay less than half what you do for these services, and would have had a-la-carte cable choice for over 10 years if it were not for John McCain.
I know not to believe stories printed in the New York times.
yeah, lets roll that around for speculative lather. wow, nice comment. While your at it, talk about Rush’s addiction too, and maybe Nancy Reagan’s astrology, maybe throw in Roosevelts’ polio.
okay, being that this is excerpts of a hearing,...give me a second...
Also check to see if Keating was a campaign contributor to McLame.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter7.html
“Reluctant participant
Despite his history with Keating, McCain was hesitant about intervening. At that point, he had been in the Senate only three months. DeConcini wanted McCain to fly to San Francisco with him and talk to the regulators. McCain refused.
Keating would not be dissuaded.
On March 24 at 9:30 a.m., Keating went to DeConcini’s office and asked him if the meeting with the regulators was on. DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous.
“McCain’s a wimp,” Keating replied, according to the book Trust Me, by Michael Binstein and Charles Bowden. “We’ll go talk to him.”
Keating had other business on Capitol Hill and did not reach McCain’s office until 1:30. A DeConcini staffer already had told McCain about the “wimp” insult.
When he arrived, Keating presented McCain with a laundry list of demands for the regulators.
McCain told Keating that he would attend the meeting and find out whether Keating was getting treated fairly but that was all.”
My god. You are right. Guilty as charged. Give me a friggin’ break.
He doesn’t have his nose horn on.
OF COURSE HE WAS!!!
Most people that have money in a state contribute to the U.S. senators of that state! Its as old as the republic. The question is, was anything done wrong, right?:
“In the end, the Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Senators Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle had substantially interfered with the federal regulators’ enforcement processes at the request of Charles Keating. In August 1991, the Ethics Committee recommended to the full Senate the censuring of Cranston for reprehensible conduct. The other four senators were noted for questionable conduct. Cranston had already decided not to seek re-election, citing medical problems.”
Dude, you need to read up rather than sipping the kool-aid. As for myself, I’m looking at Fred, Duncan, and McCain just to let you know where I stand.
http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/curr-tim.HTM
If she looks "Not Guilty", this story is going to have much better legs, as they say in the news business...
Well, as you know he was ...big time. He, his friends and employees.
But, the only thing I'm aware of that could be proven is that he exercised bad judgment, which he still does today, which is why I could never vote for him.
“If she looks ‘Not Guilty’, this story is going to have much better legs, as they say in the news business...”
ROFLMAO!!
Jon Francois Kerry, who served in Vietnam, advises Big John McNutt in his time of crisis,
"You know Johnnie boy, your problem is (besides the fact that I married into more money than you did, he he) is that you just didn't bring back enough Purple Hearts from Viet Nam. You see, when I served in Viet Nam, and Cambodia, and almost won the war single-handedly ... "
Once a Keating Five always a Keating Five.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.