Responding to The New York Times' article disclosing an all-too-cozy relationship between John McCain and Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist for telecom firms that had business before a Senate committee McCain chaired, the McCain campaign on Wednesday night zapped out an email to journalists in which Bob Bennett, a lawyer representing McCain, called the article a "smear job." Bennett had gone on Fox News to defend his client, and the email contained what campaign aides believed were the most powerful Bennett quotes. There was one problem: none of Bennett's statements refuted a single fact in the Times story. Not one. It was all rhetoric and bombast. To prove it, here are the Bennett remarks disseminated by the McCainiacs:
Bennett: "Senator McCain did not want a repeat of what occurred years ago in South Carolina, namely a real smear campaign and asked me to assist them and I have been assisting him. And this -- I'm just -- I think what the New York Times did here was shameless, just shameless. As you pointed out in the lead, it's almost entirely unsourced. You know, I'm in a pretty unique position to talk about John McCain. First, I should tell your listeners you know I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not on his side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five. Which, by the way, this New York Times article goes back to and discusses -- goes back years and years. And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him, and I think for the New York Times to dig this up just shows that Senator McCain's public statement about this is correct. It's a smear job."
Bennett: "All of the matters that they allude to, I mean, they are not even very specific, we answered fully to the New York Times. We showed them that there was just nothing there. And, unfortunately, they have just obviously disregarded all of the hard evidence that we presented. Now, I'm not suggesting that the New York Times has an agenda here. I will let others conclude that. But they certainly have allowed themselves to be a vehicle for a repeat of what happened in South Carolina. And I suspect it's only because John McCain is winning so much, that we are even reading this story ... What I know is that the members of the staff who were there and dealt with this lobbyist and ran Senator McCain's office say no. They say there is nothing to it, and they provided that information to the New York Times, and it just apparently didn't have much of an impact on them ..."Bennett: "Anybody who knows anything about Washington knows that if there is one senator who will not honor the requests of his friends when it comes to various pieces of legislation, it is John McCain. Some of the people that I know very well who are lobbyists -- Republican lobbyists -- will tell me and they'll tell anybody who asks, McCain calls it the way he sees it on the merits. You can be his friend for 25 years, and if he doesn't agree with it, he'll say no. ... After representing him the last few months, answering all the questions of the New York Times looking into the allegations they wanted us to respond to, I cannot find, nor can they, a single instance where John McCain did something contrary to his beliefs."
See? Nothing. He did not deny--as the newspaper reports--that McCain's top strategist at the time, John Weaver, met with Iseman after McCain aides in late 1999 had become worried about her relationship with McCain (whether it involved extramarital sex or not) and warned her to stay away from McCain, who was then running for president as a maverick reformer and the scourge of Washington lobbyists. I'm tempted to say one can draw a conclusion from Bennett's bluster-to-facts ratio.
The morning after the story hit, McCain denied that he had done any favors for Iseman as a senator and described Iseman as a friend. He said he was unaware of any meeting between Weaver and Iseman. "I intend to move on," he declared. Well, he can move on. But the issue is whether the story moves on--and more information emerges.
Comments
...and the Bob Dole "Frisky Septagenarian Senate Seat" goes to....
Posted by: Hajji
| February 21, 2008 12:28 PM
Maybe McCain is qualified to do the little blue pill commercials?
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 12:30 PM
Barack Obama keeps winning form
Barack Obama has gained an 11th straight victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination by winning the Democrats Abroad primary.
*****
One more will make a dozen in a row.
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 12:47 PM
HA!
Posted by: Hajji
| February 21, 2008 12:48 PM
Since the NYT is going to print rumors then I wonder when they will print this one:
Clevelend Leader
Minnesota Man Claims He Took Drugs & Had Sex with Barack Obama in 1999
Submitted by Julie on February 19, 2008 - 1:32pm. Elections Elections 2008 News Politics U.S. Politics
Barack Obama now faces a new challenge - one that is sure to be much more scandalous than anything he's seen so far. If the allegations are to be believed, it's also a scandal that his campaign has tried to cover up. A Minnesota man has come forth, claiming that he took cocaine in 1999 with Obama, the then-Illinois legislator, and participated in homosexual acts with him.
Larry Sinclair, the man making the claims, said his story was ignored by the news media. Still not willing to let this one slip quietly under the rug, Sinclair made a YouTube video in which he made his case. It's had over half a million views already, but the story has still been largely ignored by the news media.
Sinclair's next step was to file a suit in Minnesota District Court, in which he alleges threats and intimidation by the Democratic presidential candidate's staff.
Still out to prove that he is telling the truth, Sinclair said he is willing to submit to a polygraph test. A website (WhiteHouse.com) has come forth offering him $10,000 for the right to record the polygraph test, and another $100,000 if he passes it.
At least McCain goes for chicks!
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 1:39 PM
"I did not have lobbying relations with that woman"
Paste a still picture of McCain over Bill's face and dub in lobbying.
It will go viral.
Seriously, I bet his campaign will survive. I think the timing is curious, not earlier when it could have sunk him and if the NYT's held it for effect releasing it now gives McCain just enough time before the general to either recover or blame the old gray lady or his anticipated loss?
I swear I heard about this exact issue before.
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 1:49 PM
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY
Thu Dec 20 2007 10:49:27 ET
Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!
McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.
The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.
*****
Now considering the NYT’s could have gone to print with an un-sourced story before the last few GOP primaries I wonder why anybody reads the papers these days. I no longer trusdt that form of media enough to give them the benefit of doubt.
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 1:55 PM
Thanks for the day brightening laugh LBH. That gave me the mental image of Obama in his best Mango voice saying "Why does everybody think Barack is the homo-gay?".
Posted by: eyes_open
| February 21, 2008 2:18 PM
"Why does everybody think Barack is the homo-gay?".
What's wrong with being gay? It's the coke snorting that I was referring too!
Why the cover-up?
Obama can always say Clinton did it and no one cared so why not me? Ahhh, but Clinton wasn't snortin coke.
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 2:23 PM
That gave me the mental image of Obama in his best Mango voice saying: Ahh, Larry I'm almost there."
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 2:24 PM
Mango - mango - mango!!!!
lolololo
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 2:39 PM
For those who didn't get the reference Mango was a Saturday Night Live character played by Chris Kattan who although flamingly flamboyant always claimed to be heterosexual. I'm glad Capt got the joke, anyone who knows my post history knows in no way was there any judgement there. LBH, try coming back with something more than an old "news" blog post about some kook on YouTube and we might take it seriously.
Posted by: eyes_open
| February 21, 2008 2:48 PM
One of Chris Kattan's best characters.
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 2:59 PM
The Wiki on Mango is a lol too.
"Mango's love was magical, pure, powerful, and located in his butt."
(not that there's anything wrong with that)
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 3:05 PM
Obama gets superdelegate boost in Wis.
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama picked up the support of Rep. Steve Kagen and the likely backing of Sen. Russ Feingold on Thursday, following the presidential candidate’s victory in Wisconsin earlier this week.
Kagen, a freshman Democrat from northeast Wisconsin, followed through on his promise to back the candidate who won the most votes in his congressional district. Feingold, meanwhile, said he was ‘‘inclined’’ to support Obama because of the state primary results but withheld a final endorsement.
*****
Feingold - one of the few politicians I can say a few good things about.
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 3:29 PM
LBH, try coming back with something more than an old "news" blog post about some kook on YouTube and we might take it seriously
Are we talking about Obama or the NYT article on McCain? Seems to be on the same level but Libs (including Corn) can't wait to smear McCain with less trash in his closet than Obama.
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 3:33 PM
I wouldn't expect anything less from a ethically challenged liberal like Corn or the NYT who endorsed McCain while working on this story at the same time.
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 3:36 PM
Tell us LBH, how is a single man coming out of nowhere to fling accusations on YouTube the same as a known relationship which gave such an impression of proffesional/personal impropriety that McCain's own people felt compelled to intervene?
McCain with less trash in his closet than Obama
So, would you like to comment on McCain's cozying up to Gen. Zia ul-Haq in '84?
Posted by: eyes_open
| February 21, 2008 3:59 PM
John McCain's Skeleton Closet
Founding Member of the Keating Five
Back in the old days, defendants in famous trials got numbers -- the Chicago Eight, the Gang of Four, the Dave Clark Five, the Daytona 500. McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)
Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."
Mafia ties:
In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.
Family Problems
McCain has a reputation as a politician who has difficulty keeping his pants zipped, according to Republican sources. He acknowledges that his adultery broke up his first marriage. His second wife Cindy, the daughter of a wealthy Budweiser beer distributor, was addicted to prescription narcotics and even stole hard drugs from a medical charity that she ran. McCain acknowledges that she didn't want him to run, and only agreed once he promised that she doesn't have to go to New Hampshire or Iowa.
*****
For sure, the McCain closet is all clean and dandy.
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 4:13 PM
Tell us LBH, how is a single man coming out of nowhere to fling accusations on YouTube the same as a known relationship which gave such an impression of proffesional/personal impropriety that McCain's own people felt compelled to intervene?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
McCain has denied it Obama hasn't-
WASHINGTON – For the second day in a row, the Barack Obama campaign has refused to respond to requests for comment on a Minnesota man's allegations he shared cocaine with Obama in 1999, when the man who now is a contender for the Democratic nomination for president was a state lawmaker in Illinois.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
McCain with less trash in his closet than Obama
So, would you like to comment on McCain's cozying up to Gen. Zia ul-Haq in '84?
How about : the slum lord connection
Obama and his Rezko ties
DAY ONE OF TWO
April 23, 2007
BY TIM NOVAK Staff Reporter/tnovak@suntimes.com
For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.
It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.
It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.
Or this:
Posted: February 19, 2008
9:27 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The mysterious "Frank" cited as a friend and adviser by Democratic president contender Barack Obama while he was growing up in Hawaii has been identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the old Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA.
I'm just getting started~~~
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 4:17 PM
For sure, the McCain closet is all clean and dandy.
It's not in the closet folks if it's already been aired~~
We already know what's in McCains closet thanks to Capt (very old news), the problem with Obama is that you haven't a clue what's in his closet and everything coming out is very recent not old like McCain.
But hey, Hitlery is going to win anyway so it really doesn't matter.
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 4:21 PM
Do you think Obama and Bernie hung out at the same night clubs? I hear liberals like to stick together for unity.
In a shocking development from San Francisco, longtime liberal talk show host Bernie Ward has apparently been indicted on charges related to child pornography, according to several sources in Baghdad-By-The-Bay.
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 4:25 PM
Family problems?
Guess this contradicts what Mr Obama presents as his special family story.
02.28.07
Barack Obama’s Bigamist Father
I missed this story when it was published in January. Unlike the romanticized picture Barack Obama has drawn of his Kenyan father, the elder Obama was a drunk and a bigamist. Interesting.(As a former drunk myself, I’m well aware that any book or investigative article written about me will include that sorry chapter of my life.)
You know, I never thought much of Obama’s father in the first place because he abandoned Barack and his mother. I had no idea he’d abandoned his first wife and children, too. I haven’t read Obama’s book about his father, Dreams From My Father, but I suspected it probably didn’t contain the whole truth about the kind of man he was. For instance, Obama says “racism” tore apart his white mother and black father, but in reality, his mother divorced his father after she found out he was still married to someone else, whom he’d abandoned back in Kenya. (Daily Mail) His first wife was pregnant with their second child when he left.
According to the Daily Mail, Obama’s father married a third time to a woman he’d met while married to Obama’s mother. A nephew told the paper that polygamy is part of African culture, implying that there’s nothing unusual about an African having multiple wives. I’m no expert on African culture, but I believe would-be wives in polygamous cultures know about previous wives, and Obama Sr. hadn’t told his second wife about his first wife. Deception and bigamy.
Well, when you’re running for office, your life and the lives of people you know are scrutinized. Since Barack “He speaks so well!” Obama is positioning himself as someone overcoming racial obstacles and claiming that his parent’s divorce and his father’s “issues” were caused by racism, his story is ripe for nitpicking.
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 4:38 PM
founder of keating five?
This allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); John McCain (R-AZ); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI), who became known as the "Keating Five".
The committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct".
**It was a Democrat that was censured not McCain.
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 4:41 PM
Mafia ties?
(CBS) Legendary crooner Frank Sinatra served as a liaison between John F. Kennedy's 1960 campaign for president and mobster Sam Giancana in a scheme to use Mafia muscle to deliver union votes, Sinatra's daughter tells 60 Minutes.
**No one was complaining about Kennedy's mafia ties who helped him steal the election now were they?
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 4:42 PM
Looks like not all lefties are ethically challenged as the cornbots;
Liberal blogs skeptical of Times' McCain story
Politico
Conservative blogs and talk radio have swallowed their dislike of McCain to attack the Times, and the MSM is focused on the merits of the charges and on the fight between McCain and the paper.
And many widely read liberal bloggers, breaking with partisan patterns, are expressing discomfort with the Times' reporting and offering conditional defenses of McCain.
Greg Sargent, at TPM's Horse's Mouth, writes that the Times doesn't "have the goods" and "shouldn't have gone there." Matthew Yglesias accuses the Times of "shameful" dealings in "innuendo," though he's interested in the sex-free, lobbying aspects of the story. Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft calls it "troubling" and bad for Democrats. Kevin Drum writes of the Times that "there's no way that they 'nailed' anything."
Other blogs — like MyDD, despite some passing glee; DailyKos; and, mostly, OpenLeft — are essentially ignoring the story. Carpetbagger Report seems almost alone in obsessing about it.
The defense of McCain from the left reflects well on the blogs' objectivity, and they certainly aren't defending McCain on the substantive issues of the election. Indeed, they've been leading the way in trying to break the mainstream media's long love affair with McCain, to paint him as a Bush conservative and as a dangerous hard-liner on foreign policy and Iraq.
Still, their even treatment of the subject may disturb Democratic strategists who are relying on the bloggers to serve, in every case, as the kind of partisan strike force that conservative blogs and talk radio were in 2004
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 5:06 PM
Heres one that will drive the libs crazy:
Will Media Examine Barack Obama’s Connection to Jack Abramoff?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs
If one of the major presidential candidates made a campaign pledge not to take money from lobbyists, would it be newsworthy if founding members of the law firm Jack Abramoff used to work for were contributing to his or her campaign?
Apparently not if the candidate is a Democrat.
According to the liberal website Raw Story, and confirmed by examining Federal Election Committee records, top brass at Greenberg Traurig, the law firm convicted lobbyist Abramoff worked for between 2001 and 2004, have given thousands of dollars to Barack Obama's campaign
Coincidentally, the Columbia Journalism Review recognized some of Obama's lobby hypocrisies last Friday, although nothing related to Greenberg Traurig (emphasis added):
Contributions made by the various industry sectors tell the real story in a presidential race. And Opensecrets.org shows that Obama is picking up gobs of money put on the table by these special interests-including those involved in health care, which will surely have a lot riding on the outcome of the election and will expect to be heard after the election is over.
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 5:30 PM
Anonymous sources?
Disgruntled former aides?
Anecdotal evidence?
Sounds like a smear job. The problem for the NYT, with all its declining readership, layoffs, stock tanking, bogus stories, management turnover, etc., is that this type of story just reinforces people's ideas of it as a hapless partisan rag.
The Times needs to be twice as careful in sourcing its stories, not half as (and half-assed). It is quickly becoming a tabloid without the lurid color pictures.
What next - Comics and/or a Personals section?
Tom
Posted by: Tomcantu
| February 21, 2008 6:33 PM
Straight Talk and Cold Cash
[…]
McCain has positioned himself as a die-hard opponent of special-interest influence. But a U.S. News analysis of his 25-year legislative career shows he has been an avid seeker of special-interest money to support his campaigns and initiatives. The pattern goes all the way back to his first House race in 1982. Moreover, as the boss or No. 2 member of the Senate Commerce Committee, he has drawn heavy support from pacs and individuals associated with industries overseen by that committee—especially telecommunications, media, and technology firms.
Between 1997 and June 2006, he collected nearly $2.6 million from such interests, according to the Center for Public Integrity, an independent watchdog group in Washington. In some cases, the review showed, McCain's positions mirrored those of his biggest supporters. Big corporate donors also have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Reform Institute, a tax-exempt organization—once closely affiliated with McCain—that was established to promote campaign finance reform.
*****
McCain can't hide from his record.
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 6:49 PM
McCain can't hide from his record.
That's all you've got?
Posted by: LBH
| February 21, 2008 7:34 PM
I have no special love for TNYT anymore. Not in this century...
Posted by: David B. Benson
| February 21, 2008 7:40 PM
McCain Campaign Cites McCain’s Lawyer As An ‘Objective Observer’ To Vouch For McCain
[…]
Now it’s true that as an investigator in the Keating scandal, Bennett has been on the record saying McCain was less culpable than his Senate colleagues. But Davis is referencing comments Bennett made in the context of a scandal he is being paid to squelch.
That’s not “straight talk.” That’s dishonest.
*****
The GOP proves again honesty is not an option.
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 7:46 PM
McCain's Non-Denial Denial of an Intervention
[…]
Now, only one side can be right. Two McCain advisers said they intervened with McCain and he concurred with their assessment of his relationship of Iseman as problematic. Weaver says he met with Iseman to intervene on her side. McCain is contradicting the accounts of three separate advisers. It's possible that Weaver's intervention with Iseman took place without the knowledge of McCain, but McCain goes beyond denying knowledge of the Weaver/Iseman meeting to deny any reason for such a meeting to take place. Someone is lying and the law of parsimony would suggest that it's McCain.
Marc Ambinder notes that the Times' use of the word "associates" suggests that, in fact, the people who confronted him were not aides or staffers. He hazards that "associates" might actually be other lobbyists.
*****
“He hazards that "associates" might actually be other lobbyists.“
Someone is lying. It will be interesting how this pans out, eh?
Posted by: capt
| February 21, 2008 8:10 PM
Interesting that every defender of McCain is a lobbyist, then I caught this little tid-bit:
Congressman Rick Renzi (R-Flagstaff, Ariz.), state co-chair for John McCain's Arizona leadership team, was indicted on charges of "extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other charges related to a land deal."
The Associated Press reports:
A 26-page federal indictment unsealed today accuses Renzi and two former business partners of conspiring to promote the sale of land that buyers could swap for property owned by the federal government. The sale netted one of Renzi's former partners $4.5 million.
Posted by: capt
| February 22, 2008 11:48 AM
Hey Capt,
You were one of Clintons biggest defenders when he was getting a blow job in the oval office and said sex is a personal matter between him and his wife. Now why the hypocrisy with McCain?Just curious why you have selective values.
Posted by: LBH
| February 22, 2008 12:33 PM
Post A Comment