Political Punch

First he denied it and now again he admited it. "WHAT A SHAME" !!!!!

Some people cheat boldly, some cautiously. When either is caught they wiggle a moment as they struggle to accept their own first excuses. The first reasons seem to be the best and safest to use but it's often too soon to apply cold blooded logic which could explain everything. Unfortunately, this is also not a wise course since the issue is quickly reduced to an emotional one. Few people have the strength to enter that kind of battle. So most return to the affair or even something far worse. Change therefore, is inevitable and generally can only introduce the old "What the hell!" solution we've all come to know and love since we use it repeatedly.

Why do people say that the story has something to do with liberals? Mike Huckabee would be the one to profit the most from this. Therfore, I vote #7.

He did cheat on his first wife so it seems possible that he would cheat again. He was inaccurate in other details about his meetings with her and clients. In any case, being "friends" with a lobbyist seems sleezy.

Why is no one following this likely hypothesis: that someone at Judith Miller's neocon-sympathizing employer deliberately threw this golden opportunity to Mr. McCain, just as he was struggling to find some inroads toward bringing the right wing of his party on board with him?

Anyone with half an eye and ear on the political scene in the past few years knows that a certain strain of conservative (and coincidentally just the type that McCain has gained no traction with) would jump on board the bandwagon of the Devil himself, if the New York Times merely took a swipe at the satanic fellow. These pathetic creatures are as easily manipulated as any beer-hall rabble in Munich in the 1930s. The rallying to McCain's side has been laughably predictable. Is it completely lost on people that the same newspaper that helped shepherd the country merrily into Iraq is now boosting (through a roundabout but entirely reliable method) the one candidate who has promised to not only keep us there for 100 years, but take on Iran next? Against (the dangerously sober) Barack Obama, who opposed the war - not to mention rushing headlong into Iran - no less?

Step back from your well-worn kneejerk left-vs-right framework and see the agenda here.

McCain can't be rubbed out as a solid contender before the race even starts. If the GOP's racehorse were to get burned this early, then the US media would have no photo finish to speculate (and speculate and speculate and...) on.

You're very astute and hit the nail on the head. The piece will either be a break like the first Watergate story linking it to the White House, or a Dan Rather clunker that will boost McCain's credibility on this and all future issues. As a conservative I can say "any target/enemy of the NYT is an automatic friend of mine".

MCCAIN = BUSH & CO ALL OVER AGAIN
STOP THE MADNESS PEOPLE - WAKE UP.

HE'S A 71 YEAR OLD WAR MONGER

One the most shocking passages in the Washington Post's articles on McCain lobbyist friends hardly got any attention!

I quote:
"Of all the lobbyists involved in the McCain campaign, the most prominent is Black...even as Black provides a private voice and a public face for McCain, he also leads his lobbying firm, which offers corporate interests and foreign governments the promise of access to the most powerful lawmakers. Some of those companies have interests before the Senate and, in particular, the Commerce Committee, of which McCain is a member.

Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus."

Do read that last comment by Black over 10 times and think about it as clear and unbiased as you can. It means, when summarized, that one of McCain's top advisers acknowledges that he does a lot of his lobbying from aboard Mc Cain's Straight Talk Express!!!

Reread it 10 times, think about it well and draw some conclusions on McCain.

A diversion tactic from suprisingly,

Power-Full Insiders, lobbyists, who

literally, can not afford

John McCain's campaign to become a

complete disaster..like it already has.

The Huffington Post has a fine heading to characterize the McCain camp on this matter -

McCain Lawyer: “We Understood That He [McCain] Did Not Speak Directly With Him [Paxson]. Now It Appears He Did Speak To Him. What Is The Difference?"

A diversion tactic from suprisingly, Power-Full Insiders, lobbyists, who literally, can not afford
John McCain's campaign to become a complete disaster..like it already has.

Remember what happened to Obama's republican opponent in his 2004 senate race? He had to withdraw after the Chicago Tribune published stories of a nothing sex scandal. Now we have McCain getting the same treatment from the New York Times. Is there a strategy out there by Obama's camp to get rid of the stong republican candidate and replace him by a weaker one that Obama can beat? Has anyone questioned David Axlerod's part in this?
A little too coincidental that lightning strikes twice.

While the hypocritical right is focusing on the sexual aspects of the story, they're missing the more important part, to the majority of us, about his close ties to lobbyists.

Let us not forget Clinton's and Obama's huge financial support from the firm Abramoff used to work for (Greenberg/Traurig/.... something like that). They're all bought and paid for by the same people (and it's not US).

McCain's denial was obviously false. He did talk to Paxson via Iseman. Paxson admits as much and directly contradicts that as does a McCain deposition.

The FCC Chairman involved did think it was unethical and said so. The campaign used some other former FCC Chairman.

Where is Iseman's denial? Someone post that. I thought she was in hiding and not talking to anyone. And that is the big smoking gun.

If this is all untrue why isn't Iseman out there screaming bloody murder like Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones?

This denial is smoke and mirrors and the media is gun shy after the Bush military service fiasco by CBS.

This smells like smoke. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Well, the story is starting to gain traction because of two reasons. One, it flows from his insistence that he never would let appearances drag him into a Keating 5 scandal again, and yet he keeps lobbyists in his inner circle and makes these inappropriate interventions. Two, his "denials" are too pat and orchestrated and, in this case, debunked by his own deposition testimony where he conceded what he now denies -- that he was directly approached by the media executives for whom he intervened.

There is an outside possibility that this an manouver on the part of McCains'team to float an allegation of an improper "relationship" that is disproved later.The ploy pays off in that it smokes out the moles in his camp, rallys the true believers & innoculates the candidate from anything that might come out in the wash later . Lastly,to be percieved as possesing vigor has its positives...

While I doubt whether the story is completely over, the bulk of the hoopla is probably over for now. Timing is everything.

You seem to forget that the NYT actually had the info for this story around Christmas of last year and chose to wait a couple of months.

By not breaking this news story in its entirety (note the use of the word story), the NYT allowed for the exit of Mitt and Rudy.

At present, no substatiation has been released...at present. The NYT will milk this later at the appropriate juncture.

Anonymous sources abound in stories designed to bash McCain.

Anonymous sources also abound in Obama's war stories from the debate.

You make the call.

I guess matter below was right in his comments.

PAXSON CONTRADICTS MCCAIN CAMPAIGN

- is the new header on the Washington Post site.

This thing is FAR from over.

#5 and #7, definitely.

McCain has been loved by the media for decades now--they don't want to hurt the image they've built up and cemented of the War Hero/Straight-talker/Maverick.

Watch as Obama supporters wake up and realize that their enduring love for McCain beats their recent crush on Obama.