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 ...
In fact, some freepers kept saying the media would not attack McCain, while conservatives here predicted this before the first votes were cast.
Never underestimate your enemies, but you’re ascribing to the Times way too much influence (negative or positive) over the GOP electorate.
Well, we’ll see. I hope for him and his family this whole story is BS. I think his response and his press conference hasn’t helped his cause - hurt it if anything. We’ll wait and see if anything else comes out.
What? Matthews has doubts about the story?
Some seem quite satisfied with "anonymous sources." Bet they wouldn't be if it was their reputation on the line.
Not guilty!
at least he’s hetero!
Bill and Monica, Hill and Huma, Obama and Sinclair....must be a political sine qua non.
A bit off topic but, Craig and the guy next stall.
What is that supposed to mean?
I am a John McCain supporter. I am new here.
Got a problem with that?
Also, again, if you have found any evidence in this New York Times story which you appear to be defending, please share it with us. I shall be all agog.
The NYT (which leads the networks) and all other liberal rags has enormous influence, as a matter of fact I would argue they are omnipresent, and actually run this country.
Press coverage of candidates provides all context, impressions, perceptions, and momentum. It colors all speeches, decisions, policies, behavior, political ads, etc.
The “big mo” nominated McCain and Oprah’s Kid.
And the “biggest mo” are the NYT bathhouse boys.
“Very weak response on John’s part. Expect more from the NYT with more than anonymous sources, drip, drip, driip. McCain did not think the media would do this to him; after all, look how much he did for them to help destroy Bush.
In fact, some freepers kept saying the media would not attack McCain, while conservatives here predicted this before the first votes were cast.”
Thank you. My point exactly. Lots of Freepers running to the defense of McCain when his action seem, to me, a bit dubious. Never asked for an apology, never acknowledged how this hurts his family and current wife. Blathered on about his service in the military and how he’s never betrayed the public trust. We’ll certainly see how this plays out of the next several days/weeks.
Yep, get ready for the OLD AGE articles and the CANCER articles and the TEMPER articles and on and on.
That is exactly what the NY Times wants you to do....stay home. If anyone thinks this is responsible journalism, I have a bridge to nowhere I’d like to sell you! I say, BOYCOTT EVERYTHING PRINTED BY THE NY TIMES. Make them pay dearly for irresponsible journalism. Yes, they endorsed him because they hated the conservative options. They wanted John McCain to win the nomination so they could then zero in on him and take him out. Are you as sick as I of the MSM selecting our candidates for us? I say also BOYCOTT NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC NPR. Protest to all of them. They are just as much a part of this nomination process as the NY Times. I hope this is the death of this rag magazine.
Would you really? Something about seeming to protest too much. I watched the press conference. So hypocritical on so many levels. Where is the story on Obama? Who cared about B Clinton’s affairs? Pretty disgusting, true or not. They could have run this before the primaries were decided. NYT is transparent except to the ignorant or indoctrinated.
John and Cindy conducted themselves in a subdued, dignified manner. I think it was the right reaction, not surprised to be slandered by NYT. No Republican should be surprised. I have not supported McCain but this is so much bull.
I wonder if the woman could sue.
The woman was a lobbyist. If she made enough change in the deals, she won’t need to sue.
For example, they own teevee stations all over the country, and often have input into editorial decisions. At one time, they owned our local NBC affiliate, and might still--not sure.
Not quite there yet. He needs 330 more pledged delegates to get there and there is no assurance he will have them by the convention. I believe they pulled off a premature backstab here. If they manage to harm him before the convention, they could be doing us a favor.
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.