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 ...
Very old news, and IMO, nothing wrong was done and this was dealt with back in 2000 for Christ sakes!
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!
This is a cheap NYT smear hack job!
Back on track!
Again, I am surprised and proud at the thoughful reader comments at the NYT:
Quote:
The McCain lobbyist story is now generating troubling rumors.
Serious “sources” are saying the NYTimes has been holding the McCain/lobbyist story for some time. Now you are running it.
The same “sources” are saying that the Times has information that President Clinton may have been or has been been maritally unfaithful or sexually inappropriate.
Indeed there are rumors that President Clinton has spoken with NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger. Is this true?
Is the paper holding President Clinton to the same standards as Senator McCain?
The Times has a moral responsibility for the presumption of innocence. Rumors can destroy lives. What about privacy? However, marital infidelity would have to be a public concern because:
• There is a past public record of inappropriate sexual behaviour. It led to the impeachment of the president.
• The role of President Clinton in a Hillary Clinton presidency is already a matter of public concern.
• Unreported inappropriate sexual relationships under these circumstnaces would subject the US national security to blackmail
What do we need to know about how the Times handles these stories. At this very moment, Pat Buchanan is commenting on MSNBC that the Times held the McCain story until after key primaries. Nor did the Times report that this story has been circulating on the Drudge Report.
With great respect and a commitment to ethical standards, these are deeply troubling questions …circulating as rumors. We deeply appreciate the Times seriousness on such matters.
— Posted by paul
— paul, amherst, ma
sw
He may have had his eye on someone but I doubt it was her.
Will you be posting a retraction, and admitting you were wrong?
I see from your posting history that you supported Romney, and I would have chosen Mitt over John, but to jump on the NY Times story as gospel is very unbecoming.
I don't much like McCain, but even he deserves to be considered "innocent until proven guilty".
And so it starts—the de-constructing of John McCain. The MSM made him and now they will unmake him to hand the White House over to their liberal friends and Mr. Honey mouth Obama. I am shocked no one else sees this. Its government by newspapers these days.
Secondly, lobbyists are often educators when it comes to legislative issues. They know their industries and the consequences of regulative action. Most of the time they don't get alot of face time with the elected but work with a Congressional staff member who is the in-house expert on a piece of legislation. Association between a lobbyist and an elected representative is not some sinful event but a necessary part of doing the business of government and helps American industry survive. Without lobbyists to fight for their businesses, we would have had Hillary care and a zillion other weird, mostly socialist, laws and programs that would have destroyed our economy.
McCain isn't perfect; no one is. His behavior to his first wife was totally unforgivable. He's been on the wrong side of issues way too many times. However, this time he should be given a pass until proven guilty of something really heinous, not just accusations from a liberal rag. And even if he had an affair and let her company pay for trysts with him in Tahiti, it's still less than the outrageous sexual and bribery behavior demonstrated by Bill Clinton, both in- and out-of-office.
Even better!
Quote:
Does the NY Times also acknowledge that it seems to favor Mrs. Clinton in its reportage? Showing her often on the front page with above the fold stories and pictures of her when Sen. Barack Obama is the clear leader of the Democratic primary race? Why is the NY Times running rubbish about John McCain when it is charged with reporting the news and not political spin? Does the New York Times realize it is reducing its own credibility every time it runs spin stories instead of real news? And those stories about Iraq War vets and criminality. To me it is criminal what my favorite newspaper for over fifty years is becoming: a political arm of the left wing rather than the great newspaper it used to be. Please return to your tradition of great reporting. Please. Please. Get thee to the center.
— Robert, New York City
“‘teddyballgame’ is deeply saddened!”
If I’m wrong I’ll be the first to admit it. My point is he’s acting guilty. “Haven’t seen the story”, hiring Bill Bennett, saying he’s “disappointed”. We’ll see...
This is a BIG story!
THE NY TIMES SLAMMED AND CHASTISED BY THEIR READERS!
;-)
SHAME ON THE TIMES!
If McCain said anything that wasn’t true during the press conference, he will be in very deep do-do. The NYT will be joined by the rest of the MSM in taking McCain down. Most Americans have no idea what the Keating Five was all about. You can be assured that they will learn about it in great detail. We will learn soon enough if we have a deeply flawed presumptive nominee. Thankfully, it will be before the convention.
However, if I were guilty and I knew the NY Times sources were solid maybe I would not sue. Just a thought. I hope he sues. If he does not then I suppose we will hear more from the NY Slimes.
NY TIMES PIMPING FOR THE DEMOCRATS!
John Weaver has already qualified his statements and supports what McCain said. (See CNN;)
This is not, he said, she said.
This is the NY Times “alleges” and draws unfounded conclusions from what John Weaver said.
Shoddy piss poor jounalism!
Hmmm, so you lost the votes and the voters, and now you want a do over, so you can lose again?
What a whiner!
Go soak your head!
With the election being 8 1/2 months away, I’m sure this will die down and not be a “big deal”. But, why did the NYT hold this story until he was the presumtive nominee? Uh huh...just proves they wanted him to be the nominee.
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.