I can be very "romantic"... if I wanted to.
Posted on 02/21/2008 6:50:39 AM PST by jdm
John McCain wasted no time getting in front of the media to deny the paper-thin allegations leveled by the New York Times. He appeared at a press conference with his wife Cindy at his side, from his latest campaign stop in Toledo. He denied that anyone ever "confronted" him about his relationship with Vicki Isemen at least twice:
Q. Senator, did you ever have any meeting with any of your staffers in which they would have intervened to ask you not to see Vicki Iseman or to be concerned about appearances of being too close to a lobbyist?
A. No.
Q. No meeting ever occurred?
A., No.
Q., No staffer was ever concerned about a possible romantic relationship?
A. If they were, they didn't communicate that to me.
Q. Did you ever have such a relationship?
A. No.
One can't get any plainer than this. If the Times' central support for the story -- that aides had to intervene in order to save the Senator from himself -- prove false, then the entire story collapses. Now that McCain has gone on the record with such a categorical denial, the Times either needs to produce its sources or retract the story. If their sources don't want to come forward and identify themselves, date the meeting specifically and give some other corroboration than each other, then the Times should also apologize for this baseless attack.
McCain added something later in the presser. "Since it was in the New York Times, I don't take it at face value." We tried to tell him the same thing when the Times endorsed him last month. Now he understands what we meant.
Will this hurt McCain? Not at all. First, this is even older than the smear job the Times did on Rudy Giuliani last year. Second, they don't have a single named source for this story. Third, the Times left out numerous examples where McCain acted against the interests of Iseman and her clients. The effect is likely going to produce more support for McCain among the GOP base, especially given the egregious and salacious nature of the controversy.
Fausta has more.
Jan. 2008 - The Times endorses McCain
Feb. 2008 - The Times uses this story in an attempt to destroy him.
That's all you really need to know. The timeline speaks for itself.
Pure setup.
Didn’t one of the McCain staffers jump ship and switch to the Democratic party? These NYT sources were unnamed, right?
If B Hussein Obama wins the nomination, the MSM will go out of its way to prove that he is more “moderate” than McCain and that McCain is an “evil conservative” after all.
The media’s favorite Republican is being set up for the inevitable fall by his biggest boosters. Serves him right, IMHO.
The Old Gray Mare, print a retraction?
Did they print a retraction for Jayson Blair?
No romance. Not even flowers?
Boy-oh-boy, the NYT really gave McCain a free one. They jumped the gun by not waiting until he had the nomination. Then they lead off with a pathetic hit job like this for him to knock out of the park.
Now he is alerted and knows what to expect from here on in. The GOP is rallying to him and the NYT has slimed itself yet further.
My thoughts exactly. This will HELP McCain.
That he would even be accused of such a thing will make him appear more virile.
"Newspaper of Record"! What a laugh! Future generations will see right through that silly propaganda rag and the corny boasts of the fools who produce it.
Pravda was the Soviet "Newspaper of Record".
FNC is already asking if Isemen has a case against the Climes.
I can be very "romantic"... if I wanted to.
And no chance of being elected Prez. What a disaster this guy is.
A slow motion train wreck right before our eyes.
oops...Slimes
(watching TV and typing at the same time not always a good idea)
A pretty sorry hit piece, but there it is.
Jed Weaver is the supposed “source” for the story, he was on Mad John’s staff in 2004 and was supposed to have been the source for Mad John joining John Kerry as the VP nominee being untrue.
Why hasn't Obama been asked a single question about Mr. Sinclair's allegations?
Mr. Sinclair claims to have proof, including receipts and the testimony of a first-hand witness. That's a hell of a lot more than the Times has on McCain.
It is impossible for a Liberal to accept that a straight man and straight woman can be friends without having sex.
Actually the veracity of the story is still a crucial issue. However, clearly the MSM wanted McCain to be the nominee and now they have achieved their objective, they want him eliminated.
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.