NYT: McCain may have behaved unethically and cheated on his wife, but we’re not sure; Update: Pressured by the New Republic? Update: McCain responds; Update: Carl Cameron video added; Update: TNR confirms? Update: WaPo piles on

posted at 8:29 pm on February 20, 2008 by Allahpundit

A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record.

The media halo’s gone, Maverick. Nothing personal. Just business.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”…

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others…

[McCain advisor John] Weaver added that the brief conversation [he had with Iseman] was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate…

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries…

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman.

The juicy stuff’s at the end, including instances of McCain acting against the interest of Iseman’s clients. Exit question: Is this really the tack the left’s going to take against the guy who co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and about whose “sense of honor” Russ Feingold testifies to in this very piece? That he’s unethical?

Update: Remember this? This story’s evidently been in the works for two months, and if you believe Drudge’s teaser from back then, it was initially going to accuse McCain of having let Iseman write parts of his telecom bills. How thin must that angle have been if it didn’t make the cut for an article this thin on other details?

Update: Among the various ways to get the base to rally behind Maverick, a New York Times hit piece surely must be one of the most efficient.

Update: Not only is Hannity & Colmes running with this, they’re showing photos of Iseman. Carl Cameron’s on and is saying he talked to McCain’s advisors when Drudge first scooped this in December, and that apparently TNR was threatening to run a story about the Times burying the article unless they published. I’ll cut the video; stand by.

Update: Team McCain answers:

“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

Update: As promised, here’s the video of Cameron claiming via McCain’s campaign that TNR pressured the Times into running with it.

Link: sevenload.com

Update: Here’s video of Bob Bennett ripping the Times to shreds.

Update: TNR says it’ll have something to say tomorrow.

Update: WaPo’s more careful about not suggesting any sexual shenanigans but they don’t have any more on the ethical angle than the Times has:

Three telecom lobbyists and a former McCain aide, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Iseman spoke up regularly at meetings of telecom lobbyists in Washington, extolling her connections to McCain and his office. She would regularly volunteer at those meetings to be the point person for the telecom industry in dealing with McCain’s office.

Concern about Iseman’s presence around McCain at one point led to her being banned from his Senate office, according to sources close to McCain.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Ah, yes, timing is everything.

A few days ago, the veil started to lift to reveal the far left policies/beliefs of the Obamas; first his wife declaring her dislike of America, and then his acceptance speech outlining a program so uncompromisingly socialist that it disturbed not a few in the liberal media.

What to do? Stop talking about the issues, and start the mud-slinging. Given McCain’s personality and his long history in DC, there’s likely enough material to make the hits keep coming for nine months, while Obama hasn’t been around long enough to leave much of a political trail, and whatever picadillos may exist in his personal life are largely shielded from media scrutiny by deference to the color of his skin.

Obama’s political beliefs are the demons that can’t stand the light of scrutiny, so the left now puts its energy into changing the subject, while providing for endless hours of juicy scandal speculation for the media airheads and their mindless viewers.

Nichevo on February 21, 2008 at 5:53 AM

The New Republic is now forcing other purveyors of filth to publish thinly sourced stories?

What the hell is going on here?

Un-frickin-believable.

benrand on February 21, 2008 at 6:08 AM

McCain’s bosom buddies are turning on him after he courted them for so long! I’m shocked… that it started this early.

Watching him squirm as their false praise turns to scorn is going to be sweet, sweet schadenfreude.

Lehosh on February 21, 2008 at 6:55 AM

Never? Never ever?

Weight of Glory on February 20, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Yeah, that one made me laugh.

Some of us are old enough to remember that “Keating 5″ thingie.

TC@LeatherPenguin on February 21, 2008 at 7:01 AM

I only pray McCain comes back frothing at the mouth insanely angry and ready to punish and humiliate the authors of this story.

Someone tell John they’re Republicans. It’ll be like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

Marcus on February 21, 2008 at 7:14 AM

Sooooo can we talk about the Larry Sinclair tapes on YouTube now???

LtE126 on February 21, 2008 at 7:27 AM

I never thought I would live to see the day when the morning shows on MSNBC, FOX and CNN all say there is no there there on anything.

KBird on February 21, 2008 at 7:31 AM

Sneak preview from a Democratic talking mouth on Fox News morning show:

“sleazy reporting like this is what Senator Obama wants to change! The public is tired of this!”

Look for Mr. Obama to decry the NYT more loudly over this than Mr. McCain, and come out smelling sweeter than a rose. Arianna, Keith, Kos – Obama is going to tell you to stop it NOW.

Marcus on February 21, 2008 at 7:35 AM

“sleazy reporting like this is what Senator Obama wants to change! The public is tired of this!”

Marcus on February 21, 2008 at 7:35 AM

That was Debbie Dingell spinning. This is how Obama shields himself from any criticism of his own past.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 8:03 AM

Senator McCain- please suspend your campaign for the good of the country.

Valiant on February 21, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Senator McCain must suspend his campaign for the good of the country.

Valiant on February 21, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Sorry for the duplicate post.

Valiant on February 21, 2008 at 8:06 AM

Senator McCain must suspend his campaign for the good of the country.

Hogwash!

This is pure smear conjured up by that communist slime machine the New York Times. McCain should attack those leftist pigs with a a vengeance.

rplat on February 21, 2008 at 8:10 AM

I’ll just say it myself: Congratulations, Allah.

Allahpundit on February 20, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Hahaha… okay, that made me laugh.

Nineball on February 21, 2008 at 8:11 AM

Senator McCain must suspend his campaign for the good of the country.

Valiant on February 21, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Puhlease. I am a critic of John McCain but this is nothing but unsubstantiated rumor-mongering and there is no reason why McCain should surrender to the Grey Lady.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 8:13 AM

LOL yeah, the MSM said something nasty about the GOP nominee. Gasp! He’d better quit.

So they can say something nasty about the next one who’s left. I presume that would be Huckabee? snort, yeah, they’ll be really gentle with him.

Or Romney v Obama? 6 months of fake outrage about the “racism” and “sexism” inherent in Mormonism and its history. And snickering about underwear.

Fred? Old, boring, doesn’t want the job as much as the Obamassiah.

Rudy? Thrice married, moved in with gay friends when a marriage fell apart, Kerik.

The MSM is going to do whatever it can to slam on whoever the GOP puts up against Obama. If this is the worst they can do to McCain, perhaps he is a good choice this time around, even though he wasn’t my first or second or … choice.

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 8:19 AM

They destroyed Bush, they’ll crush McCain. McCain’s relied on the media to get where he is, they built him, they know how to destroy him.

doubleplusundead on February 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM

The guy stood up to the NVA, but some pantywaist at the NYT is going to “destroy” him? You guys are disgusting with your slobbering excitement that somehow the NYT is going to hurt this man.

I’m starting to wonder how many “lifelong republicans for Obama” we really have here.

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 8:27 AM

Senator McCain must suspend his campaign for the good of the country.

Valiant on February 21, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Why? This will probably give him a ten point lead in the polls. Joe and Betty Mainstreet are aware that the NYT is for libby hacks. I fully expect Mav to come out swinging for blood this morning.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Romnee couldn’t sleep last night. He thinks he’s back in it.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Romnee couldn’t sleep last night. He thinks he’s back in it.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Perhaps he will be. McCain should withdraw.

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 8:34 AM

I’m very surprised that TNR chose to pressure the NYT into releasing this dog of a story now. When it comes to sensationalistic revelations of non-scandals that are designed to “raise questions” about a candidate’s ethics, timing is everything. This went off way too early to be effective.

Now, when the MSM ran those hit pieces on Rudy Giuliani re: police protection for his girlfriend (now wife), THAT was perfect timing… 30 days before New Hampshire… and his numbers started plummeting soon thereafter.

The liberal media plays to win, my friends.

Outlander on February 21, 2008 at 8:34 AM

John McCain is unethical.

He was unethical with his first wife. He was unethical with the Keating Five mess.

Men who are unethical in one area of their lives are unethical in others. A man who cheats on his first wife will cheat on his second wife.

Why this story shocks anybody is shocking to me.

THIS is why the Dems wanted McCain to be the Republcan Nominee — it is going to be a very rough 8 months.

EJDolbow on February 20, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Thanks for writing that. It’s truly shameless to beat on John McCain for leaving his first wife for reasons they don’t know, and couldn’t possibly fathom unless they’ve also spent 5 years in a prison camp. Yet, they still find no compunctions with slanderous speculation.

It’s very disheartening to find our own little Kos Kidz on the right.

amkun on February 21, 2008 at 2:44 AM

Don’t blame us for John McCain’s past. His track record lead us to believe that the MSM would have pleanty on him, it’s proving to be true. Your 72 year OLD candidate is a lousy choice… soon you will realize that… will it be too late?

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM

Told ya so!

Back when I called McCain unelectable because his support was as fake as Nancy Pelosi’s hair color. All you McCainiacs were screaming for me to shut up and support John when I was supporting Mitt or any real conservative. Now it’s happened. The left and their useful idiots in the Rudy/McCain wing of the DNC have foisted an dog of a candidate on the GOP so now the tear down begins. It was just a few weeks ago that the NYT was endorsing Juan McCain. Now they are publishing ethics/moral allegations.

THIS WAS ALL SO PREDICTABLE! And could have been prevented if you McCain supporters had not been such a mean nasty lot. Now it’s time for you to speak up and, if true, demand that Juan McCain withdraw from the race for the good of the party.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM

hahahahahahah The McCain supporters are nasty? Oh, that’s a funny one.

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 9:00 AM

rplat on February 21, 2008 at 8:10 AM

How do you know this is nothing more than a “smear job?” You really need to open your mind to the idea that there might really be something to this. Do you really want to spend this campaign fending off moral/ethical charges? I don’t! I certainly am not going to carry the cranky old bastard’s water for the next four years because he diddled with a woman not his wife!

If McCain can’t prove his innocence and the charges prove substantive, then he needs to withdraw from the race for the good of the party and the nation.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM

Mav’s on TV right now knocking the story and the NYT over the left/center fence.

LtE126 on February 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Let’s see. McCain supporters on this forum questioned my patriotism, denegrated my faith, and told me to shut up and support their candidate…… I think simply calling them nasty is being nice to a bunch of despicable fifth columnists.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM

All I can say is that this is one reason no Senator since JFK has been elected president. They all cavort with lobbyists and write letters to regulators for them. All the time. That’s a huge part of the lobbying business and a huge part of what goes on in Congressional offices. Congress really doesn’t do that much legislating. Lobbying firms get rich by charging naive corporations exorbitant fees and getting Congressmen and Senators to write meaningless letters, ask questions at meaningless hearings, and put meaningless stuff in the Congressional Record.

I hope people also realize that this is yet another attempt by the liberal media to turn off conservative “values voters.” It worked with Giuliani. But I think at this point voters are just happy the Senator is a heterosexual.

Nonetheless, this could have been avoided altogether had the GOP establishment gotten behind Mitt Romney. No ties to lobbyists and not even an appearance of marital infidelity.

rockmom on February 21, 2008 at 9:05 AM

I’m not a McCain fan.

But, after reading some of the comments here, it appears that the Democratic operatives are blowing some steam in their off time, here.

This story???

ZZzzzzzzzzz….

Saltysam on February 21, 2008 at 9:05 AM

LtE126 on February 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM

He denied it and said he was disappointed. That’s hardly knocking down the charges. I’m not quite sure how he goes about doing that but that is his problem. I’m not going to carry is moral and ethical baggage for the next four years if he can’t refute the allegations with something more substantive than “did not.”

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Anyone that thinks McCain should or will withdraw is going to be sorely disappointed. The fallout form this story will be the CLEARING of his name for the Keating 5 incident…apparently he shouldn’t even have been named, the only reason he was, was so to avoid only naming only democrats.

I originally was not too thrilled about McCain being the nominee. But the more I learn about him, the more I like him. I still don’t like that he dumped his first wife, but I’m not marrying him, I’m voting for him to run the country, and I’m starting to think he’s going to win it.

The press is starting to peel the Barrack banana and see there’s nothing inside and ooooooo they are getting scared…it won’t be a landslide, but ole Johnny Mac’s chances are getting better and better with every slam, because he’s no doormat…pick a fight with McCain, he’s not going to shrivel up and die…he’ll fight back, and the guy is tough. NYT loses on this one.

JustTruth101 on February 21, 2008 at 9:07 AM

Cyndi McCain is super cool.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM

Cyndi McCain is super cool.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM

And clueless…
“John would never do anything to disappoint the family”…

tell that to the first wife…

these blind hypocrites are UNBELIEVABLE and DECEIVED!

TOPV on February 21, 2008 at 9:11 AM

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM

May I remind you that Reagan was 70 when sworn in to serve our nation in 1981.

It was just a few weeks ago that the NYT was endorsing Juan McCain. Now they are publishing ethics/moral allegations.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Good point, and this story did not suddenly materialize out of thin air. All the more reason not to let the Times succeed in bringing down McCain over nothing.

The Times should be forced to answer why they endorsed him since they had to have known of these allegations.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 9:11 AM

The fallout form this story will be the CLEARING of his name for the Keating 5 incident

JustTruth101 on February 21, 2008 at 9:07 AM

OH PLEEEEEZZZEE.

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:11 AM

Maybe the Huckster can be his “spiritual” adviser (like Jesse and Slick Willy)…LOL

TOPV on February 21, 2008 at 9:12 AM

Update: TNR says it’ll have something to say tomorrow.

Why would that be noteworthy? It sounds like the punchline to a joke.

Jaibones on February 21, 2008 at 9:14 AM

highhopes – think about this for a minute. The NYT has been working on this story a long time. If there were really an affair, they would have found proof of it. If there were really exceptional favors being done for this lobbyist, they would have found proof of it. This story is nothing but innuendo and insinuation. Most cheap tabloids have more proof than this before they run a story.

Having once been a lobbyist, I can also tell you that many of them are accomplished fabulists. They make money by inflating their connections and dropping names. McCain’s people may have been rightfully worried that this woman was running around Washington boasting that she could get McCain to do stuff and even implying that she was sleeping with him. Sadly there are many women in Washington who have become successful that way, and others who get close to the line.

This woman was a telecom lobbyist and McCain was the committee chairman. Of course it was in her interest to get to know him, and to inflate her connection with him far beyond what they actually were. Jack Abramoff did the same thing. Much of his “insider status” was self-created.

I am not a McCain fan, but I am inclined to believe him on this. He can’t “prove his innocence” as you suggest – it’s impossible to prove a negative. The burden in this case is on the media to prove the positive.

rockmom on February 21, 2008 at 9:15 AM

May I remind you that Reagan was 70 when sworn in to serve our nation in 1981.

No need to remind me. He also was never a Senator, he had a very successful Governorship in CA.

He also looked and acted years younger. He also wasn’t running against a nice-looking 45 year old candidate.

BIG Difference. McCain looks awful, speaks horribly. They will tear him apart. They will put lights on him during the debates that will make him look old and make him sweat. Mark my words, the press will use this disadvantage 1000% – with GREAT success.

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:18 AM

The Times should be forced to answer why they endorsed him since they had to have known of these allegations.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 9:11 AM

That is a good question. Nevertheless, McCain needs to respond with something more than “I never did any special favors for lobbyists.” Who does he think he’s kidding- EVERY politician in DC is “guilty” of favoritism to lobbyists. That’s how the system works. Are we to believe that one of the Keating 5 is the real life incarnation of Mr. Smith?

Fact of the matter is that McCain’s campaign should have been prepared to respond to these allegations since they have been floating around since 2000. Apparently they thought that telling everybody to shut up and support their candidate was enough to protect the Senator’s reputation. It isn’t and McCain, IMO, made a huge mistake by immediately holding a press conference. The right tactic (assuming that this isn’t true) would be to go out after the NYT specifically. All he did this morning is cement the idea that he may well be a sleazy career politician. This plays right into Obama’s lack of experience.

Thanks again to the GOP idiots who foisted this dog on the party.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 9:20 AM

The Times should be forced to answer why they endorsed him since they had to have known of these allegations.

Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 9:11 AM

THAT is just SO obvious !!! Do you think they didn’t know they could tear him apart easily.. That is why Mitt Romney laughed at his (McCain) obtaining the NYT endorsement. Come on, anyone could see this train wreck coming.

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:21 AM

Nothing to see here. Move along people.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 9:22 AM

The burden in this case is on the media to prove the positive.

rockmom on February 21, 2008 at 9:15 AM

The media doesn’t have to do anything of the sort. All they have to do is print it. I’m afraid it will be up to McCain to prove that he is not guilty. It looks like he may have a problem (he DID write the letters and legislation, did he not?)

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:23 AM

The McCain supporters are nasty? Oh, that’s a funny one.

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Yeah, how could anyone come to that conclusion?

It’s not like McCain’s disciples aren’t sneering from an ivory tower, or calling the others “deranged” and “crazy”, or calling the others racist morons, or telling the others that Daddy McCain knows best, or telling the others that they are unpatriotic and despise the troops, or that the others are just stupid and should do as they’re told…

Where would anyone get the idea that McCain supporters seemed just as nasty and mean-spirited as he seems?

Lehosh on February 21, 2008 at 9:24 AM

I haven’t read anything the nyt has to do with in years…it’s nothing but a lib rag…a waste of paper…it’s no wonder their stock has plunged and they are dumping staff…anyone that buys a nyt paper is a contributor to their garbage…

areseaoh on February 21, 2008 at 9:26 AM

MITT, GET BACK IN… WE NEED YOU NOW!!!

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:26 AM

rockmom, BINGO. In their rush to smack McCain, the people here are acting like they’ve never dealt with idiot name-droppers.

Having once been a lobbyist, I can also tell you that many of them are accomplished fabulists. They make money by inflating their connections and dropping names. McCain’s people may have been rightfully worried that this woman was running around Washington boasting that she could get McCain to do stuff and even implying that she was sleeping with him. Sadly there are many women in Washington who have become successful that way, and others who get close to the line.

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 9:28 AM

rockmom on February 21, 2008 at 9:15 AM

I agree with most of what you posted but here’s the problem.

The NYT or any MSM outlet isn’t going to come out in mid-February with a complete balanced package. This is the time for allegations and innuendo. Then as the campaign season continues there will be a drip drip drip of “facts.”

McCain didn’t do himself a favor this morning denying he had never done any special favors for lobbyists. Never is a strong and definitive word. He essentially invited the NYT and WP to find all the other instances in his very long Senate career where there is (at least) the perception of quid pro quo. The way the political system works, it is nearly impossible to imagine that the case couldn’t be made where McCain’s votes on key legislation doesn’t match up with contributions to his campaign fund or some other perception of impropriety.

highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 9:29 AM

MITT, GET BACK IN… WE NEED YOU NOW!!!

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Ok, McCain is a cheerless, nasty old scold… but this sentence is just embarrassing.

Lehosh on February 21, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Nonetheless, this could have been avoided altogether had the GOP establishment gotten behind Mitt Romney. No ties to lobbyists and not even an appearance of marital infidelity.

rockmom on February 21, 2008 at 9:05 AM

The antiMormon bigotry is going to hurt us in many different ways over the next four years. I’d like to personally thank the Huckster for doing his part in helping with that.

a capella on February 21, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Where would anyone get the idea that McCain supporters seemed just as nasty and mean-spirited as he seems?

Lehosh on February 21, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Here at HA?

a capella on February 21, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Someone above said that McCain’s response this morning falls short in that it was only a denial, and didn’t disprove anything. Since when is anyone obliged to prove his innocence from unsubstantiated innuendo?

There’s only innuendo, and the story’s not supported by any facts. It looks so much like a hit job that it’s not persuasive, and I don’t think McCain has much to worry about. It’s a distraction, but only minor.

On the other hand, I hope McCain seizes on this incident to energize the base. Millions of us detest the NYT and what it represents, and as AP points out, it’s hard to imagine a more efficient vehicle for rallying the base.

petefrt on February 21, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Ok, McCain is a cheerless, nasty old scold… but this sentence is just embarrassing.

Lehosh on February 21, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Not to me !!! We sure wouldn’t be having “inappropriate relations” scandals with Mitt.

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:37 AM

Heh, like there wasn’t ever some lobbyist/corporate accounts gal who ran around bragging about her “access” to Romney to make herself look important to the other folks in the office.

Really, have you people never worked in a large organization before?

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 9:46 AM

A 71 year old man linked to 40 year old woman? Kudos, McCain.

I love the retort, McCain has a “24 year record” of service. Is that a backhanded slap at Clinton for her hyperbolic “35 years of experience”?

McCain has been around, like, forever. Some of these stories go back to when Obama was — well not in diapers, but a first year in undergrad?

Anil Petra on February 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Heh, like there wasn’t ever some lobbyist/corporate accounts gal who ran around bragging about her “access” to Romney to make herself look important to the other folks in the office.

funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Do you have a name or an instance.

Really, have you people never worked in a large organization before?

??? If you only knew !!!

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM

If McCain drops out, a brokered convention is necessary. This is why I want him to resign.

No self-respecting conservative will ever vote for him. He still hates you more than the NYT.

Valiant on February 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Was this incident the one about his “first” wife???

DfDeportation on February 21, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Was this incident the one about his “first” wife???

DfDeportation on February 21, 2008 at 10:11 AM

No. It’s another “situation” in 2000. It involves sex for lobbiest favors.

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM

Shut up about his first wife! What are you a Dem operative? Maybe from the daily Kos? There was no “incident” with his first wife, he paid her alimony therefore the cheating never happened. Got it? Good now if John F’in McCain says we are all going to die unless he jacks the hell out of your electrical bill, the price of gas and your heating oil then you better goddamn listen and get in line. Stamp the R above your head NOW! We all know damn well that if Obama gets elected he will deprive our troops of ammunition and armor and make them fight the terrorists hand to hand! So you better vote for big Mac, businesses need the cheap labor and the ACLU says we are murdering civilians in Gitmo and should close it, Johnny Mac agrees. I want to hear no more of this – John F’in McCain says shut up you punk.

Poptech on February 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Not to me !!! We sure wouldn’t be having “inappropriate relations” scandals with Mitt.

stenwin77 on February 21, 2008 at 9:37 AM

True. Mormons are pretty strict.

bojack on February 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM

You see? They wait until there’s no way for any other Republican candidate to win and they give him the ol’ MSM wallop.

Ortzinator on February 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM

To show how this is playing out in middle America, I thought I’d give a little anecdotal experience from my doctor’s appointment today. I was in a waiting room with two other women, one in her forties and the other in her seventies. The Today show was on and Ann Curry led with the McCain story. The woman in her forties was rolling her eyes and shaking her head in frustration, and the older woman started talking about how ridiculous the story was. I suspect she isn’t a republican since she said something like “and even if he had an affair, who cares? Bill Clinton had one and he was a good President.”

I mentioned that the story is based on innuendo only and both women said they’re sick of this kind of thing and sick of the campaign already. I guess if the NYT thought they’d turn the public against McCain with this story it didn’t work for the three of us.

Sensible Mom on February 21, 2008 at 11:16 AM

McCain will stick around (as he should) until he gets CRUSHED by the messiah in November.

omnipotent on February 21, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Thanks to all of those RINO’s out there who stuck us with McCain, great move!

echosyst on February 21, 2008 at 12:37 PM

McCain took the bait, and he denied everything. Now we can look forward to the follow up which will make him out to be a liar. It’s over.

echosyst on February 21, 2008 at 12:38 PM

All you Cainiacs are cracking me up!

He was in the Senate for decades, played footsie with Dems, was part of the Keating 5 (No matter how you may want to dismiss that), and if you believe Drudge, (who has a pretty decent track record IMHO), McCain was trying to quash this story, and was begging them to not publish it.

The NYT waited on this until after McCain basically sewed up the nod, knowing that another ding in McCain’s tarnished armour would make him even more unpalatable to us. That part of the right that had convinced itself he was the only candidate that could beat the Dems might not pull the lever for him and the GOP *might* have ended up with a REAL conservative who was erudite and bright, who had a chance of winning. The NYT couldn’t have that! So they sat until the lib wing of the GOP pushed Romney out and now they’ve set Mr. Burns’ attack dogs on McCain.

As for McCain’s first marriage, it’s true we don’t know what went on in it, but McCain said the breakup was his fault, as does his first wife. FWIW.

I agree with those who say McCain shouldn’t have used the word never. Can you remember everything that happened to you over the past 20 years? Mark Furman’s stupid choice of words helped get OJ off. Saying never is just asking someone to prove you wrong.

linlithgow on February 21, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Man! He’s like 90, go with it! I’d cop to it at that age, maybe it’s a plus.

Dadzilla on February 21, 2008 at 3:20 PM

linlithgow on February 21, 2008 at 1:42 PM

After watching Bob Bennett, I would say McCain was a victim of politics as usual. As for McCain plalying with the Dems, remember “No Child Left Behind”, Bob Wilson, and “Read My Lips”? Seems reaching out to the Dems is a common Republican mistake.

One question: why do folks hate McCain? Reagan didn’t just support Amnesty for Illegals, he granted it. Bush, Sr. did not cut taxes, he increased them. Congress will keep McCain in check on certain issues. The biggest issue should be the war. And right now our country needs a President that truly understands the military. To me that is reason enough to vote for McCain.

Claimsratt on February 21, 2008 at 3:40 PM

John Weaver has issued a statement that exposes the New York Times story on John McCain as a hack job. Part of their supposed corroboration of the gossip about an allegedly budding romance between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman was his alleged intervention to stop it. Weaver, who no longer works for the campaign, says he told the Times that his intervention had nothing to do with an affair:

Iseman had bragged about her connections to the committee in order to expand her client list. Weaver heard about it and told her to knock it off, or she’d get frozen out. Lobbyists collect clients by making themselves appear influential, and apparently Iseman got a little too hyperbolic about her connections.

That’s the extent of the supposed “intervention” — and the Times knew it.

Opinksy also said that the Times use of the phrase “associates” to describe their McCain sources suggests that the leak may not have come from his campaign staffers at the time.
“There was only a handful of us [working on the campaign in 1999],” Opinksy said. “We never had a staff meeting to address any of this.”

Asked who was behind the story, Opinksy said: “Lobbyists tell a lot of tall tales.

“What’s behind this is money. There were a bunch of lobbyists in town who knew that if John McCain became president they were going to have a hard time.”

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/017061.php

windansea on February 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM

McCain may have behaved unethically and cheated on his wife

Um, those are almost positively true.

“behaved unethically”? He took money form a man convicted of bribing Congressmen for votes, and he voted the same way. Now, he may have had other reasons for his votes, but that’s going to be a hard one to call anything but “unethical”.

“cheated on his wife”? That’s one of the reasons they got divorced. She stayed with him through his time as a POW, and then he went chasing skirts while she was injured in a car accident.

… reads the article…

Oh, a new incident, without this level of proof. Hmm, its plausible, but I’d need more proof.

A 71 year old man linked to 40 year old woman? Kudos, McCain.

Well, when he was 40(ish?) he re-married a 25 year old heiress with the resources to let him run for office. So that makes her 55ish? Yep, a younger woman; still keeps the story plausible (but unproven).

So, from my opinion… probably, almost certainly false. And still problematic because McCain’s past makes it too plausible for this sort of thing to be true.

gekkobear on February 21, 2008 at 6:10 PM

I said it before, I’ll say it again.

“Real Conservatives” don’t get chumped by the NYT.

So, are all of the “Real Conservatives” in this thread now going to tell me that they take the NYT as credible, now?

How desperate is your hate for the incredible American that we have for our candidate that you stand by the NYT, Howard Dean and the Daily Kos in attempting to pour slime on the most honorable man serving in our Senate. You stand by these lowlifes, but will not even give Senator McCain the benfit of the doubt.

Shame on you!

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 21, 2008 at 8:15 PM

“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign

Who says that any of this represents the New York Slime’s lowering of its standards? Can anyone out there think of any evidence that the Times’ standards have been any higher in years?

seanrobins on February 21, 2008 at 8:51 PM

I said it before, I’ll say it again.

“Real Conservatives” don’t get chumped by the NYT.

So, are all of the “Real Conservatives” in this thread now going to tell me that they take the NYT as credible, now?

Calm down, now. You get what you pay for. You lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. And on and on and on…

The fact that McCain may have been really naive in his dealings with the Times and their ilk, does not lessen on teensy tiny bit the scumminess that is the Smelly Old Gray Lady.

seanrobins on February 21, 2008 at 8:54 PM

seanrobins on February 21, 2008 at 8:54 PM

And there is no doubt that if Huck or Rudy or Mitt or Fred was the leading candidate the NYT would have some equally thin sourced, made up BS to smear them with.

The fact that McCain was there target left them with far less ammo than some other candidates would have. No doubt the would have gone to town on Rudy or Huck if either one had a chance ofwinning.

But, they would have manufactured some made up crap for Mitt or Fred also.

This is nothing more than the NYT being the biased, left-wing, low quality rag that they are.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 21, 2008 at 9:57 PM

This could end up being quite the blessing in disguise. Not only has the smear campaign helped McCain-leery get behind him and defend McCain, it also might attract those Reagan democrats who cannot stand Hillary but admire Bill for his..prowess.

You never know.

Amy Proctor on February 21, 2008 at 11:00 PM

the most honorable man serving in our Senate

Wouldn’t “the most honorable man” serving in the Senate not be a part of the Keating scandal? When the Senate Ethics Committee criticizes you for “questionable conduct” you might not have been really honorable in your dealings.

How does cheating on your wife figure into honor? Or is that ok for an honorable man?

An oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution” (which last I read said “Congress shall not make a law … abridging freedom of speech”), whoops.

How about the name calling of his detractors in the amnesty bill? Honorable?

So, a slandering, philandering, oath bender/oath breaker, who took money from a man convicted of giving bribes for votes is the “most honorable man in the Senate”.

Well, I think poorly of politicians too, but I think we can set the bar just a tad bit higher and have someone clear it.

gekkobear on February 22, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Well, I think poorly of politicians too, but I think we can set the bar just a tad bit higher and have someone clear it.

gekkobear on February 22, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Sanity!

This election is spin, spin and nothing but spin

The current pack of chameleons running for office are right out of Alice in Wonderland

`How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!

`How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spread his claws,
And welcome little fishes in
With gently smiling jaws!’ -Lewis Carroll

Alice asks what is a Caucus Race?

First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (`the exact shape doesn’t matter,’ it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no `One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out `The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, `But who has won?’

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, `Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’ Lewis Carroll

entagor on February 22, 2008 at 9:26 PM

NYT may have behaved unethically and cheated its readers, but we’re not sure….

landlines on February 23, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic

Sounds Clintonesque to me…I don’t care if it was “romantic”, I care if it was “inappropriate”.

Was John the “John” in this relationship?

Will someone please ask “John” McCain is his relationship with Ms. Iseman was “inappropriate”? I’d like to hear his answer to that specific question. I can look at pictures of his wife taken Tuesday night vs. Wednesday and Thrursday, and the difference in how his wife looks at him is like night and day. She’s not happy with what he did, but she’s willing to stand behind the story he is telling.

Red Pill on February 29, 2008 at 11:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3