*

*
Politics Extra
Enquirer reporters give the scoop on what your politicians are doing


Jessica Brown,
Hamilton County reporter


Jon Craig,
Enquirer statehouse bureau


Jane Prendergast,
Cincinnati City Hall reporter


Malia Rulon,
Enquirer Washington bureau


Carl Weiser,
Blog editor


Howard Wilkinson,
politics reporter

Powered by Blogger

Thursday, February 21, 2008

McCain, in Toledo, says Times article 'not true.'


Blog readers. What do you think?

From the Associated Press

TOLEDO – John McCain denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist on Thursday and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is “not true.”

“I’m very disappointed in the article. It’s not true,” the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood alongside him during a news conference called to address the matter.

McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.

Read more here


23 Comments:

at 9:38 AM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you mean what do I think about the rumored romantic relationship, I don't care about it one bit. I didn't care about Clinton's affairs and I wouldn't care if McCain did it.

Whether he conducted activity on her behalf and therefore abused his position as a Senator, that is more serious. I doubt that is the case, but if it is true, it would suggest a sort of Washington cronyism that McCain has held himself to be above.

 
at 10:03 AM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The NYT endorsed McCain earlier in this election cycle and has been sniffing around this "story" for months. Now that McCain is 99% certain to be the GOP nominee the paper brings this story out on the front page. The timing is true to form. The NYT is a faint shadow of its former commanding self. It's a liberal hack paper, and its reporters have based this "story" on anonymous sources and "former staffers." Phooey. The story is a smear job of first magnitude. Liberal rags such as the NYT and the "Dayton Daily Worker" are poor representatives of the Fourth Estate. It's no wonder circulation numbers and corporate profits are sinking fast. I suspect the Cincinnati Enquirer to continue that general downward trend in printed media as well. Objective journalism appears to have disappeared along with the buggy whip, the transistor and patriotic movie stars.

 
at 10:28 AM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The wheels have fallen off of the 'Straight Talk Express'. McCain is just another typical crooked GOP hypocrite.

A vote for McCain is a vote for a 3rd Bush term.

 
at 10:52 AM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the Enquirer only report what is already reported in other papers??Do they have reporters? Or do they only gather news from TV, & other papers??
If what the NEW York Times reports is really objective NEWS... why not also report the news from the National Enquirer, Globe, or other "grocery store checkout" type paperss!!!

 
at 11:17 AM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a conservative who was going to stay at home in November. Now I've changed my mind thanks to the NYT. I'll be voting for McCain and volunteering as much of my time as I can.

 
at 11:22 AM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Washington Posted Reported on this last December:

McCain Says Allegations That He Did Favors for D.C. Lobbyist Are Untrue
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 21, 2007; A05


Sen. John McCain said yesterday that he has "never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special interest group," as his presidential campaign issued a statement denouncing allegations of legislative favoritism as "gutter politics."

The Arizona Republican has hired a prominent Washington criminal attorney, Robert Bennett, to deal with the matter. "What is being done to John McCain is an outrage," Bennett said in an interview.

Bennett said he sent prepared answers yesterday to written questions submitted by New York Times reporters who have spent weeks investigating questions about whether the senator did favors for a Washington lobbyist or her clients. She has also retained a lawyer, according to a knowledgeable source who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing legal matters.

McCain called Times Executive Editor Bill Keller this month to deny the allegations and to complain that he was not being treated fairly by the Times reporters, who had not yet interviewed him, the source said.

The Times inquiry burst into public view when the Drudge Report Web site posted an item about the newspaper's probe. Keller did not respond to a request to comment.

-snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122001356_pf.html

Speaking to reporters in Detroit, McCain confirmed the Times inquiry, adding: "I do find the timing of this whole issue very interesting. And we're not going to stand for what happened to us in 2000. We're getting close to the primary," he said, referring to the Jan. 8 contest in New Hampshire.

 
at 11:51 AM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

And "The New York Times" wonders why their circulation keeps dropping like a rock.. Didn't they just fire 100 reporters?

 
at 12:14 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

the NYT stands by their story saying everything's been checked and doublechecked for accuracy...this from the paper that employed Jayson Blair.

 
at 12:26 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

.

The, swift boat, wRong wingnut whackos were correct: The shell-shocked water-board surfer can't remember 'schmidt' !

Perhaps, he is trying to be like his war-monger buddy, Reagan ?

Unstable, unstable, unstable !

PATHETIC 'family values' !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE CLINTON 2008 !

 
at 12:31 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous less jobs more wars said...

if the nyt had run this story when it first broke, mccain would be on the sidelines and romney would be the candidate. seems that somebody from mcvains campaign lobbied real hard to bury the story.

its amazing how the neocon bedwetters are trying to make this about the nyt and not about a person who is not fit to serve as commander in chief. he is just another corrupt republican.

who would've thought that family values means two wives and a girlfriend.

 
at 2:45 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 1226,

If your beloved "Clinton" gets the Dem nod, then the Dems lose any chance at getting the Whitehouse back.

Obama represents a Real Challenge for McCain. HRC is laughable as a broad spectrum candidate. She has a limited appeal and negatives that stem from a sordid past.

to answer your question; Yes. We have had enough. Enough of the Clinton Political machine that feeds itself only.

Be the Change!

Vote OBAMA 2008!

 
at 3:32 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notice that Anon 1226 doesn't respond.

That is because it is a BOT.

All of the political threads are getting hit by it Verbatim, all the way down to the bold/italics without caps. Check it out for yourself.

So this is what we can expect from the Hillary Political Machine. Automated, non-responsive talking heads.

Sounds pretty status-quo to me!

We have HAD ENOUGH of the Clintons!

Vote OBAMA 2008!

 
at 3:44 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Vicki Iseman “Steal Honor” in THREE Presidential Elections?
By: emptywheel Thursday February 21, 2008 9:16 am
John McCain denies any honor was stolen--neither his nor Ms. Iseman's. Or rather, he denies "the story," though it's not clear whether he's denying that his relationship with Iseman was inappropriate or that he did favors for her. So I guess I'll leave it up to you to decide whether she stole McCain's honor in both the 2000 and 2008 presidential elections.

For the moment, though, I'm more interested in the 2004 election--the one McCain didn't run in. You see, I find it a mighty curious coincidence that two of the companies for which Iseman was lobbying John McCain in 1999 and 2000--the time of their potentially inappropriate relationship--also happen to be the two television companies that championed the Kerry smear, "Stolen Honor," in 2004.


-snip

What this Means

Iseman's role in two media corporations who did big favors for Bush, rather than McCain, actually raises more questions for me than it answers. My biggest question about this whole scandal is why this is coming out in 2008, rather than during the South Carolina campaign in 2000. If Iseman was bragging so openly about her access to McCain--and if McCain's advisors saw it as one of his big weak points in the 2000 campaign--then why didn't Karl Rove use it?

The stories about Iseman all suggest (without saying what it means) that her career took off out of nowhere, from receptionist to president's special assistant to partner all in a matter of a couple of years. And her portfolio appears to be rather different than the earmarks portfolio that the company specializes in. Is there a back story to how Iseman became a one-person media lobbyist in such a short time? (Note, I'm not suggesting that she slept her way to the top--rather, I'm suggesting she may have been tapped to play a certain role for conservative media companies and that contributed to her value to the company.)

I don't think Iseman's earlier lobbying of McCain to help these two companies expand in 1999 and 2000 means Iseman had a role in the airing of Stolen Honor. But it does suggest something about the powerful people on whose behalf Iseman was lobbying McCain.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/02/21/did-vicki-iseman-steal-honor-in-three-presidential-elections/

 
at 5:36 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

yo less jobs blah blah blah...and I take it Bill Clinton was fit to serve in your estimation,stained blue dress,unzipped fly,breast groping,and all...? of course he was.what a laugh you libs are.

 
at 7:11 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be just rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career. That's well known, I should say, except to the electorate, who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's "character" appeal.

Meanwhile, there's all this stuff that his campaign doesn't deny (because, again, it's true) about McCain's questionable ethics. He wrote "letters to government regulators on behalf of the [Iseman's] client," he "often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support," he resigned as head of a non-profit when "news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor," his Senate office and his campaign are run by corporate lobbyists, etc.

 
at 7:12 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

John McCain has a pattern of lying to and cheating on people. He cheated on his first wife with the Budweiser heiress while his wife was in the hospital with serious injuries. So much for family values!

John McCain became interested in campaign contribution reform only after he was caught taking contributions from the Savings and Loans and allowing them to screw their investors and senior citizens out of billions, then costing the U.S. taxpayer out of more than $250 billion in bailout money. So much for being Conservative.

 
at 8:56 PM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:32 - don't care enough to "check it out" but an interesting concept (Had enough is a BOT) - and the only one that makes sense to me. I used to think it was just a idiot child but you're right it doesn't respond to other posters.
Surely Hill/Bill wouldn't stoop this low?

 
at 7:25 AM, February 22, 2008 Anonymous be skeered, be very skeered said...

what does bill clinton have to do with this? oh, i get it, thats from the neocon playbook, when you run out of things to say, blame the clintons.

9-11 (blame the clintons)
economy tanking (blame the clintons)
endless war for oil (blame the clintons)
our children is learning (blame the clintons)
outing an undercover agent (blame the clintons)
no weapons of mass destruction found (blame the clintons)

 
at 11:40 AM, February 22, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barack Hussein Obama our saviour!!!

 
at 2:12 PM, February 22, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't believe this story but the press are at it again.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56958

 
at 3:34 PM, February 23, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

So it was OK for the media to go after Gary Hart and Bill Clinton, but not McCain?!? If reporters had done their jobs during Bush I and II we wouldn't be where we are today.
The McCain saga is just beginning. Take a look at all his lobbying ties including lobbyists currently working on McCain's campaign!!!

 
at 3:36 PM, February 23, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Howard Kurtz is a lightweight media critic and corporate toadie. Remember Watergate? It took months for the truth to come out....


Washington Posted Reported on this last December:

McCain Says Allegations That He Did Favors for D.C. Lobbyist Are Untrue
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 21, 2007; A05


Sen. John McCain said yesterday that he has "never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special interest group," as his presidential campaign issued a statement denouncing allegations of legislative favoritism as "gutter politics."

 
at 9:03 PM, February 23, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton to tell us how and when they plan to ask for their Attorney General or a special prosecutor invgestigate the Repugnicant party as a a corrupt organization. If so, do they believe a RICO prosecution is justified, given the illegal war and the ever-growing number of its officials at all levels coast to coast who have been convicted of various fraud and corruption crimes and sex offenses against children.

 
Post a Comment*

Links to this post:

Create a Link

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck