New York Times Takes Aim At McCain With Allegations Of Affair With Lobbyist

I don't care who he had an affair with; it's his business. Let's start talking about the real issues.

He must be taking Viagra :)

Would we expect anything less from the N.Y. Times?

Yea,I do agree w/Mary Ann.Leave it to the news reporters to get the dirty laundry aired.LOL

I've always agreed with the statement made by Mary Ann. I agreed with it when the press axed Gary Hart, I agreed with it when the Republicans impeached Clinton- in the face of over 2/3 of the citizens of this nation that disagreed with their actions, I agree with it now and will agree with it every time anyone is slammed for personal actions which have no relevance to their job performance.
Who do you think may have decided to leak this little nasty? The Dems? Doubtful. My guess is it would be the Neo-cons who would have had this dirty little secret tucked away for insurance, just in case they needed to either twist his arm or axe him someday. Regardless, it puts McCain in a very vulnerable position when dealing with the right-wingers. He's always needed to lean toward them to gain their backing. Now, he'll have to jump when they say frog. Whether he does so publicly or slimes around behind the scenes, he has to give them a lot more now than he would have had this little indiscretion not occurred...

Oh I bet Obama has plenty to worry about in his personal life as well if old buddies are dug out from the woodwork too. I don't think this kind of thing is something he would like to have become a common news item either in some tit for tat mud throwing contest by supporters of both.
Yes, I'm with Mary, lets move on to substance on issues.

Just another smear campaign from the New York Enquirer

Yea thats it, just a smear, kind like the smear on Monicas dress:)

Just more of the same character assassination that has gone on in politics for the last twenty years. We need to get away from this kind of crap.

Yea I'm convinced, Republicans wanting a cease fire on Character assassination in an election cycle where they are way behind, Did someone say KEATING FIVE?

People, I urge you all to read the article. It doesn't say he had an affair. It says that a staffer thought that maybe they were getting too friendly. And that's not the crux of the article anyway it's about influence peddling and again that is entirely unsubstantiated. I agree with EssDee. This reeks of a right wing neocon hatchet job.

I'm not going bother to myself reading the article. It's just the same politics of personal destruction as always and what's new about that? And yes I'm an Obama supporter and know opponents are going to try to swift boat Barack too.

Is that the same New York Times that thought it was wrong to say it was wrong for Bill Clinton to be questioned?

Actually, if you really read the Times article, it doesn't say he had an affair, just questions the nature of the relationship (of course, it implies it, but it doesn't state it). The bigger issue is not even the affair - that's the juicy part the media is picking up - it's whether the relationship influenced his vote on the lobbyist's behalf.

Carol: Cannot imagine what Bill Clinton has to do with this attack on McCain. My god, is there nothing that won't cause a "Bill Clinton" knee jerk reaction in the far right?

Personally I think this is a hatchet job by the extremes of the far right because they don't like him in general. This is much more a swiftboat type of strategy than anything else I can imagine though right now anyway it holds even less water. It will be interesting to see if something this weak and this unsupported finds legs.

Whatever happened, or didn't happen between McCain and the lobbyist does not concern anyone outside of his family- particularily his wife. If he is elected, I doubt he will be galavanting around at 70 something.

How many stories has the New York Times published in it's 157 year history and how many have been proven to be a purposeful or intentional smear or defamation?

You right wingers need to stop hatin'

If it was a story about Obama or Clinton, your buddies Limbaugh and Hannity would have spent all day today drooling on their mics.

And as far as Obama's experience, let me add something from another blog:

Reagan - graduated from Eureka College??? degree in economics and sociology, Actor, campaigner(spokesperson really), and then he gave a speech on Barry Goldwater's behalf called "The Time For Choosing" which launched his unexperienced career in politics where he served 2 terms as Governer and unsuccessfully ran for president in 1976.

Obama - graduated from Columbia majoring in POLITICAL SCIENCE specializing in INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, graduated from HARVARD magna cum laude, lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, elected and served 3 terms as Illinois senator and then........


Obama wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts, while still serving as a state legislator

WHICH SERVED AS A STEPPING STONE TO FURTHER HIS CAREEER IN POLITICS..

Hmmmm.....now who needs more experience to be a president?

Douglas:
Agreed. But then again personally, I don't think regan was a very great president. So.......

Mary Ann,
I do care how a person conducts his/her personal live when it can affect/indicate how they conduct themselves in the business of governing our country. If a person will break a personal trust with his/her family and risk their emotional suffering for personal pleasure, and break the law to protect his/herself from embarasssment, then why should we believe that they won;t similarly do they same when it comes to acting in the publics interests. Who are you most loyal to, who are you most willing to sacrifice for, your family or yor neighbor, or a stranger down th street? To all of the elected officals directly or indirectly acting on my behave, I am simly the stranger down the street, how about you.


Carolyn G,
If the reporter claims someone as done something then it is an editorial. A report simply reports what others say. IN this case the report suggests an affair by reporting what unnamed sources we trying to prevent or stop. IN an article supposedly about the Senator doing special favors, they were unable to identify any legislation that was creaft to help a specific person or organization. And if asking a goivernment agency to make a decision after a reasonable time (how many hundreds of days) is so special a favor than how many citizens would still be waiting for an answer. If governemet agencies aren't accountable to a Senator or a Representative then what chance do the rest of us have?

If there were no special favor, and the whole Keating story was reported indepth, why was the article written except to get in front of the public a suggestion of an affair?

You may feel, "I think this is a hatchet job by the extremes of the far right ", but it was the New York Times that printed it.

Douglas,
You may feel that an Ivy League eduction is an important quaitfication for President, but what do you think of a Yale graduate being a qualifier? I remember that Harry Truman didn't graduate from college and Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer, which was a better President?

Well Duane, you kind of made my point.

I am not a firm believer in 20+ years of experience, but, if we were to look at qualifications, Obama certainly has them.

Duane: It doesn't matter who printed it. What matters is who pushed it to the press. Think about it for a minute. Extreme right wing hatchetmen are not going to go through their own outlets and thus reveal their leanings. What better way to divert attention than through a so-called liberal outlet? This reeks of swiftboating. It's not exactly a secret that the rabid right wing of the Republican party is all but foaming at the mouth over McCain.

Now I admit I'd love to see Huckabee be the candidate. After his comments on rewriting the constitution into a Christian version of Sharia law, I would get more votes than he would in the general election, but the right wing still prefers him to McCain and I simply wouldn't put it past them to shaft McCain in a last ditch effort to get him there.

Huckabee, by the way isn't touching this with a ten foot pole. Now if the Democrats are equally as smart it will simply blow over or the paper will be forced to bring out some real evidence of wrongdoing rather than this current "somebody said that someone said, then someone else said that somebody else told a third party....." Give me a break.

Teresa: I would have thought that a month or so ago as well. McCain has not secured the nomination yet, by the way. This is the precise moment for them to strike. The so-called left wing media has no reason to go after him yet. They still have Clinton and Obama to play with. The rabid right (to differentiate them from real conservatives) hate McCain. Many have already threatened to sit the election out if he actually gets the nomination. And this sort of charge is much more the style of the right wing than the left who are less hung up on what other people might or might not be doing privately.

I do agree that the democrats probably won't be smart enough to run a campaign on issues, though that would be the best thing they could do. If they were to refrain from attacking the person and attack the positions the right wing would get the pleasure of savaging him.

The Times has no reason to go after him unless the story was fed to them from outside since they have already endorsed McCain. There is very little in the way of substantiating evidence on any of this. That's more a swiftboat or Willie Horton type smear.

McCain, last I checked, is still a hundred or so delegates short and does not have the nomination tied up though I do expect he will be the candidate.

I hadn't heard about the article before watching his rebuttal. He seemed amazingly calm and straightforward in the press conference.

This little "scandal" certainly takes the focus away from Britney.

McCain with a mistress at age 71, hmmmm. Will the pretty lobbyist have access to the oval office should McCain win the election? Will he be inclined to give her special favors because of there friendship, hmmmm.

Michael, I don't know the current lobby situation, but I believe the article in the NYT is about an event 8 or 9 years ago. Does it play into today's reality, I don't know...?

Michael: The problem is that this happened forever ago and there is no evidence of any sort she was ever his mistress or even that there was ever any misconduct of any sort. What I find really odd about this is that the NY Times is generally one of those papers that offers evidence along with the story. While you may not agree with their spin, you can always read the sources and see where its coming from.

In this particular case there is no evidence of any kind and very little in the way of real allegations. There is a huge difference between "McCain had an affair" and "staffers were afraid that the two were getting too friendly". One is reality. The other is unsubstantiated speculation. Even the staffers said they really didn't know anything and only "thought" it "might" be happening. Hell, I think I might win the lottery. I doubt my bank is going to be impressed.

The gossipy political press is always brimming with unsubstantiated rumors and wild conclusions which may have no bearing on what was really going on. Left, right, doesn't matter as long as there's an ominously juicy tale to tell. I doubt this will have any impact on those who support McCain because after all, they're electing a political figurehead, not an archbishop or a pope.

I don't trust any rumor mill articles. I wouldn't trust a story like that from the NYT and I wouldn't trust a story about Obama or Clinton from the National Review which is a thinly veiled propaganda machine of GOP neo-conservatives. And I certainly expect to see a story like this about Obama emanating from them any moment now...

What would the Democrats gain from bashing McCain with a sexual scandal? The American public was quite clear when Bill Clinton went through impeachment that they did not want personal indiscretions to affect their politics. Only the "rabid right (to differentiate them from real conservatives)" in Carolyn's words, continue to take issue with such things. And, let's face it, no one in the democratic party has any illusions of getting any of those folks to vote for Hillary or Barack...

I agree with you. We need to be concentrating on the reals issues here.

Wow I actually agree with Teresa. Let's move on. Talk about the issues. There will be plenty of swift boating as soon as Obama has been selected as the nominee.

"One thing you can say for McCain is that at least when it comes to flings (as tenuous as the "evidence" for this one is, which is very tenuous indeed), he's got better taste than Bill Clinton."

I don't know whether you realize this. sir, but that line is truly offensive not because of your obvious hatred and righteousness about Bill Clinton -- GET OVER IT -- but this smack talk against the way a woman looks -- any woman -- is absolutely DESCPICABLE.

And yet by saying:

"One thing you can say for McCain is that at least when it comes to flings (as tenuous as the "evidence" for this one is, which is very tenuous indeed)..."

You just did your part in perpetrating yellow journalism.

And just in case you missed it, The New York Times endorsed John McCain.

I don't care about the sex......all politicians have mistreses

I care about influence peddling....about un-vetted letters being written to favor her clients

Funny tho, how the right wing is so preoccupied with sex.....look at what they did to Clinton.

Get over it y'all. Look at your boy McCain's record...........from the SNL's on.

From Yahoo News, posted today: Link provided below.
Here's your family values candidate ya'all...

"As far back as September 2005, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington listed Renzi as one of the "most corrupt" members of Congress. News of Renzi's land scheme had been percolating for a long time before it finally became public in October 2006. "Many people had information on Rick Renzi and his corrupt practices in 2006, which is one reason I ran for Congress," says Ellen Simon, a civil rights lawyer who was falsely accused by McCain and others of being president of the ACLU. "At the same time this information was known, John McCain was actively supporting Renzi in the race."
Renzi narrowly defeated Simon in the fall. On November 14, 2006, McCain's political action committee, Friends of John McCain, donated $2,000 to Renzi, despite the controversy surrounding him.
The US Attorney in charge of the Renzi investigation, Paul Charlton, was later forced out of office as part of "Attorneygate." According to Charlton, DOJ officials in Washington pressured his office to delay the Renzi indictment until after his victory in November. That's exactly what ended up happening.
More recently, Renzi visited Iraq with McCain in the spring of 2007--the same trip where McCain, under the protection of 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships, famously declared that it was safe to "walk freely" through a Baghdad marketplace. "He's giving it to 'em straight," Renzi said after.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080222/cm_thenation/45289083

I'd like to know where he gets the stamina from. Oh, he's probably friends with Robert Dole who did the Viagra commercials. They're all disgusting. I don't care if he did have an affair. I'd like to send a message to the NY Times that we're on to them and this time could sink them with McCain.

What the article got at was that he abused his power for her Lobbying interests. She practically advertised herself as his pimp to the telecom industry and the New York Times provides a letter that McCain wrote to the FCC while he was the overseeing chair and they were amid a decision. In this case the FCC was deliberating on a dispute that would have turned a Public TV Station that was already in use to a Commercial Station whose interest Iseman was lobbying for. Here's the first letter and an excerpt of two replies:

ollowing are a letter dated Dec. 10, 1999, from Senator John McCain to William E. Kennard, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and excerpts from the replies of Mr. Kennard and Commissioner Gloria Tristani:

Mr. McCain's Letter
On Nov. 17, I wrote you expressing concern over the protracted pendency of the pending applications for assignment of licenses of WQEX-TV and WPCB-TV, Pittsburgh, Pa. I requested that the commission take final action on these applications at its open meeting in December, if it had not acted on them in the intention pursuant to the notation voting process. I enclose a copy of this letter for your reference.

I have in hand a copy of the public notice setting out the agenda for the commission's open meeting on Dec. 15. These applications are not listed for consideration. Nor has my public notice yet been issued indicating that the commission has taken final action on these applications pursuant to the notation voting process.

In light of these considerations, I respectfully request that each member of the commission advise me, in writing no later than close of business on Tuesday, Dec. 14, 1999, whether you have already acted upon these applications in the course of the notation voting process. If your answer to the latter question is no, please state further whether you will, or will not, be prepared to act on these applications at the open meeting on Dec. 15. If your answer to both of the proceeding questions is no, please explain why.

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. In order to assure that no oral ex parte communications on the merits of these applications take place, I will not entertain any oral responses of any kind to this letter.

This letter is not written to obtain favorable disposition of any matter on behalf of any party to any proceeding before the commission. Please treat this letter in compliance with all applicable substantive and procedural rules.

Mr. Kennard's Reply
As you know, this application raises important and very difficult policy issues. I wholeheartedly agree that prompter commission action on this matter would have been preferable.

Your letter, however, comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process as the individual commissioners finalize their views and their votes on this matter. I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending. I am concerned that inquiries concerning the individual deliberations of each commissioner could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.

Ms. Tristani's Reply
Respectfully, I cannot comply with your request. In order to preserve the integrity of our processes, it is my practice not to publicly disclose whether I have voted or when I will be voting on items in restricted proceedings prior to their adoption by the full commission.

So much for McCain being against media consolidation.

All the supposed talk of sexual misconduct is a deliberate misinformation campaign by right-wing pundits so that none of you would read the story.