20 Feb

The McCain Hit Pieces Have Begun

                                       

Let the games begin!

The Times has come out with an amazing piece of thin reporting on a supposed McCain “scandal.” Apparently The Times has been working on a hit piece about McCain involving a female aide named Vicki Iseman for a few months now. Although there is absolutely no proof that there was a romantic angle to their relationship they use plenty of innuendo and the word of two former associates who felt there was something going on but couldn’t prove it.

Thats some thin stuff.

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.

Word of this story hit the streets in December and after two full months this is as far as they could get. In the earlier version Drudge had this info:

The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

But nothing about this writing of legislation in the current story so I suppose that was thrown out the window due to lack of evidence. But they still went with a story because of two associates gut feelings.

There is one thing to note tho, apparently TNR forced the Times hand with a little blackmail….Carl Cameron:



Link: sevenload.com

And here is Bob Bennett, someone who would never be called a neo-con, defending McCain:


Link: sevenload.com

Does anyone believe the left wouldn’t be going bananas if a MSM outfit had run a story so thin about Obama? They would have a field day.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in John McCain. Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
| 20 views

36 Responses to The McCain Hit Pieces Have Begun

  1. mark e says: 1

    This “paper” sold it’s soul to the DNC so long ago it’s not even funny. I expect plenty of dirty tricks and attempts to influence the election by the human debris over at “the paper of record.”

    ReplyReply
  2. Pingback: Stix Blog

  3. Stix says: 2

    Hey you stole my title. I had a post Let the Games begin. You bastards just kidding. The games are going to begin after McCain is now the Republican nominee. The MSM coddled him along and now are going to rip him apart for Obamassiah.

    The MSM and McCain’s love affair is over. I warned the McCain voters, but they didn’t listen

    ReplyReply
  4. Lurkin_no_mo says: 3

    This the best they can come up with? Move along folks, nothing to see here.
    Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t…but we certainly know that Billy Bubba DID.
    And John McCain has always been proud to be an American, even as a POW. Can Hussein Barack Obama-mama AND his spouse say the same?
    And I’m not even a McCain backer, just a somewhat conservative fella.

    ReplyReply
  5. jainphx says: 4

    I’m afraid there is much more to come out now that it’s too late. Did anyone think that the other side had character of any kind. McCain has been in Washington long enough to have acquired a lot of dirty laundry, some of which will be devestating to is chances

    ReplyReply
  6. bbartlog says: 5

    This the best they can come up with

    Probably not. This is just a teaser. McCain would like us to believe that he’s a selfless public servant, and that having more lobbyists on his campaign staff than any other candidate is just happenstance, but I’m afraid the guy is a tool of corporate interests.

    ReplyReply
  7. Scott says: 6

    Will Hillary Clinton dare to comment about charges of infidelity?
    Will Barack Obama CHANGE from the way Washington politicians play this game and NOT comment, or will he spin it as any other used car salesman would?
    Will Huckabee pounce on the character charges, or join arms and stand in line against the New York Slimes?

    tune in tomorrow for the continuing storrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry of the 2008 race for power

    ReplyReply
  8. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » » It’s What They Leave Out

  9. stix1972 says: 7

    McCain will get dragged thru the mud now that the MSM has gotten him the nomination. I am sure they have alot more amo on McCain than this. This is just the first salvo. this is just the preliminaries, just wait firthe General Election.

    ReplyReply
  10. John Ryan says: 8

    How could anyone POSSIBLY believe that a multi multi millionaire senator running for the White House could possibly bed a gorgeous blonde 30 years younger than himself ?
    I also believed in Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart and Bill Clinton.

    ReplyReply
  11. Philadelphia Steve says: 9

    Re: “Will Hillary Clinton dare to comment about charges of infidelity?”

    At least, when confronted with a problem in their problem, she and Bill worked to keep their marriage together. Which is more than can be said of John McCain and his first wife. (Or Fred Thompson, Rudi Guiliani or Ronald Reagan for that matter).

    I thought Conservatives applauded those who tried to stay married, through thick and thin?

    ReplyReply
  12. Scott says: 10

    Steve goes for the distraction, and fails.
    John seems to doubt the idea that Sen McCain didn’t give particular favor to this lobbyist, and that he’s as guilty as Gary Hart, any Kennedy, or Bill Clinton. It’s odd given that Sen McCain took action in direct contradiction to this particular lobbyist…something the NYT didn’t include, and something that partisan hacks would never care to even ask about.

    By using the same standards of supporting evidence, we can equally declare that anonymous sources claim that someone in the Obama campaign believes he’s had an affair with a lobbyist and wrote a letter in support of that lobbyist’s efforts to get funding for a special pork project in Illinois.

    This is second grader gossip at best, and yet brainiacs like Steve and John buy it hook line and innuendo.

    The double standard in terms of fidelity on the part of Clinton worshipers is amazing, and don’t even try to claim that “conservatives” were all about impeaching Bubba for a BJ or that it was only conservatives that thought he was moron for fooling around. I think it was wrong to impeach his holiness in 98, and I think it’s wrong to defend him for being a moron as well.

    Partisanship before Patriotism-it’s the way of the far left, but real Democrats want that to CHANGE, and HOPE that it will.

    ReplyReply
  13. stix1972 says: 11

    Steve
    Are you really that stupid to think that keeping a marriage of convinience between Bill and Hillary is what the conservatives want. That is a gross misunderstanding of what conservatrives think. Bill and Hillary’s marriage is a sham and a political too for both of them.

    Should people stay in a marriage that they do not like each other or the marriage is broken. I think not. I think that McCain and Newt’s indescretions are appalling. Reagan and Thompson’s I do not think so, they both broke up their marriages amicably.

    And to have the MSM go after McCain after cuddling him until now is something tha is quite unerving. the MSM was for McCain when he was going afterthe big bad conservatives, but now he is going after ther Socialist friends. Now the war to smear Mccain will begin. It is exactly how Rush said it was going to happen. Do you think that the MSM would give the Republican nominee a pass, even their favorite some McCain. Hell no, they want the Obamarama or Billary back in there. They are afull arm wing of the Defeatocrats,and will stop at nothing to get thier guys in there.

    ReplyReply
  14. Scott says: 12

    Stix is right. The Clinton marriage is a political convenience. As soon as she loses the nom, and especially if Obama wins in November…they’ll file for divorce. No point in keeping it going. There’s no love there, there’s certainly no passion, and I wonder how much friendship-like bond there can be with two people who care so much for power in lieu of people.

    ReplyReply
  15. Philadelphia Steve says: 13

    Re: “Steve goes for the distraction, and fails.”

    Excuse me. But I was not the one who chose to bring Hillary Clinton into a discussion of John McCain.
    Or is it DIFFERENT when a Conservative does it?

    Re: ” I think it was wrong to impeach his holiness in 98, ”

    Did you say that THEN? Or is it only NOW that you retro-actively opposed it?

    Re: “Are you really that stupid to think that keeping a marriage of convinience between Bill and Hillary is what the conservatives want. ”

    The”marriage of convenience” is something that the Conservative media have promulgated to no end. How about taking their word that they love each other and worked to get past Bill’s infidelities: As opposed to John McCain, Fred Thompson, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Rudi Guiliani? Or would Sean Hannity and Dick Morris not permit a Conservative to believe that?

    Re: ” Now the war to smear Mccain will begin.”

    If this were a “Liberal Media” conspiracy, then they would have waited until after the Republican Convention, as opposed to now when theRepublicans could turn to Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson could get back in. The “conspiracy” does not fly.

    Re: “Stix is right. The Clinton marriage is a political convenience.”

    can you prove that, from a source that is not NewsMax or some other (mostly Right-wing) Clinton-hating outlet?

    Re: “Obama wins in November…they’ll file for divorce.”

    Is that a guarantee? If they do not, will you publicly say you were wrong?

    On to the “diversions”
    Wasn’t the original idea of this thread the story of John McCain’s alleged infidelity? I notice that the Conservatives have shifted the discussion to Hillary Clinton. When I am accused of that I am threatened with having my posts deleted.
    Of course, no such standard will be held for a single Conservative, will it? For Conservatives the standard is always DIFFERENT.

    ReplyReply
  16. ChrisG says: 14

    Or is it DIFFERENT when a Conservative does it?

    Like that statement is not a predictable farce from Steve,,,

    can you prove that, from a source that is not NewsMax or some other (mostly Right-wing) Clinton-hating outlet?

    I was not aware that you had censorship control over what sources can and cannot be used Comrade…. I will ensure that I only use Pravda, mediamatters, theocracywatch, and other leftist/DNC approved sources of (mis)information from now on…..

    ReplyReply
  17. stix1972 says: 15

    Tell me why in the world a feminist would stay with a man that will sleep around wtih anything that walks in front of him.
    If you actually think Bill and Hillary love eahc other, man you nend to wake up.

    they waited until they got who they wanted for the nominee. Why do you think they endorsed a man that they were going to smear later. It doen;t take a rocket scieitist to see that.

    yes the standard is always much higher. the leader of the NY Slimes had an affair and got his girlfriend pregnant. That has a little bit of eveidence. The story they put out has no evidence at all. look at the interviewwith Weaver at Wapo and see whatit was all abou. It had nothing to do with sexaul intentions or anything. The lobbyist was using Mcacin’s name too much to get stuff for herself.

    If you believe that the MSMis not Liberal, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for you to buy.

    As I pointed ot before. Newt’s, McCain’s earlier divoreces were appalling, especailly Newt’s. But McCain’s was almost as bad.

    You hav no idea waht conservatives think. Do not get you veiws on conservatives from theDUmmies or Koskids. Not all of us are Bible thumping hillbillies that walk around with our knuckles dragging onthe ground. We do think for ourselves and if someone divorces, it is not going to make me think thatthey are not able to run the country.

    And on why bring in Billary. Wasn’t it the Liberals that said if Bill wanted to get a hummer in the Oval Office, it was no ones business. I guess it is a different standard if you have an R after your name.

    ReplyReply
  18. jainphx says: 16

    Wait a minute. I’m a” bible thumper” but I’m not asking that you “thump” it. Just don’t try to make me Have to live by your rules. I’m not asking you not to be Homosexual, just don’t ask me to condone it. Do what you want. You all make the belief in our LORD to be some how wrong, live your life, just leave me out of it.

    ReplyReply
  19. jainphx says: 17

    And by the way my knuckles don’t drag on the ground. I walk up right and proud.

    ReplyReply
  20. Stix says: 18

    Sorry I didn’t ant to offend the Bible Thumpers. I was trying to make a point to Steve.
    Yes, we don’t want divorce. But being divorced does not mean that you are a bad person, unless like Britney or any of the people in LALA land that get married and divorce the next day or week and then go on to the next person. Sometimes marriages just don’t work and it is not the end of the world if you get a divorce. It is better to get out of a marriage that is not working than to make your life a living hell.

    If you ask Fred Thompson’s ex, she still loves him and thinks he is a great guy still to this day. So watch out who you go throwing you diversion tactics on.

    ReplyReply
  21. Philadelphia Steve says: 19

    Re: “Tell me why in the world a feminist would stay with a man that will sleep around wtih anything that walks in front of him.”

    So the Family Values party prefers divorce?

    RE: “Like that statement is not a predictable farce from Steve,,,”

    it was not a farce. However it was predictable considering that, for Conservatives on this site, no standards are held for thier conduct.

    Re: “I was not aware that you had censorship control over what sources can and cannot be used Comrade…. ”

    No. I was just asking for your source. You did not cite any.

    Re: “You hav no idea waht conservatives think. ”

    I judge by what you say here.

    Re: “And on why bring in Billary. Wasn’t it the Liberals that said if Bill wanted to get a hummer in the Oval Office, it was no ones business. I guess it is a different standard if you have an R after your name.”

    A standard that Conservatives do not appear to honor, since you all consider it a failure that Bill and Hillary Clinton tried to heal their marriage, rather than taking the Family Values Republican route of just getting a divorce.

    Second, if I recall, the article was alleging that John McCain was showing favoritism toward the woman with whom he was having an affair (all alleged, I will add). Sort of like the situation with Saint Rudi Guiliani, another Family Values Republican. If that is the case, then it is public business.

    Re: “Sometimes marriages just don’t work and it is not the end of the world if you get a divorce. ”

    But you appear to hold it against theClintons that they did NOT get a divorce, like all good Family Value Conservatives.

    ReplyReply
  22. Stix says: 20

    Steve yu are just going around in circles trying to make it look like the Farce that is the Clinton marriage is a good thing.

    Sorry but i like to think for myself and not what others have to say. If you look at their marriage how can anyone tell me that it is nothing but a farce. he sleeps around all the time and has had many females accuse him of sexual abuse. Then he sends Hillary after them. That sounds like love to me, or maybe they are just swingers. Who knows?? Maybe they do love each other, very strange way of showing it though. And I am not mad that they are together still, just a little confused by her “Standing by her Man”.

    oh well, enough of feeding the troll.

    ReplyReply
  23. Philadelphia Steve says: 21

    Re: “Steve yu are just going around in circles trying to make it look like the Farce that is the Clinton marriage is a good thing.”

    Despite problems, they have managed to keep their marriage together. Isn’t that what Family Value Conservatives believe in? Don’t you believe that couples should try to stay together, if they can?

    Re: “And I am not mad that they are together still, just a little confused by her “Standing by her Man”.”

    Maybe they still love each other? Or does The Party not permit Conservatives to believe that?

    And wasn’t this thread about the allegations of an affair and favoritism on the part of John McCain? Or is that not revelant since it was Conservatives that went off topic?

    ReplyReply
  24. jainphx says: 22

    Stix- My bad no apology needed, just a little upset the way things are working out.

    ReplyReply
  25. Pingback: The Baltimore Reporter

  26. CentFla says: 23

    I am curous why none of the “Conservatives” on this site have not recognized that McCain has handled this ridiculous and baseless claim with relative calm.

    For years and years the pictures of McCain with a vein bulging in his neck or a scowl on his face have been trumpted as proof that he is mentally unstable.

    This stupid trash from the Times is working to bolster support for McCain to the level that even Rush has come to his defense. Thank you Mr. Keller!

    ReplyReply
  27. Philadelphia Steve says: 24

    I ageee with that assesent of John McCain’s reaction.

    As always, the NYTimes is its own worst enemy.

    ReplyReply
  28. Scott says: 25

    ROFL, So Hillary was on the Today Show this morning, was asked to comment on the BS article about McCain, and…guess what….she didn’t dare comment. ‘John’s a friend of mine, and I don’t want to comment about it.’

    Sorry Steve. You’re on the wrong side of the truth once again.

    ReplyReply
  29. Philadelphia Steve says: 26

    Re: “Sorry Steve. You’re on the wrong side of the truth once again.”

    ??????

    Senator Clinton did not comment about the allegations because (IMO) that is the right thing to say, given that they are just allegations. Besides, I do not recall anywhere in this thread making any prediction, one way or the other, about what she would or would not say.

    My points regarding the story about John McCain as it relates to Senator Hillary Clinton are two:
    > When confronted with her husband’s infidelity, they went through counseling and kept their marriage together. This is something that Conservatives would normally encourage. In fact the “Family Values” Party insists that keeping a marriage together is paramount. Except, of course when it comes to the Clintons, in which case Conservatives are aghast that they did not divorce, just like John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Rudi Guiliani, Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole. (By the way, Democratic politicians do get divorced as well, I do not wish to paint Democrats as in any way “Holier than Thou” – That is a Republican perogative).

    > The thread was about the John McCain story. Launching into a “Let’s hate Hillary” line was off-topic. Had I gone off topic, I would have been threatened with having my posts deleted (and have had them deleted in the past). But, of course, this being a “Conservative Site”, “Hate Hillary” is ALWAYS on topic, because Conservatives appear to thrive on that hate. So, naturally, none of the moderators who would normally be posting “off topic” warnings said one single warning about it. And none of them ever will.

    ReplyReply
  30. Scott says: 27

    Aww Steve, that was a GREAT post with some of your best spin ever…then you had to ruin it with that faux caveat,

    “(By the way, Democratic politicians do get divorced as well, I do not wish to paint Democrats as in any way “Holier than Thou” – That is a Republican perogative).”

    Yeah, right. If your statement were true, then there’d be an equal or greater amount of comment about Democrats/Republicans rather than all Republican and a caveat about Dems. So sad.

    Point remains, I said that I didn’t think Hillary would dare comment on the allegations of infidelity or corruption, and I was right. She didn’t. My guess would be because she has millions of pages of scandal investigation to herself, and is still awaiting the sentencing from the 3 judge panel on her penalty for the worst Senate financing scandal ever. Lucky for her 2 of the judges were appointed by her husband, and they likely won’t post a verdict until replaced by the next president.

    Too bad you tried to go the faux bi-partisan route Steve. I applaud the sentiment, but if you mean it, you’d demonstrate it instead of just toss in a weak caveat. C’mon man, you’re alllllllmost there. Just for fun, see if you can make a post that attacks both sides as equally as you claim they deserve. You can do it!

    ReplyReply
  31. Philadelphia Steve says: 28

    But isn’t this thread about John McCain?

    ReplyReply
  32. Buzz says: 29

    And since when has a thread topic ever stopped you from going off on one of your hatefilled moronic rants before steve?

    ReplyReply
  33. Scott says: 30

    No Steve. It’s about John McCain, and it’s about the allegations of infidelity+improper ethics

    ReplyReply
  34. Philadelphia Steve says: 31

    My statment:
    But isn’t this thread about John McCain?

    Scott’s reply:
    No Steve. It’s about John McCain, and it’s about the allegations of infidelity+improper ethics

    ???????

    ReplyReply
  35. Scott says: 32

    Steve, it’s about A and B = (A+B)

    Besides, even the NYT editor thinks it was BS. The only person who seems to find substance and value to the front page gossip column was Dan Rather

    ReplyReply
  36. Philadelphia Steve says: 33

    Re: “Steve, it’s about A and B = (A+B)”

    Got it. I made the assumption that it was the combination of those two. However your statement was, indeed, more precice.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site