Vicki Iseman in middle of McCain lobbyist scandal

[Gill]

What I have found interesting is how the right wing spin machine has taken away focus from McCain and placed it on the messenger. Yet again we see them in action and yet again attention is divereted away from the real issue. Classic.

Maybe that's because the messenger had no message. Nothing but innuendo from anonymous 'disgruntled' sources.

Pretty thin.

 

[dixon76710]

Now what is true or not I dunno, as I have not looked much at the case.

What I have found interesting is how the right wing spin machine has taken away focus from McCain and placed it on the messenger. Yet again we see them in action and yet again attention is divereted away from the real issue. Classic.

But somehow you DO know its a "real issue"??

 

[PeteEU]

But somehow you DO know its a "real issue"??

Where did I say that? I did say that IF (note the IF) he did what the story and other stories have implied, then it is a very serious crack in his character and aura of "going against the establishment" that he loves to promote. And again, I could care less if he was banging this woman. Now had he been one of those religious right wackos, then it would have been something else.

The more and more information coming out looks more and more damaging for McCain. The latest I read was that McCains rebutal has been debunked by some (granted leftists) blogs.

But of course the right wing blogs and media personalities are backing McCain, which is funny considering a few weeks ago they were going at him for being the wrong candidate bla bla bla.

We shall see, but at the moment, the right wing spin machine has succesfully turned the attention away from McCain.. we shall see if it lasts.

 

[dixon76710]

Where did I say that? I did say that IF (note the IF) he did what the story and other stories have implied, then it is a very serious crack in his character and aura of "going against the establishment" that he loves to promote.

You said-

"What I have found interesting is how the right wing spin machine has taken away focus from McCain and placed it on the messenger. Yet again we see them in action and yet again attention is divereted away from the real issue."

note the absence of any ifs.

 

[mpg]

The Meat:

In late 1999, McCain wrote two letters to the FCC urging a vote on the sale to Paxson of a Pittsburgh television station. The sale had been highly contentious in Pittsburgh and involved a multipronged lobbying effort among the parties to the deal.
At the time he sent the first letter, McCain had flown on Paxson's corporate jet four times to appear at campaign events and had received $20,000 in campaign donations from Paxson and its law firm. The second letter came on Dec. 10, a day after the company's jet ferried him to a Florida fundraiser that was held aboard a yacht in West Palm Beach.
McCain has argued that the letters merely urged a decision and did not call for action on Paxson's behalf. But when the letters became public, William E. Kennard, chairman of the FCC at the time, denounced them as "highly unusual" coming from McCain, whose committee chairmanship gave him oversight of the agency.

McCain's Ties To Lobbyist Worried Aides

That's newsworthy but that's not what I was asking about.

 

[mpg]

I disagree because if they wanted to "influence the outcome" they would have waited until mid to late October....

They waited 8 friggin years. They waited till McCain emerged as the front runner.

 

[Hatuey]

They waited 8 friggin years. They waited till McCain emerged as the front runner.

Time is not important when it comes to whether or not you got a blowjob.

According to her story, on May 8, 1991, Paula Jones was escorted to the room of Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, in the Excelsior [1] [2] [3] (now Peabody) Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he allegedly propositioned her. She claimed she kept quiet about the incident until 1994, when a David Brock story in American Spectator told a lurid account, sometimes referred to as Troopergate, about an Arkansas employee named "Paula" offering to be Clinton's girlfriend. Jones filed a sexual harassment and eschewal suit against Clinton on May 6, 1994, two days prior to the 3-year statute of limitations.

Let the McCain witch hunt begin. Who did he screw? When? Where? How? How did it affect tax payers? Did getting a blow job make America unsafe? Why does McCain's eye twitch every time he sees a blond? All these questions must be answered! *Grab your pitchforks and torches!*

 

[Hatuey]

In the end, we all want to hear about the most powerful man in the world or would be most powerful man in the world getting his dick sucked. Most of us aren't interested in whether they did anything illegal because those details aren't as important as whether or not he bent her over in their offices or in a private plane.

 

[Sir Loin]

Where did I say that? I did say that IF (note the IF) he did what the story and other stories have implied, then it is a very serious crack in his character and aura of "going against the establishment" that he loves to promote. And again, I could care less if he was banging this woman. Now had he been one of those religious right wackos, then it would have been something else.

The more and more information coming out looks more and more damaging for McCain. The latest I read was that McCains rebutal has been debunked by some (granted leftists) blogs.

But of course the right wing blogs and media personalities are backing McCain, which is funny considering a few weeks ago they were going at him for being the wrong candidate bla bla bla.

We shall see, but at the moment, the right wing spin machine has successfully turned the attention away from McCain. we shall see if it lasts.

Exactly what “other” stories are you talking about? It seems you are in possession of information even the NYT does not have! The more and more information that comes out looks more and more damaging for McCain? Yesterday the story was page one, today it is a small blurb saying McCain disputes report on page 20! Surely you have something besides “blogs” to quote, or the source of the stories from said blogs? Links?

Chris Matthews is sitting on my TV right now saying he “despises” this “story” that says two former staffers (who wish to remain anonymous) thought that eight years ago McCain “might” have looked bad because he “seemed” to have a funny relationship with a lobbyist. Even the report does not make allegations of a sexual nature, or had you not noticed that in your blogs? Last I checked Chris Matthews was hardly the right wing spin machine. Likewise every pundit (left and right wing) I have watched or listened to has mocked this “story”. Including NPR. So much for the right wing spin machine sophistry.

There is a large difference between having the common sense and savvy to see this stinker for what it is and “backing” McCain. So all the "left" wing pundits who are calling this story trash are now backing Mccain, not calling shite journalism shite? Right.

This is like like reading Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s first front page reporting on Watergate, and opening the paper the next day only to find the story pushed back to a small blurb on page 20 with no follow up. If you really think only the “right wing” is finding this “story” highly specious, you need to expand your horizons and take off the blinders.

But maybe you are in possession of stories linked to this one that have escaped the critical eye of "serious" jouranlist, please do tell.

BTW- IMO this story, like tears on Mrs. Clinton's cheek, will likely help McCain. Not hurt him.

 

[Sir Loin]

Time is not important when it comes to whether or not you got a blowjob.

Let the McCain witch hunt begin. Who did he screw? When? Where? How? How did it affect tax payers? Did getting a blow job make America unsafe? Why does McCain's eye twitch every time he sees a blond? All these questions must be answered! *Grab your pitchforks and torches!*

The second we find out that McCain has been trying to suborn perjury in a civil lawsuit, from the same office he is further confirming a pattern of behavior that relates to the same civil lawsuit in, I’m all for the “witch hunt” as you call it. Or an ideologue would say.

And if McCain were a licensed lawyer committing these acts, I’d be all for a far more stiff punishment for said than say a certain past POTUS got off with. Ya know, pretend you or I committed perjury and were found guilty of suborning the same? That kind of punishment. Real witchy hunty stuff.


As long as we are being humorous without regard to reality, I heard a funny joke today.

Ya know why Hillary Clinton stood side by side with John McCain the alleged adulterer? Force of habit. :mrgreen:

 

[PeteEU]

You said-

"What I have found interesting is how the right wing spin machine has taken away focus from McCain and placed it on the messenger. Yet again we see them in action and yet again attention is divereted away from the real issue."

note the absence of any ifs.

Ahh come on.

I stated IF the story was correct about him doing favors for this lobbyiest, then it would be a problem for him.

And then you quote me about the right wing spin machine!.. wtf is that.

Do you deny that the focus has been taken away from the story and what the content was and placed on the NYT and how long it sat on the story and how "bad" the NYT is?

Come on even anti McCain right wing hate radio and tv personalities have joined forces to take attention away and attack thier "favorite" newspaper.

 

[PeteEU]

Exactly what “other” stories are you talking about? It seems you are in possession of information even the NYT does not have! The more and more information that comes out looks more and more damaging for McCain? Yesterday the story was page one, today it is a small blurb saying McCain disputes report on page 20! Surely you have something besides “blogs” to quote, or the source of the stories from said blogs? Links?

Chris Matthews is sitting on my TV right now saying he “despises” this “story” that says two former staffers (who wish to remain anonymous) thought that eight years ago McCain “might” have looked bad because he “seemed” to have a funny relationship with a lobbyist. Even the report does not make allegations of a sexual nature, or had you not noticed that in your blogs? Last I checked Chris Matthews was hardly the right wing spin machine. Likewise every pundit (left and right wing) I have watched or listened to has mocked this “story”. Including NPR. So much for the right wing spin machine sophistry.

There is a large difference between having the common sense and savvy to see this stinker for what it is and “backing” McCain. So all the "left" wing pundits who are calling this story trash are now backing Mccain, not calling shite journalism shite? Right.

This is like like reading Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s first front page reporting on Watergate, and opening the paper the next day only to find the story pushed back to a small blurb on page 20 with no follow up. If you really think only the “right wing” is finding this “story” highly specious, you need to expand your horizons and take off the blinders.

But maybe you are in possession of stories linked to this one that have escaped the critical eye of "serious" jouranlist, please do tell.

BTW- IMO this story, like tears on Mrs. Clinton's cheek, will likely help McCain. Not hurt him.

As I stated, I have not looked much into it.

But from the news reports over here, there are questions about McCain doing this lobbyiest (and her clients) favors in Congress. If again I state IF, said accusations can be proven, then it is damaging to Mr Anti Lobbyiest of the republican party. As for his possible banging of this woman.. so freaking what. He aint a religious right wacko, so him banging someone outside the marriage is hardly newsworthy (just as CLintons blowjob was not newsworthy).

And as I stated, the right wing spin machine has done a great job in damage control for McCain by diverting attention away from the accusations and hounding the messenger. I expect to see more of such damage controll when the campaign really starts up. After all McCain has screwed up quite a bit lately and flip floped on issues.

 

[Sir Loin]

As I stated, I have not looked much into it.

But from the news reports over here, there are questions about McCain doing this lobbyiest (and her clients) favors in Congress. If again I state IF, said accusations can be proven, then it is damaging to Mr Anti Lobbyiest of the republican party. As for his possible banging of this woman.. so freaking what. He aint a religious right wacko, so him banging someone outside the marriage is hardly newsworthy (just as CLintons blowjob was not newsworthy).

And as I stated, the right wing spin machine has done a great job in damage control for McCain by diverting attention away from the accusations and hounding the messenger. I expect to see more of such damage controll when the campaign really starts up. After all McCain has screwed up quite a bit lately and flip floped on issues.

Well you can “look into it” as much as you wish, you’ll find **nothing** but this now dead in the water inadvertent assistance to the McCain campaign by the NYT. Wouldn’t it be easier and far more honest to admit you got caught doing some serious spinning of your own here? We won’t wait for the links to the trove of stories you claimed existed but now have not “looked into much”. :roll:

All of the news reports you are talking about “over there” are based on the lacking any journalistic standards story from the NYT, over here. Now three days later, not one “fact” in the article has been supported and the NYT, once again, has egg on its face.

Of course Clinton’s blowjob would not have been much of a story had it not involved him breaking quite a few laws and ultimately admitting he was guilty of the charges stemming from said. You gotta be a real left wing Kool-Aid drinking loon to pretend otherwise.

Yes, you still press on with your right wing spin SPIN. Everyone’s common sense and knowledge of journalistic standards is what kicked in, thus left wing, right wing and in the middle pundits are doing the dismissing of the useless trash story. One need no call out the so called spin forces to erase such pabulum as the “story” or your senseless take upon it.

 

[Dezaad]

The best, most interesting part by far about this story is watching conservatives do backflips to say 'its a non-story, innuendo, etc. etc.' I am glad it was reported so that we could see what uncurious, non-titillated Republicans look like. It shows how unimportant it is to them to know a politician's moral sexual history. Sometimes innuendo leads directly to the discovery of fact, but conservatives are uninterested in any further digging, to be sure.

I wonder if they would be so modest in their curiosity if it were a Democrat facing innuendo. Inevitably, we already know the answer to that. All sexual dalliance stories start as innuendo, folks. Some pan out, some do not, but we don't know that when the chattering starts.

For the record, I am against digging around about any Presidential Candidate's (or President's for that matter) sexual activities at any time. As others have been pointing out, The only important questions are "Did McCain do anything to betray the public trust?" and "Is McCain a hypocrite?".

For the former, I'd say highly unlikely; And with the latter, probably not significantly enough. I wouldn't mind some further quiet digging around by journalists to determine these issues only. If nothing is found, don't print any further speculations.

:sigh:

Alas, I would mean all of this except for one small fact. McCain supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Anyone who supported it should be subjected to any sort of investigation by the Media when there are any reasons to believe something might have happened; Especially when they deny the allegations publicly.

We have to know whether these people would lie about such things. It is extremely important to know whether they would lie.

By their support of his impeachment, they implicitly approve of the process that led to the circumstances around the impeachment. This includes the media sticking their collective nose into business that is otherwise not anyone's.

And, we needn't be very quiet about the investigations at all. In fact, the noisier the better, I say. It's all part of the process that will eventually lead to the truth, which in these cases we deserve to discover, above all other considerations.

 

[UtahBill]

Old John is saying that he has never done anything to betray the pubic trust, oops, I meant to say public trust....either way, a stretch of his imagination.

The democrat nominee will be able to bring this issue up and compare his response to the Keating 5 scandal. He may have come out of that with only a little mud on his shoes, but this new scandal combined with the Keating issue will be ammo for the dems.

Both McCain and HRC have histories that will make the final election process a down and dirty fight.

Still, the NYT seems to have an agenda. It appears they wanted John to win the nomination so that the other party will have an easier win.

 

[Hatuey]

Still, the NYT seems to have an agenda. It appears they wanted John to win the nomination so that the other party will have an easier win.

If they wanted to make it easy they could have simply rooted for Huckabee. Hit him on the religious thing and you can make him look like a complete nut.

 

[dixon76710]

Both McCain and HRC have histories that will make the final election process a down and dirty fight.

i suspect Obama will win. A relatively clean empty suit.

 

[Navy Pride]

Bottom line this slander by the ultra left wing NYT is having a back lash and is actually helping McCain and Conservatives that were questioning him to rally around him..........

Thank you NYT.........:roll:

 

[Hatuey]

Bottom line this slander by the ultra left wing NYT is having a back lash and is actually helping McCain and Conservatives that were questioning him to rally around him..........

Thank you NYT.........:roll:

:rofl - Yeah....Obama is still winning in the polls buddy.

 

[Navy Pride]

:rofl - Yeah....Obama is still winning in the polls buddy.

Actually your wrong as usual.....

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Saturday, February 23, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that John McCain has gained ground against Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43%. He also leads Hillary Clinton 47% to 44%

McCain leads both Hillary and Obama


Try again...........

 

[Hatuey]

Actually your wrong as usual.....

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Saturday, February 23, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that John McCain has gained ground against Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43%. He also leads Hillary Clinton 47% to 44%

McCain leads both Hillary and Obama


Try again...........

:2wave: - We use the electoral college my Republican friend. Not popular vote.

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats with a 284 to 229 lead in the Electoral College. The Balance of Power Calculator determines projections by aggregating a variety of information from many sources including polls, the Rasmussen Markets, analyst assessments and more. Nine states with 101 Electoral Votes are either a pure Toss-Up or just slightly leaning to one party or the other. These are likely to be the early battleground states of Election 2008: Florida (27), Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4) (see summary of recent state general election polling).

New polling data for New Mexico and Wisconsin will be released this weekend.

Nationwide, Obama is viewed favorably by 54% and unfavorably by 45%. McCain’s numbers are 53% favorable, 44% unfavorable. Clinton earns positive reviews from 50% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 49% (see recent daily results and more detail on perceptions of the candidates).

:2wave:

 

[Navy Pride]

:2wave: - We use the electoral college my Republican friend. Not popular vote.


:2wave:

At this point and time the electoral college is at best a guess......Its impossible to figure the electoral count when you don't even know who the candidates are..........

Now the polls are done separately and McCain beats both Hillary and Obama..........


Try again................

 

[Sir Loin]

The best, most interesting part by far about this story is watching conservatives do backflips to say 'its a non-story, innuendo, etc. etc.' I am glad it was reported so that we could see what uncurious, non-titillated Republicans look like. It shows how unimportant it is to them to know a politician's moral sexual history. Sometimes innuendo leads directly to the discovery of fact, but conservatives are uninterested in any further digging, to be sure.

I find it amusing that anyone of any political bent has had to perform dexterous gymnastics in order to deal with a “story” that has been dismissed by fairly all political spectrums as vacuous. The rest of your benign stereotypification of the right falls in the same category.

I wonder if they would be so modest in their curiosity if it were a Democrat facing innuendo. Inevitably, we already know the answer to that. All sexual dalliance stories start as innuendo, folks. Some pan out, some do not, but we don't know that when the chattering starts.

Back flips in logic and history indeed. We all know when the chattering starts, when the brain is deprived of certain crucial elements. Intellectual honesty being the first causality. As if the only political sexual scandal that ever came about was since the Clinton era. Avail yourself of the historical record of the last two centuries and you will find the record replete with rich factual details that do not necessarily buttress your myopic view.

For the record, I am against digging around about any Presidential Candidate's (or President's for that matter) sexual activities at any time. As others have been pointing out, The only important questions are "Did McCain do anything to betray the public trust?" and "Is McCain a hypocrite?".

For the former, I'd say highly unlikely; And with the latter, probably not significantly enough. I wouldn't mind some further quiet digging around by journalists to determine these issues only. If nothing is found, don't print any further speculations.

Alas, I would mean all of this except for one small fact. McCain supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Anyone who supported it should be subjected to any sort of investigation by the Media when there are any reasons to believe something might have happened; Especially when they deny the allegations publicly.

And there is what in poker is known as your tell. In short, you mean nothing that you just said because you have an excuse why you really don’t mean what you just said. You’re mad still a decade on that Bill Clinton got impeached for IN FACT felonious crimes. Not that he got off. Not that he had to pay any felony penalty like a regular say, left wing liberal DNC card carrying “liberal” would have to answer to for the same? Must be a burden.

We have to know whether these people would lie about such things. It is extremely important to know whether they would lie.

By their support of his impeachment, they implicitly approve of the process that led to the circumstances around the impeachment. This includes the media sticking their collective nose into business that is otherwise not anyone's.

Yes, we must have more tabloid Fleet Street type journalism; we “must” know these things. Much like where Britney is shopping. Jesus, how about polygraph test on TV, if it makes you feel more secure?

And, we needn't be very quiet about the investigations at all. In fact, the noisier the better, I say. It's all part of the process that will eventually lead to the truth, which in these cases we deserve to discover, above all other considerations.

No need for secrecy at all. As per your suggestion above, we can mock the entire legal system in order to pretend that “blow jobs” get a POTUS impeached. And when the “truth” is really to plainly obvious and abundantly available to even school children, you can still be angry about it.
In the year 2008. :congrats:

 

[TOJ]

I think McCain is a complete jerk and hope he is soundly trashed in the General but, what I find so interesting about this thread, is that those who have been whining about the use of Swift Boat tactics all these years, seem to think they are great when used against the other side.

Even the NYT's public editor is bashing the paper for printing the article. NYT - What That McCain Article Didn’t Say

The article had repercussions for both McCain and The Times. He may benefit, at least in the short run, from a conservative backlash against the “liberal” New York Times. The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.

All you folks that are having so much fun with this one are not going to have a whole lot of credibility when you complain about the same tactics being used on the Demo nominee.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think McCain is a complete jerk and hope he is soundly trashed in the General but, what I find so interesting about this thread, is that those who have been whining about the use of Swift Boat tactics all these years, seem to think they are great when used against the other side.

Even the NYT's public editor is bashing the paper for printing the article. NYT - What That McCain Article Didn’t Say




All you folks that are having so much fun with this one are not going to have a whole lot of credibility when you complain about the same tactics being used on the Demo nominee.

Huge difference...........No matter what you believe about the swift boat guys they slammed Kerry publicly and I beleive they were honorable men ..........The NYT is not doing that....They are slamming McCain and not naming their sources.............

It has actually helped McCain because Conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity are rallying around McCain.......


What the NYT did was a cowardly partisan act that should be condemned by all........