RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
McCain on the Defensive
February 21, 2008 7:07 AM
Salacious New York Times story drops, rife with insinuation and blind quotes, driving Romney staffers mad and offering a less heaven-sent explanation for Mike Huckabee's continued presence in the GOP race.
Expect to see tomorrow in Toledo:
McCain denying any inappropriate relationship with the female lobbyist, Vicki Iseman;
McCain denying that any staffer ever told him to stay away from the lobbyist… and for staffers to argue that there are very few people (Mark Salter, and maybe Rick Davis) who could ever have such "a talk" with the man;
McCain trying not to lose his cool;
The McCain camp attacking the NYT, asserting the story is "National Enquirer" journalism;
The McCain camp arguing that the story had been spiked twice before and was only published because the New Republic was writing a piece about why the story hadn't been published and dissent within the NYT;
The McCain camp challenging the NYT to ask the unnamed sources when they warned McCain -- dates, times, places -- and to assert that absence of evidence is evidence of absence;
The McCain camp producing names of staffers who told the NYT they don’t know Iseman and don't recognize her…and who weren't quoted in the piece;
The McCain camp asserting, maybe with documentation, that Iseman was hardly a frequent presence and only came by the office two to three times a year, always with clients;
The McCain camp differentiating between Iseman going to the Commerce Committee and her visiting McCain's Senate office;
The McCain camp pointing out that the NYT went after him in 2000 for the letter he wrote on behalf of Paxson Communications -- only then the NYT was alleging he did it for a contributor.
Cindy McCain.
There will be blood.
- jpt
February 21, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (24)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
A "bimbo eruption" involving John McCain--who'd a thunk it? This is, for lack of a better term, karma in action for the Republicans' thirst for Bill Clinton's blood in the late '90's. They should have remembered that "what goes around, comes around."
Posted by: chuck | Feb 21, 2008 8:59:00 AM
Why doesn't the media houses just tell us who they would love as POTUS and then we can all run out and vote for that person. It seem very clear to me that the media houses all seem to be on one course in selecting who the next president will be, and am really wondering why that is.
Posted by: SJ | Feb 21, 2008 8:31:58 AM
Larry Sinclair has offered to take a lie detector, and yet, is that all over the news? I thought maybe the eclipse last night was a sign that the aliens were coming to take Obama back to planet LALA! This election has become nothing more than a glimpse at how powerful the media has become.
Posted by: NotABlindFollower | Feb 21, 2008 8:31:42 AM
The Associated Press gives a much different account of this story than ABC News:
"Published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship. Neither story asserted that there was a romantic relationship and offered no evidence that there was, reporting only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served."
The following is exactly what the McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said:
"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."
The timing of the attack suggests an attempt to divert attention from Michelle Obama's recent remarks.
Is anyone surprised?
Posted by: Ken | Feb 21, 2008 8:30:38 AM
Post a comment
