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.

The Obama/anonymous Captain story will not go away. The story wasn't proven true by Jake, just that there was a person behind it. Just like Dan Rather

Apparently the NY Times is easily manipulated and the reporter inmates are
in charge of the asylum. Not only does slip shod reporting get past editorial review standards, but the paper readily
accepts tacky moveon.org ads while the
management endorses McCain for President.
Everybody gives the NY Times too much
credit. Having said that, John McCain does not have a blemish-free record in the past, but unless something substantive and fairly recent can be
"nailed down" beyond rumor mill level
they may want to consider enlarging
the comic section to sell newspapers.

John McCain did the right thing. He held a news conference and took all the questions and gave his answers. He was adult enough to face the accusations and wants to put it to rest. Let the people decide if they believe him or not. At least McCain had the guts to face the scandal personally, not like Michelle (never proud to be an American in her adult life) have her cronies speak for her!

Probably went away because it was lame - real lame

Look, a bunch of us out here on the right have been warning our more moderate Republican brethren for months -- nay, the better part of a decade -- that McCain's apparently popularity was built on a cloud of positive media attention that would vanish as soon as he became the Republican nominee. We said he wasn't so very clear, he wasn't so very honest, and he would be made to look pretty bad once the press turned on him.

Now, he's the presumptive nominee, and guess what's happening to his press coverage?

Mark is probably right. We're going to hear more of this. Lots and lots more. Democrats screw up everything they touch, but they know how to assassinate character like they invented it, and that's what they're going to do to McCain.

"The story vanished because they like him?" Please. The story vanished because it's manifestly sleaze. But don't worry, there will be another. And another. And one just after the Republican convention. And one after a successful debate. And one three days before the election, so it can't be rebutted.

This is How Democrats Do It. Nothing new here, move along, everybody...

(I do cover this on my blog, http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=207.)

John Weaver isn't an anonymous source.

He has been running campaigns for years.

He talked about confronting Iseman, and her acknowledgement of the behavior.
Why do people cherry pick this article so much? Why don't they talk about the non-anonymous sources?

Rick, there was never any doubt that the facts Dan Rather talked about were true. What was not on the up and up were the particular documents being used. Bush was in truth the draft dodging war hawk in the Vietnam era who dropped out, so to speak, of the Texas National Guard and because of his connections managed to get away with it. We all know this except those who refuse to accept the countless pieces of evidence that he did!
Whenever I think about Bush involving this country in a needless, stupid war in Iraq, I get mad all over again at the chicken hawk!

1. Eight years ago, with no rumors since, equals a lot of doubt.

2. Democrats are focused on Obama/Clinton. McCain supporters don't believe the story. That leaves only Huckabee's people to be concerned about it, and they don't believe anything they read in the NYT anyway. If they read the NYT, which they don't. :-)

I just *LOVE* how kneejerk predictable the libs are on stories like this. Some lib media source prints allegations that cannot be proved, and then the libs take false gossip and start calling it a "scandal". Very sad but very funny at the same time.

The Times story was so vague and confusing to me that I wondered what it was really trying to say. Probably, the paper carefully worded the story in order to avoid a legal battle and in so doing made it very nebulous under all the constraints.

The people who want to complain about the timing of the NYT article seem to forget from where John McCain's popularity (and credibility) has grown since October 2007 when the story was first being investigated. In October McCain's poll numbers were in the low-mid teens. THAT's when a "damaging" story about him would have been most effective. His steady climb in popularity since then has lessened the impact of any negative story. So now, when McCain is the presumptive nominee with his highest-ever poll ratings, this story damages him LESS than ever before. People who want to bash the NYT, just want to bash the NYT. They probably owe the Times a thanks for doing its famous complete research and thereby publishing this story when the candidate can best weather it.

I'm afraid the story isn't over at all for McCain, as you will learn when reading Newsweek's shots in McCain's rebuttal (and they're pretty damaging for his account) or The Washinton Post continuing the saga on McCains,s dealings with lobbyists.

I think the trouble is potentially very great for McCain though he's acting now like it was only a bleeding nose. Which I guess is the right thing to do. But the dirtiest part, when you read between the lines, of the articles in the NYT and the WP are in the info they clearly have but do not release YET. These appears to be some agenda of hijacking McCain's campaign on specific issues (lobbyists, special interests, political ethics), and in fact they are threatening him with the publication of more damaging material.

I don't have the impression that the NYT; the WP, Newsweek, Huffington Post etc. will leave the story alone for the weeks and maybe months to come.

You can be sure that more stories will follow, new questions will be raised, and yes: under every politician's bed their some skeletons waiting to show their scary heads to the public.

Liberals never give up do they?

11) The story is obviously untrue.

Any thinking person knows it was the NY times trying to rig the election, they held the story and knew it. They endorsed McCain making him the presumptive nominee, thinking they could sink him with this story later, there by electing a democrat. Had they released the story before NH primary, Mitt Romney would be the nominee and the NY Times would have no story to trash him with.

This story reads as a liberal agenda piece. Whenever I hear the Times with an "exclusive, explosive" piece, I am skeptical. I can no longer trust this paper. Their McCain piece reached a new low in journalism with innuendo and no source. The piece reads to me like this: "There may be possibly a relationship, but we're not sure." Wall Street Journal for me!

Why does this NY Times article remind me of Dan Rather, and his pathetic statement that even though his document was proven to be fraudulent, he still thought it correct?

jpt,

There's more to the story than McCain is saying and probably a little less than the NYT is saying.

Somewhere, there's a middle ground to this story in a factual sense, and that middle ground is not good for McCain.

I Think that McCain is a pretty decent guy. I think that the press really likes him. However, I do think that the story written in the NYT is pretty much accurate.

My theory is that the NYT really wanted to bury this story because of their feelings for McCain. However due to pressure from the reporters and other Newspapers (the Washington Post, not the New Republic), Kellar had to print it. So they watered it down a bit and released it during a time where McCain would not be hurt by it.

I think the press in general is too easy on McCain, and this case is no exception.

It is interesting that every scandal for Bill Clinton had ripples for months. Maybe we're a) tired of scandals, b) think the timing is petty, c) think unnamed sources have to be petty because they're unnamed, and d) because of that pettiness--and the lack of courage to come out and be named as a source--we don't want to give them credence.

I do think it's had a desirable effect--it rallied the conservatives behind McCain. I think personally, that the leak was planned and that's WHY the source is unnamed. Conservatives needed to see McCain as strong, the NYT as squirrelly, and THEIR frontrunner under attack. Really, what choice do they have now? They must protect their future presidential choice. This was a brilliant piece of media manipulation.

4) However true, the story seemed to many in the media to be thinly sourced.

Should the next point start out

However false,........

Maybe because, the media is influenced by the big business and government influence with the lobbyist in the story... We should all know who works in McCains campaign, ex lobbyist and those that what to influence government.
The average "joe" doesn't understand or tfeels they have no say anyway. I am sure Jake you already know McCains connections but feel its business as usual.

You ask these questions without offering your own professional opinion of the shoddiness of the attempted unattributable smear? And, au contraire to the unrepresentative comment above by Mark - it is not Mac's machine that has saved him, but his own record of above board behavior - even though many more congressman had been doing the kind of thing (influence peddling on K Street) that the Times, unsuccessfully, tried to tack on to McCain. Checking out Captain's Quarter's shows that the even 'ex-staffers' have corraborated McCain's version of the non-story. The NY Times Rag also neglected to say that in the intervening time, no congressman has done more to RAISE the level of behavior - that is why Abramoff was exposed and that is why some of the crooks went ballistic when it looked like McCain was nearing capturing the nomination - for he had spearheaded the bills under which they were apprehended. But let's put this in its context, shall we?
The American Embassy is burning in Belgrade, Putin is wanting to punish the U.S. and Europe for recognizing
Kosovo, Iran has stepped up its 'super centrifuges' for highly enriched uranium, North Korea is stalling, Pakistan has a mess on its hands, including nukes, Israel has sent a non-partisan delegation of MPs to all of Europe to inform them of Israel's immanent danger, Afghanistan is deprived the semblance of strength from NATO, we're entering a Recession, and 'scuse me? the New York Times enters a 'page six' unattributable and undocumented (though documents from the McCain campaign were fully offered for publishment, but were refused!) smear about a 'maybe innuendo' relationship that might have happened 9 years ago?
Anonymous Ex-Aides are 'sourced' by NYTimes reporters with a Maybe Relationship, A Maybe Influence Peddle (where even there, the only thing that McCain might have done was ask for a quicker decision after two years delay by the regulatory board?) , in something that happened 9 years ago, wasn't deemed important enough for McCain's 2000 run to be brought up!...is there any more temerity than that?, It makes the once serious NYTimes look like some liberal Rag - its got less evidence than People or US Magazine! No hotel Receipt? The woman denies an affair? What, no accuser, no victim? No one being used? No hotel records. or receipts? Gee, maybe the 'serious' Times better get a day job, because this one is at the level of the National Enquirer!"
Unlike Mark, my Prediction is- that what the New York Times did will hurt them more than McCain, that it will engender more support for McCain, and thoroughly rally the miffed conservative wing behind him, and make those people show up to campaign for McCain! It will also increase scrutiny for Obama's Rezco ally, and remind people of Clinton
Inc. etc - well, you get the picture!!

And how reassuring to know that McCain has such a crack crisis-management team.

Something tells me that if McCain ever gets anywhere near the Oval Office, he's going to need such a team, frequently....

I'm betting big that another shoe (or two) has yet to drop in this story.

And if it does, it's very probably going to be bye bye McCain....