A Hole in McCain’s Defense?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: alltaken @ 02/22/2008 4:00:44 PM

    What a pile bull dung. Where is the *** stained blue dress? "He said", "she said", " it LOOKS bad", "Someone might think there is more to the story", "I said, now don't recall (after five years). Give me a break. There is less than nothign here. Where is the blue dress with the come stain? This is a stupid story. A total none issue. A typical left tactic of personal distruction.

    Again, no blue dress?

  • Posted By: ransmith @ 02/22/2008 4:00:43 PM

    WOW! I can't beleive so much is being made of this! This is an absolute waste of time!!!

  • Posted By: Leatherneck93 @ 02/22/2008 4:00:02 PM

    Zzzzzz... is this the only dirt you can dig out on McCain? You might as well question his patriotism...petty...can we get on with the show please? Who the heck cares?

  • Posted By: LemB @ 02/22/2008 3:34:58 PM

    This is an article about nothing. Whether McCain spoke once to Paxson or not (maybe his campaign got it wrong, and didn't realize he may have spoken once to Paxon), the reality is that all McCain did is write to the FCC and ask for a decision (specifically said that he was not arguing for a particular decision one way or the other), and he asked for that decision because a response by the FCC was way overdo). That's no big deal! is MSNBC making something out of nothing here?

    • Posted By: forgore @ 02/22/2008 3:59:55 PM

      McCain participated in influence peddling for a lobbyist in a pending FEC matter and then lied about it - seems like an important story to me

  • Posted By: ransmith @ 02/22/2008 3:59:40 PM

    WOW! I can't beleive so much is being made of this!

  • Posted By: 1lumpsum @ 02/22/2008 3:59:32 PM

    Vote Mike Huckabee President. You still have a choice.

  • Posted By: Bixby @ 02/22/2008 3:58:19 PM

    God, you gotta love politics and the press. I have been waiting for the smears to begin, and I am never disappointed with the New York Times to provide the leadership. What is so amazing is the hype they can crreate without really serving up facts. Politicians and the Press are renowned for their innuendos, infrerences, and slanting their blather for their own self serving interests. Its no wonder that nobody really trusts politicans or the press to speak the truth. Every politician in Washington meets with, dines with, and at times helps interest groups with their causees. Some groups hire lobbiest with other go it alone. SO WHAT, isn't that what they all get paid to do? Oh...and don't forget the "sex", it always has to be suggested or questioned. The NYT makes me sick. I guess that's why I don't subscribe to the liberal rag.

  • Posted By: Leatherneck93 @ 02/22/2008 3:58:03 PM

    zzzzzz... who the heck cares? is that the only dirt you can dig out about McCain? Petty...let's get on with the show please..

  • Posted By: sniper/killer @ 02/22/2008 12:52:32 PM

    Hey Eddio
    Read your Constitution. Each State gets two (2) Senators. The number of Representatives (Congressmen) is based on the State's population! It makes perfect sense if you're able to read and comprehend!

    • Posted By: eddie o @ 02/22/2008 3:57:37 PM

      I know what is in the constitution. That does not automatically make it the correct approach.. Slavery was originally OK and women did not have the right to vote until it was amended. Nothing about the US Senate is very workable at the moment. Just look who is running for the President

  • Posted By: lucyfly @ 02/22/2008 2:54:53 PM

    Many politicians are approached by and communicate with lobbyists ; That is what lobbyists do!! They are attempting to have their causes and agendas heard. It seems to me that nothing really out of the way or dishonest happened here especially since when voting on issues having to do with issues pertaining to this lobbyist (Vicki Iseman) there was no partiality indicated.

    • Posted By: whyarentrepubsembarrased @ 02/22/2008 3:57:32 PM

      Enter Your Comment

      WOW! Could "lucy fly" be....Vicky Iseman????

  • Posted By: phal4875 @ 02/22/2008 3:57:17 PM

    Does McCain get a lifetime pass for having been shot down in Vietnam. It would be hard to find anyone who disputes his courage from 1967 to 1973, but he has had a life since then. He cheated on his wife in 1979 in order to find a newer, prettier, and richer wife who could finance his coming campaigns for office. The wife on whom he cheated raised his three children during his years in captivity. McCain is not a good man

  • Posted By: Sam Huff @ 02/22/2008 3:56:47 PM

    Isn't the framing of this story about the way the Clinton scadal started. First , there was nothing to it. Then there was possibly something to it. Then there might just BE something to it. Finally the whole truth comes out.
    It is no coincidence that Paxton hired a pretty young girl to see McCain. Sex sells, remember that saying? So having someone like that around flattering you and asking your favor on things is just what the lobby wanted, and Mccain certainly did not object. His aides finally had to try to put a stop to the whole "sell job(?). Just went on beyond range of everyone might be found out, but might not also. But certainly when running for President and having the "favors" given to him by a LOBBYING firm is suspicion enough for corruption. This is especialy true in the case of one who is continuing to aspire to be president and seeks favor himself..................from his constiuents who VOTE!

  • Posted By: yogramama @ 02/22/2008 3:50:09 PM

    Some body language evidence all was not straight talk in McCain's statement. In slo-mo, i saw 36 blinks in approximately 50 seconds. Certainly he was not truthful when he said he'd never done anything to betray the public's trust - he wasn't exonerated in the Keating affair. But, try to blink 36 times in 50 seconds. it's not easy to make yourself.

    • Posted By: cjbphoto @ 02/22/2008 3:56:23 PM

      I wonder if you will count the blinks that Obama will have when he says he did not buy and use drugs with his gay lover?

  • Posted By: EmCal @ 02/22/2008 3:55:39 PM

    The fact is, if she had been male, it would not have evoked this degree of attention. A lobbyist, corresponding with a presidential candidate? Shocking. The NYT crossed a sacred line in journalism by publishing this. This is, at best, poor judgment; at worst, partisanship. And I'm disturbed that a woman's presence must be subjugated to suspect of being something "intimate" rather than being warranted by profession.

  • Posted By: Ediacaran @ 02/22/2008 3:55:32 PM

    Let's get the dirt on the 'Times' . Ah, that's right, the media is above reproach and speaks only the truth---half or otherwise. All of this as if Obama and Clinton have no past. Let's look at Hilary's behavior as first lady and the content of Obama's past books. Gee, I guess Democrats are perfect. How convenient.

  • Posted By: brr1978 @ 02/22/2008 3:47:58 PM

    Everyone should cheer up. This January a man (or woman) or much greater intelligence, competency and decency will be in the whitehouse. It will likely be Obama and he will not deliver on 80% of his goals but we'll be better off. Unless your a neo-con. Then you have to worry about all that executive power you grabbed thinking you'd have the office forever. Idiots. Sexually frustrated idiots.

    • Posted By: Dagny @ 02/22/2008 3:55:29 PM

      The neocons will be very pleased with ANY choice as long as it's not Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul. Paul will not "play ball" with them, and every Washington lobbyist already knows he can't be bought. Why else would there be a complete blackout on every truth he is standing up for? "Consitutionally-limited government"?! Shhhhhh....

  • Posted By: Bullwinkle @ 02/22/2008 3:54:31 PM

    ALL,
    I have a novel idea. Instead of bashing each other's candidates here (which accomplishes absolutely nothing because everyone who writes (and reads) these things already have their minds made up as to who they will vote for), why not complain to your friends and neighbors like you used to and vote for the candidate of your choice. I am MORE THAN 100 percent CERTAIN that, just like you, I DECIDED TO VOTE FOR OBAMA WHEN I CAME ONTO THIS SITE, AND I INTEND TO VOTE FOR HIM WHEN I LEAVE IT. I doubt very seriously if ANYONE (except somebody weakminded) is going to change their minds about their candidate simply because of the rantings they read here. The biases run too rampant and are too obvious. The UNDECIDEDs don't waste their time reading this stuff!

  • Posted By: kayussery @ 02/22/2008 3:10:46 PM

    How could you trust a man who thinks he looks good in a bad combover?

    • Posted By: whyarentrepubsembarrased @ 02/22/2008 3:51:55 PM

      Ask Donald Trump!!!

  • Posted By: Platty46 @ 02/22/2008 3:51:48 PM

    THE OLD PATHS
    I liked the old paths, when
    Moms were at home.
    Dads were at work.
    Brothers went into the army.
    And sisters got married BEFORE having children!

    Crime did not pay;
    Hard work did;
    And people knew the difference.

    Moms could cook;
    Dads would work;
    Children would behave.

    Husbands were loving;
    Wives were supportive;
    And children were polite.

    Women wore the jewelry;
    And Men wore the pants.
    Women looked like ladies;
    Men looked like gentlemen;
    And children looked decent.

    People loved the truth,
    And hated a lie;
    They came to church to get IN,
    Not to get OUT!

    Hymns sounded Godly;
    Sermons sounded helpful;
    Rejoicing sounded normal;
    And crying sounded sincere.

    Cursing was wicked;
    Drugs were for illness;
    And divorce was unthinkable.

    The flag was honored;
    America was beautiful;
    And God was welcome!

    We read the Bible in public;
    Prayed in school;
    And preached fro m house to house
    To be called an American was worth dying for;
    To be called a Christian was worth living for;
    To be called a traitor was a shame!


    Preachers preached because they had a message;
    And Christians rejoiced because they had the VICTORY!
    Preachers preached from the Bible;
    Singers sang from the heart;
    And sinners turned to the Lord to be SAVED!

    A new birth meant a new life;
    Salvation meant a changed life;
    Following Christ l ed to eternal life.

    Being a preacher meant you proclaimed the word of God;
    Being an officer meant you would serve the Lord;
    Being a Christian meant you would live for Jesus;
    And being a sinner meant someone was praying for you!

    Laws were based on the Bible;
    Homes read the Bible;
    And churches taught the Bible.

    God was worshiped;
    Christ was exalted;
    And the Holy Spirit was respected..

    Church was where you found Christians
    on the Lord's day, rather than in the garden,
    on the creek bank, on the golf course,
    Or being entertained somewhere else.

    I still like the old paths the best!

  • Posted By: Ediacaran @ 02/22/2008 3:51:26 PM

    Let's get the dirt on the 'Times' . Ah, that's right, the media is above reproach and speaks only the truth---half or otherwise. All of this as if Obama and Clinton have no past. Let's look at Hilary's behavior as first lady and the content of Obama's past books. Gee, I guess Democrats are perfect.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse