Posted on 02/21/2008 6:31:35 AM PST by teddyballgame
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- John McCain 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 alongside him during a news conference called to address the matter.
McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.
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. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at breakingnews.nypost.com ...
Exactly. It's like being given a choice between eating your own excrement or drinking your own urine.
None for me, thanks.
Anonymous sources could be the voices in their heads. If people don’t step up and make the claim honorably, we have every right to question them. Just because McCain isn’t OUR candidate doesn’t mean we should let them get away with this. Otherwise, when we DO get a candidate we can support, it will be more difficult to fight this ugly tactic.
No, you aren’t wrong. Case in point = BARF
There is an old saying in politics: "Never pick a fight with someone who buys their ink by the barrel." From what I heard, McCain's tone was fine. A quiet reasoned response is almost always better than an angry response.
I perceived that McCain was being evasive when he twisted an answer to talk about undue influence rather than his personal relationship which what the question asked about. I'm going to have to listen to the whole press conference although it won't change my vote.
Oh wait, he didn’t lie about in under oath before a grand jury, or ask others to perjure themselves...
And she’s stoking hot, thus he didn’t “take one for the sisterhood” so to speak.
McCain will have to take it up a notch if he want to run with the big dogs.
/s
Scarborough has made no secret of his love affair with Obama. Chris Matthews as well. Very troubling.
“But looks guilty”
Well, that’s me convinced. He LOOKS guilty. Surely every court in the land would convict him. Not even Perry Mason could get McCain off with such damning evidence against him.
The New York Times produces an awful piece of ‘journalism’ (which they already appear to be backtracking on) with unnamed sources and sly factless innuendo and rather than treating the story objectively, some here, like members of a kangaroo court, have declared McCain ‘guilty’ inspite of a lack of any hard evidence whatsoever.
But that’s ok........He LOOKS guilty.
Whatever happened to justice and a sense of fair play?
I put “proof” in quotes because the NYT is not exactly well-known for their slavish devotion to exact truthfulness. (/understatement)
______________________
They might have some “proof.” It would explain why they shot their initial volley so early in the season.
Brings back memories of George and his coke habit. Ahh, the times....so repugnantly biased.
K street hires pretty blond.
Old man likes flirting with pretty blond and helps her do X.
The K street firm could have just sent him to a strip club but that would look odd for a senator.
Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, the NYT can destroy him and leave the GOP holding the bag.
It’s odd how this is all so suprising for some of our posters. Are they PRETENDING or have they been living under a rock for the last umpteen years?
It’s the NYT, for pete’s sakes!!!
Be fair about this. I can claim, without ANY other proof, that “anonymous sources” told me you are a flaming liberal and member in good standing of Code Pink. I don’t have to mention that the anonymous sources are the voices in my head—and that’s exactly the game the NYT is playing right now.
The old truth, of all is fair in Love, War, and Politics?
Looking for their 15 minutes? Or telling the “truth” by innuendo. Doesn’t pass the smell test.
The thing is, it (a) doesn’t have to be an actual story, just a hint or innendo, and (b) doesn’t have to have so much as a smidgen of truth to it. By the time the proof shows up that it’s untrue (if that happens), it’s too late. Everyone has already accepted the lie as part of “common knowledge.” (See: “Bush lied, people died” as an example of this.) If a retraction appears at all, it will be buried in the back pages.
_____________
Agree. The good news is, this is February. Given our public’s attention span...it will be old news by April.
Chris Mathews is touching on this very same thing. He says the story has all the "generic" qualities of an expose meant to hurt or derail someone.
Where's the proof?
sw
If it’s sourced and based on facts, let the truth come out. I’m more concerned at this point that it’s just more Hillary/NYT games afoot, and that far too many people are ready and anxious to jump on the bandwagon simply because they don’t like or support the man. I don’t either, but if he’s going to be taken down, let’s do it with FACTS.
No really. This is pure McCain stratagery, he pulled one from GW’s playbook.
Here’s how it came to pass ....
McCain knows he needs to fire up the conservative base, ‘cuz they don’t like him much.
So he plants this story in the NYT, knowing that the visceral hatred conservatives hold for the liberal and biased MSM will overshadow the dislike and distrust they have for McCain, so they circle the wagons around him, launching him directly into the White House.
Hey, it coulda happened like that :-)
I think you doth protest too much, n00b
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.