UPDATE: McCain says report on lobbyist not true
John McCain emphatically 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 beside him during a news conference called to address the matter.
"I've served this nation honorably for more than half a century," said McCain, a four-term Arizona senator and former Navy pilot. "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust."
"I intend to move on," he added.
__________________
Oh goody!
Thanks to the New York Times, we get to talk about John McCain and ethical lapses and sex.
It's a bit strange that the Times would run a hit piece on the Republican presidential candidate that it chose to endorse less than a month ago.
Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.
But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.
Is it surprising that the Times would run this smear job now after sitting on the story for months?
Not at all.
It's exactly what I expect from a publication that splashes the nation's classified anti-terrorism programs and other classified information on its pages.
The Times lost credibility long ago. It's a liberal propaganda rag. It's shrinking, literally.
So, it smears McCain.
The article claims to address his tragic flaw, a blinding confidence in his own integrity leading to reckless behavior.
It doesn't.
The Times offers no evidence of an inappropriate relationship between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman, just whispers and gossip.
It rehashes the Keating Five scandal. Wow. There's news.
The stuff involving Iseman is really low. Once again, the Times relies on unnamed sources for its story. Its vague and shadowy allegations are built on sand.
It's tabloid trash.
...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.
The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.
Mr. Davis and Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s top strategists in both of his presidential campaigns, disputed accounts from the former associates and aides and said they did not discuss Ms. Iseman with the senator or colleagues.
“I never had any good reason to think that the relationship was anything other than professional, a friendly professional relationship,” Mr. Salter said in an interview.
He and Mr. Davis also said Mr. McCain had frequently denied requests from Ms. Iseman and the companies she represented. In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients’ hopes.
The McCain aides said the senator sided with Ms. Iseman’s clients only when their positions hewed to his principles.
It's disgusting that the Times is attempting to damage McCain like this.
In response, his campaign released this statement on Wednesday night:
“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”
I think it's a terrible miscalculation on the part of the Times to try and derail McCain by challenging his integrity.
According to the Associated Press, "Aides said the senator would address the allegations at a news conference Thursday morning."
I think this will backlash on the Times and the lib media. I doubt that Republicans, conservatives and moderates, will abandon McCain. I expect the opposite to happen.
When under attack, the party will be more likely to band together. Independents will be put off by the slimy politics of personal destruction.
Actually, I think the Times and its sleazy smear piece will serve to solidify support for McCain.
A big question: Why now? Why today?
Could it be that making McCain the big story was meant to deflect attention from the Democrats embroiled in such a messy battle for control of the party?
The infighting and the threats and the whole super delegate struggle are showing the Dems to be far from united, organized, and ready to lead.
Could it be the hit piece on McCain was intended to take some heat off of the Obamas?
Barack as an empty suit was really beginning to resonate. Negative reaction to Michelle and her disgraceful comment, "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," wasn't ebbing. The fainting phenomenon at Obama rallies was getting continued scrutiny. A number of embarrassing moments and matters were piling up.
Compare that with McCain and the Republicans. McCain's adversaries were becoming considerably less critical in recent days. It was smooth sailing for the Republicans as the Dems continued to rip at each other.
Simply put, I think the Times ran the story now to change the subject. That might have been an effective tactical move if the story was solid. It's not.
Instead, I think the Times is unintentionally helping to close the "enthusiasm gap."
No comments:
Post a Comment