McCain Camp Denies Any Unethical Conduct
The McCain camp has released a lengthy memo seeking to dispel any notion that John McCain acted improperly in writing to the FCC on behalf of Vicki Iseman's lobbying clients.
The memo says that McCain's work was consistent with his overall legislative record, continuing up to this day: "McCain has introduced some form of the legislation promoting the expansion of low power FM radio stations in the 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congressional sessions to show his continued support of media ownership diversity."
The full memo is available after the jump.
The New York Times article states, “A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.”Local Marketing Agreements (Glencairn)
No representative of Glencairn or Alcalde and Fay, met with Senator McCain in 1998 to discuss the issue of local marketing agreements (LMAs). On July 20, 1999, Senator McCain met with Eddie Edwards, the head of Glencairn, regarding LMAs and minority media ownership issues. This meeting was several months after Senator McCain had weighed in at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its expected December 1998 decision on media ownership rules. There were no other meetings in 1999 between any representative of Alcalde and Fay and Senator McCain regarding the issue of LMAs.
Senator McCain’s Commerce Committee staff recalls meeting at least once with representatives of Alcalde and Fay concerning the issue of LMAs. The staff also recalls meeting with many other representatives of media companies, as well as groups advocating for consumer and public interests, regarding the issue of LMAs during the time the FCC was considering the issue.
As to the December 1998 letters and the February 1999 letter, those letters were not written in support of any one party or in favor of a particular interest. Those letters were simply written by Senator McCain as the Chairman of the committee that oversees the FCC to express his opinion that the agency should not act in a manner contradictory to Congressional intent. In both his December 1, 1998 letter and his December 7, 1998 letter, Senator McCain makes clear that Section 202(h) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act unambiguously directs the FCC to review its media ownership rules every two years with an “eye to lessening them, not increasing them.” Additionally, the letters quote from the 1996 Telecommunications Act and its report language, as well as language from the 1997 Budget Reconciliation Act. The letters do not express an opinion on the merits of LMAs, but strongly encourages the FCC to recognize the “clear language” in the statute.
Hundreds of other interested individuals commented on the LMA proceeding, including over a dozen members of Congress from both parties during December 1998 who were also concerned that the FCC would circumvent Congress’ intent. In addition to Senator McCain, Chairman Tauzin of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also stated that the Commission’s failure to act in a manner consistent with the statutory language set forth in the Act would likely result in a review by Congress of the FCC’s function and structure.
Tax Certificates To Encourage Minority Ownership In Broadcasting
When Commissioner Michael Powell was appointed to the FCC in 1998, he spoke with Senator McCain, then Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, about establishing a program that would encourage minority ownership for communications companies, but prevent the rampant abuse that was found in a previous program that the Congress voted to terminate in 1995. McCain and Powell began working in 1999 with the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, the Minority Media and Telecommunication Council, and other minority groups.
That fall, Senator McCain introduced the “Telecommunications Ownership Diversification Act” and Commissioner Powell voiced his support. As the Senator explained in his introductory floor statement on October 8, 1999, he introduced this bill due to his concern that small businesses face “significant barriers in trying to enter the telecommunications industry … These barriers are even more formidable when the entrepreneur happens to be a woman or a member of a minority group, due to their historically more difficult job of obtaining needed financing.” The legislation was referred to the Senate Finance Committee because the bill amended the tax code.
The bill was supported by many broadcasters, and for this reason a group of over 30 companies formed a coalition to lobby on behalf of the bill, which included several of Alcalde and Fay’s clients. The coalition included the major broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, as well as the National Associations of Broadcasters. Other members included the Minority Media and Telecommunication Council, National Asian American Telecommunications Association, National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, National Council of Churches, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, National Hispanic Media Coalition, National Indian Telecommunications Institute and National Urban League.
Senator McCain reintroduced the bill in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congressional sessions, but it has never been considered by the Finance Committee. It should also be noted that Senator McCain along with Senator Gordon Smith have been working to reintroduce this legislation during the 110th Congressional session, as Senator Smith announced during a Senate Commerce hearing.
Additionally, Senator McCain has continued to introduce a bill to promote more small community radio broadcasters, some of which may be minorities. Senator McCain has introduced some form of the legislation promoting the expansion of low power FM radio stations in the 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congressional sessions to show his continued support of media ownership diversity.
Facts With Respect To Letters To The FCC (November 17 And December 10, 1999)
No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay discussed with Senator McCain the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeding regarding the transfer of Pittsburgh public television station (WQED) to Cornerstone Broadcasting and Cornerstone Broadcasting’s television station (WPCB) to Paxson. No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding.
Senator McCain was actively engaged in a presidential campaign in 1999-2000, and according his calendar, the last day he conducted business in the Senate was November 8, 1999, and was frequently absent from the Senate prior to that date. He returned to the Senate the night of November 19, 1999 for one hour to participate in a budget vote, and the Senate adjourned shortly thereafter on November 22, 1999. Between November 22, 1999 and Christmas, the Senator did not return to the Senate for any substantive meetings as he was involved in a national book tour and a presidential campaign.
Senator McCain’s Commerce Committee staff recalls meeting with representatives of Alcalde and Fay concerning the FCC’s failure to act on the transfer application. Staff also met with public broadcasting activists from the Pittsburgh area about the transfer application. While the two parties differed in their desired outcome from the FCC, both parties expressed to staff members their frustration that the proceeding had been before the FCC for over two years. Both parties asked the staff to contact the FCC regarding the proceeding. Senator McCain’s personal staff did not meet with any parties regarding this transfer.
While neither the Senator nor his Staff agreed to take, nor did they ever take, a position on the proposed transfer, Committee Staff did agree to draft a letter from Senator McCain to FCC Chairman Bill Kennard, dated November 17, 1999 that began, “I write today to express my concern about the Commission’s continuing failure to act on the pending applications for assignment of the licenses of WQEX(TV) and WPCB(TV), Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.” The letter did not call for the Commission to resolve the matter in favor of either party, and specifically stated, “This letter is not written to secure a favorable resolution for any party on any substantive issue pending before the Commission. Please treat this letter in full compliance with all applicable, legal, ethical, and procedural rules.” Clearly, the purpose of the letter was to request action on the transfer application, not to promote a resolution favorable to a particular applicant.
When the Senator received no response from Chairman Kennard, the Senator’s Committee Staff drafted and sent a letter on December 10, 1999 to the other four members of the Commission and attached the original letter Senator McCain sent to Chairman Kennard. Senator McCain explained to the four Commissioners that he had received no response from Kennard’s office and therefore he was bringing the matter to the attention of the remaining four Commissioners. The letter stated, “The sole purpose of this request is to secure final action on a matter that has now been pending for over two years. I emphasize that my purpose is not to suggest in any way how you should vote – merely that you vote.” (Italics used in original letter.)
During this time, the average time for the FCC to decide a broadcast license transfer was 418 days. Senator McCain wrote the Commission after the parties had waited over 800 days for a decision and again, did not request the FCC to decide the transfer in favor of Paxson or any party. Several other legislators were interested in this proceeding, especially Congressmen Oxley, Stearns, Pickering and Largent who also wrote the FCC regarding the proceeding. Additionally, the FCC’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 99-393) for this proceeding states that some Congressmen had threatened to offer legislation regarding the transfer application.















Two articles on the favor that McCain did for Paxson at the time the relationship was going on:
Boston Globe McCain pressed FCC in case involving major contributor
New York Times 1-6-2000 McCain urged F.C.C. Action on Issue Involving Supporter
Basically McCain wrote a letter pressuring the FCC to make a decision on a pending 3-way license swap between a PBS station, a (far-right) Christian Broadcaster, and Paxson Communitcations. The FCC then approved the swap, but ironically snuck in a poison pill that would have limited the Christian broadcaster (Cornerstone) from proselytizing mor ethan 50% of the time if they used the license reserved for an educational channel. As a result, Cornerstone pulled out of the deal.
February 21, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Now, I want you to listen...I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Iseman."
February 21, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did he wag his finger as well?
February 21, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, the straight talk express is fueled by a little blue pill?
February 21, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I watched the press conference this morning and then flipped between CNN and MSNBC for the post-press analysis. Unbelievable - the very same pundits that took EVERY single allegation printed in the NY Times during Whitewater (almost all of which were based on "unnamed sources") as gospel truth are now railing against the very same thing. The rank hypocrisy of both the Republican party and the MSM is mind-blowing. Pat Buchanan is on a rampage against the "liberal" rag, and only Chris Matthews (believe it or not) is trying to be at least a little bit impartial and objective. Even David Gregory is getting into the "trash the NY Times" act. God, it's absolutely disgusting to watch these idiots.
February 21, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are so disgusting. Keith Obermann is the only person I can stomach in MSM. Today is just crap, I had to turn it off. PS: Is it just me or does Cindy McCain look like a robot trophy wife on these interviews?
February 21, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not interesting in this memo really, I'll be waiting today whether someone would ask cindy mccain if
1.she's still proud of her country.
2.she won't joint the lynching party unless there is a evidence that michelle obama has anything to do with NY time report?
February 21, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best possible thing for Dems would be for this to drag out long enough to allow St. John to get the nomination then have it blow up in his face. Even if it doesn't blow up, the steady drip drip drip of denial will suck the energy out of his campaign.
February 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What energy? He's a dead man walking concerning his non-campaign.
February 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I'm a committed, unabashed Democrat. Let me just say, though--if this were John Solomon writing about Hillary or Obama, how would we be reacting? In that case, we just assume it's a reporter with an ideological ax to grind. Here, we assume there's more to the story that, in Josh's words, got "lawyered out"?
February 21, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Solomon's stories give off an acrid smell of "no there there" and, indeed, usually contain a frank admission buried somewhere deep in the story that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the subject of the story.
This one, on the other hand, gives off a smell of "are you people crazy? Do you really want New York Times v. Sullivan reconsidered by this Supreme Court? No? Well then, does anybody have a red pen handy?"
Sorry to go all inarticulable Potter Stewart test on you.
That said, my take on it was he was steadily drifting into an inappropriate relationship with her and his aides put the kibosh on it before it was too late. He would hardly be the first married person in history to find himself in that situtaiton, but the difference is that he was clearly doing her favors with the government while the drifting was going on.
That said, my days of reading Anonymous Lobbyist over at Wonkette--a guilty pleasure I gave up last winter for no apparent reason--make me question whether the attraction was truly reciprocated.
February 21, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I did not have fix regulations with that woman, Ms. Iseman"
Senator John Without Stain McCain.
February 21, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
i read that NYT piece, and i think there is more to this story that they didnt report...Considering JM's press conference this morning, basically calling into credibility the NYT's piece i wont be suprise if they report some more meat tomorrow...
On another note, this is good news for the Clinton camp...they are not being mentioned negatively in the news cycle especially about the news today that her campaign was $7 million in debt at the end of Jan...HRC camp is breathing a sigh of relief...
February 21, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The clintons were 7 mill in the hole at the end of january? Wow, do you have a link? Maybe that's why the clintons' times ran the story.
February 21, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
January yields debt for HRC, cash for Obama
February 21, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think it is good news for the Clintons. Most of the Media will toss in references to Bill and Monica in there reports on John McCain denial. That will remind people again about Bill's past behavior. I do not see an upside for the Clinton in this McCain scandel.
February 21, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I Completely agree.
The story does two things:
1. Freezes out any different narrative that Clinton would want to push. There's just no airspace available for that. Result: Obama's momentum continues/Clinton's downward momentum continues
2. Reminds people of infidelity back in the Bill Clinton white house.
February 21, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since Cindy McCain decided that she wanted to tell us about how she has always been very proud of her country, then we should now ask, should her country be proud of Cindy. Read the following report from Salon laying out Cindy McCains' sordid past.
salon.com > News Oct. 18, 1999
URL: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs
How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction
When an attempt to get tough with a whistleblower backfired in 1994, the McCain spin machine went into overdrive, and the candidate's wife confessed to problems the media was already poised to reveal.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Amy Silverman
GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.
It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.
It was also vintage McCain media manipulation.
I had d�j� vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.
I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The local press cooed over her hard-luck story. One of the four journalists spoon-fed the story -- Doug McEachern, then a reporter for Tribune Newspapers, now a columnist with the Arizona Republic (and, it must be added, normally much more acerbic) -- wrote this rather typical lead:
"She was blonde and beautiful. A rich man's daughter who became a politically powerful man's wife. She had it all, including an insidious addiction to drugs that sapped the beauty from her life like a spider on a butterfly."
What McEachern and the others didn't know was that, far from being a simple, honest admission designed to clear her conscience and help other addicts, Cindy McCain's storytelling had been orchestrated by Jay Smith, then John McCain's Washington campaign media advisor. And it was intended to divert attention from a different story, a story that was getting quite messy.
I know, because I had been working on that story for months at Phoenix New Times. I had finally tracked down the public records that confirmed Cindy McCain's addiction and much more, and the McCains knew I was about to get them. Cindy's tale was released on the day the records were made public.
But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts. The irony is that Cindy's secret would have stayed secret if John McCain's heavy-hitting lawyer, John Dowd (of D.C.'s Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; his most recent claim to fame was serving as co-counsel for fellow partner Vernon Jordan during impeachment) hadn't heavy-handedly pulled out all the stops to protect the McCain family.
Dowd tried to get back at the man on Cindy McCain's staff, Tom Gosinski, who had blown the whistle on her drug pilfering to the DEA. But in the course of trying to get local law enforcement officials to investigate Gosinski -- Dowd and the McCains considered him an extortionist; others might call him a whistleblower -- Dowd set in motion a process that would eventually bring the whole sordid story to light. When that maneuver backfired, the McCain media machine went into overdrive to spin the story.
It's a story of unintended consequences. It's also a story of power politics and media manipulation that's very un-McCain-like -- if you believe his national media hagiography.
But both of Cindy McCain's staged, teary drug-addiction confessions have been vintage John McCain. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want.
McCain did it with the Keating Five, and with the story of the failure of his first marriage (Cindy is his second wife). So what you recall after the humble, honest interview, is not that McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, but instead what an upfront, righteous guy he is.
Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished. John McCain shoots from the hip -- but only after carefully rehearsing the battle plan, to be sure he won't get shot himself.
This is the story of a time that strategy backfired, and yet the McCain machine still managed to contain the damage.
In the early 1990s, Tom Gosinski was the director of government and international affairs for the American Voluntary Medical Team, which did relief and medical volunteer work in third world countries.
Hired by Cindy McCain in 1991, Gosinski enjoyed his job, but he began to notice McCain's erratic behavior in the summer of 1992. In his journal, he wrote that he and others suspected the boss was addicted to painkillers and might have been stealing them from the organization.
From Gosinski's journal, July 27, 1992:
I have always wondered why John McCain has done nothing to fix the problem. He must either not see that a problem exists or ... not choose to do anything about it. It would seem that it would be in everyone's best interest to come to terms with the situation. And do whatever is necessary to fix it. There is so much at risk: The welfare of the children; John's political career; the integrity of Hensley & Company [Cindy's parents' business]; the welfare of Jim and Smitty Hensley [Cindy's parents]; and the health and happiness of Cindy McCain.
The aforementioned matters are of great concern to those directly involved but my main concern is the ability of AVMT to survive a major shake-up. If the DEA were to ever conduct an audit of AVMT's inventory, I am afraid of what the results might be ... It is because of [Cindy McCain's] willingness to jeopardize the credibility of those who work for her that I truly worry.
During my short tenure at AVMT I have been surrounded by what on the surface appears to be the ultimate all-American family. In reality, I am working for a very sad, lonely woman whose marriage of convenience to a U.S. Senator has driven her to: distance herself from friends; cover feelings of despair with drugs; and replace lonely moments with self-indulgences.
In his journal-writing over the next few months, Gosinski would alternately complain about Cindy McCain and express concern for her well-being.
In January 1993, McCain fired Gosinski. She told him that AVMT was having financial problems and couldn't afford him.
Gosinski had already come to suspect that Cindy McCain had gotten volunteer doctors with AVMT to sign prescriptions for her, and had used employees' names to fill them. Worried his own name had been used (he would eventually learn that it had), Gosinski approached DEA agents in the spring of 1993 to report McCain's suspicious behavior. The DEA launched an investigation.
Almost a year later, with the statute of limitations about to run out, Gosinski hired a labor attorney and sued Cindy McCain for wrongful termination. He intended to claim that she fired him because she suspected he knew about her addiction, but the lawsuit never got that far. Instead, Gosinski's attorney wrote to the McCains, asking for a settlement of $250,000.
Rumors about the untold details of the lawsuit hit the cocktail-party circuit that spring, but the story was locked up tight. As a federal criminal investigation, the DEA probe was completely secret; none of it was public record.
The entire story would likely have gone unreported if attorney John Dowd hadn't entered the picture. He wrote to Maricopa County attorney Richard Romley, a political ally of McCain, and asked him to investigate Gosinski for extortion.
"We believe that Mr. Gosinski is aware that in the past Cindy had an addiction to prescription painkillers ... Given Cindy's public position, exposure of this sensitive matter would harm her reputation, career, the operation of AVMT, and subject her to contempt and ridicule," Dowd wrote on April 28, 1994.
Thus began the inadvertent outing of Cindy McCain. Although the federal investigative materials were not public, the county investigative materials were. Romley launched an investigation, and one of the first things his people did, naturally, was ask the feds to turn over their investigative materials.
New Times finally got hold of the county investigative materials and we did our own story. So did the Arizona Republic, which was uncharacteristically aggressive, perhaps because the McCain machine had left the paper out of the loop on the story of Cindy's addiction.
Among the questions asked: Did Cindy McCain get preferential treatment by the feds? True, Cindy was a first-time offender, which partially explains the fact that she did no prison time; instead, she entered a diversion program. But at the time, defense lawyers told New Times that if Cindy McCain had been a poor minority and not married to a U.S. senator, she likely would have been locked up.
Did Gosinski intend to blackmail Cindy McCain? He told New Times he didn't. Other AVMT employees told county investigators that he did. But the time line makes extortion hard to believe, since Gosinski had already gone to the DEA before he brought his lawsuit against the McCains.
In any case, Tom Gosinski didn't out Cindy McCain. John Dowd did, and then Jay Smith was called in for the clean-up.
A few postscripts: Tom Gosinski left town shortly after Cindy McCain's story broke. By that time, his lawsuit had died, ignored. The county did not pursue the extortion investigation against him.
John Max Johnson, the doctor who had written the prescriptions for Cindy McCain, surrendered his medical license.
Cindy McCain still does relief work and raises the McCains' four children.
John McCain, of course, is running for president.
And only a handful of people remember the details of Cindy McCain's 1994 "outing" for drug addiction and drug pilfering, and the work of the McCain machine to protect her.
salon.com | Oct. 18, 1999
February 21, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
BREAKING NEWS!
Obama wins the Democrats Abroad Primary! Woo!!
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26914871
February 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
politico is reporting the HRC debt of 7 million dollars last month
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8613.html
February 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am totally calling Genghis's post on candidates at the bar prescient.
February 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn HTML. Well, you know the one.
February 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been listening to morning radio shows, they easily start talking about if this is going to be ' monica' for mccain. this is no good for clintons. I bet you it is a matter of time for some right-wing nut to ask clintons whether it is going to be another deadly scandal like "bill's I-did-not-have-a-relationship-with-that-woman" moment.
February 21, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously the proHRC NYTimes ran this smear job on McCain because:
1) the Times knows that HRC can't possibly beat Obama for the nomination, and
2) the NYTimes would prefer to see the corrupt McCain (a ClintonClone if ever there was one) as next President rather than Obama, and
3) their faux "sex scandal" on McCain is guaranfuckinteed to stir up the WingNut base (who otherwise despise Walnuts) to rally round McCain and come to his defense against the "liberal" NYT.
This is just another part of the media elite's program to do whatever it takes to bring down Obama, steal the relection, deny the people's will, and silence the masses' united voice.
We are Spartans!
February 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get back on your Meds.
February 21, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah well prove that isn't why the Times ran with the story.
Death To The Fascist Insect That Preys On The Life Of The People!
February 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times violated its own policy on anonymous sources in today’s front page article about John McCain. The core of the story was based on two unidentified former staffers who spoke on “the condition of anonymity.” The article only noted that the anonymous ex-staffers claimed to be “disillusioned.”
Bill Keller laid out the NYT policy on anonymous sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/business/media/14asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all
“We do all we can to inform the readers about the reliability and motives of the unnamed source.”
Except in this case. We know nothing about why they sought and were given anonymity. We know nothing about their reliability or motives. We do not know whether they were fired, associates of Coulter or McCain's political enemies, or otherwise biased.
February 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tucker just said on MSNBC "btw, someone from the McCain campaign told me that "there couldn't be a better time for this story to come out than right now." Really? Why would someone from the McCain campaign say that - if they thought the story wasn't true?
There would never be a good time for a false story to come out! never!
February 21, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, for what its worth, its better for mccain that it came out now as opposed to one week before the election in november. Get it out and people become insulated to the issue and eventually the interest dies down. One week before the election and people would be speculating all over the place.
I can only imagine all the bombs going off in october on the clintons and the dems if she winds up being the nominee. However, the way its looking we won't have to worry about that.
February 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
From today's Washington Post article:
"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."
February 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one ever brags to their peers. No, that would be unseemly for a Washington lobbyist.
February 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anatomy of a Smear
In the introduction, the article asserts that unnamed staffers were “convinced that the relationship had become romantic.” But the body of the article does not say anyone was “convinced.” The body of the article asserts that, according to anonymous sources, “some of the Senator’s [unnamed] advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.” So the Times lede and its most sensational claim – that staff was “convinced” of a romantic link – finds no support in the article.
The NYT also misused the Weaver quote. After asserting the alleged concern about a “romantic” link (and the staffers decision to “intervene”), the NYT next addressed the separate meeting between Weaver and Iseman at Union Station. The reader is left with the impression that Weaver intervened because of concern about the romantic link; however, it takes a close reading, and later clarification by Weaver, to see that his concern had nothing to do with any alleged romantic leak. Weaver’s concern was that she was claiming “strong ties” with the Senator’s office that did not exist Weaver was doing what he was supposed to do – privately act to protect the campaign from false claims of influence. The NYT did not point out the real reason for Weaver’s action.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/john_weaver_on_the_record.php
February 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam wrote: "
Since Cindy McCain decided that she wanted to tell us about how she has always been very proud of her country, then we should now ask, should her country be proud of Cindy. Read the following report from Salon laying out Cindy McCains' sordid past.
Going after his wife now? Guess this makes Michelle fair game. It'll be interesting to see what comes out now since YOU opened the door on this. (You sure you're an Obama supporter?)
Hmm. And somehow I just don't think this rises to the level or should I say sinks to the same level of - a candidate who smoked crack while receiving homosexual, oral "favors" by another man, in the back seat of a limo - kind-of-cheating, all while married to his then wife, Michelle.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626
Like I said, those who live in glass houses (or support those who live in glass houses) shouldn't be throwing rocks...
February 21, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink