With Friends Like These ...

I am always suspicious of men's claims of "she is just a friend." Has anybody asked Mr. McCain if Mrs. Iseman was also Cindy's friend? If the woman had been McCain's employee, it makes sense that she worked closely with him. Why was a lobbyist so near him that he can call her a friend? I want to believe that there was no romantic relationship, but I think he was at the time a little sweet about her and that natural weakness made him write the letters. Never underestimate the stupid things that happen when you put together a man an a woman in a room together. Think about this: she is young and ambitious, he is old and foolish, they travel on private jets, dine in wonderful places, the wife and kids (and their problems) are far away . . .

I am always suspicious of married men claims of "she is just a friend!" Has anyone asked Mr. McCain if Ms. Iseman was also Cindy's friend? Had Ms. Iseman been his employee, of course she (or he) might have been close to him, but that doesn't hold for a lobbyist. Why was she so near him unless she wanted some "favors" ? That's what bothers me about the story, even though I have always liked him.

Does anyone remember John McCain and Charles Keating?

The New York Times is losing it's relevance. After its lousy reporting on Wen Ho Lee, it's disgrace of a reporter, Judith Miller and her stories on WMDs, Jayson Blair's made up stories, are any of you surprised they've sunk this low? And, as a person not fond of lobbyists, I can actually say I am sorry for Ms. Iseman.

ENOUGH OF THE SLEEZE REPORTING. IT'S THE MEDIA AND THEIR REPORTERS WHO SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. LET'S STOP ALREADY!

24 Feb 2008
mstan1799
There no story in this story. The NYT is dying. This story was published in hopes of boosting circulation. Expect more enquirer style stories from this crumbling "institution".

The New York Times, a liberal bastion of the most unsavory kind, is trying to discredit Mr. McCain at a time they feel it would do the most harm to him. They have no proof of any "romantic relationship" with the lobbyist, but if there is no proof, The Times figures the next best thing is to sow doubts in the minds of its readers and some will believe it. Some believe because they want to believe and are salivating at the prospect of destroying Mr. McCain. In fact, it is only rallying the conservatives more to Mr. McCain's side. Some would not have voted for him until this happened, but now they will because of The New York Times hatchet job. Bring on some more lies, dear Times, and McCain will be our next president.

The NYT Public Editor column today acknowledged the speciousness of the sexual innuendo as the lead of their original story and admitted it fell below their own prior standards for reporting. They also indicated that four or more reporters worked on this story full-time for more than half a year. And this story was all they came up with...? The recent layoffs in the newsroom over there certainly are justified if that's all the production they can get. Maybe there are too many "innuendo" reporters at Newsweek, too...

Clinton and Obama make me want to puke. McCain is a Clinton wannabe who basically is more Pro-War. All three of these fools who keep talking about how much they care about the American people, voted YEA (Yes) to authorize the Patriot Act, which undermines all of our civil liberties (urban, rural, whatever). If the average American knew what these crack pot politicians were doing to our basic rights as American citizens, I think they would be outraged (well, may be I am wrong on that point, but they really should be in my opinion).
Please, please, please. I hope a Third Party is going to emerge that will call for the Repeal of the Patriot Act, as well as oppose the McClinObama train wreck policies of bigger government, more subsidies, less civil rights, and higher taxes.
McCain should be fully investigated for his violation of his own McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. Sounds like the true McCain, Washington insider, Washington Politician, Washington Corruption will become the face of his campaign, no matter how much the media tries to spin the latest scandal with this lobbyist into some kind of rallying cry of conservatives behind McCain just because of the New York Times article. Americans dislike a bunch of things, they can dislike the Hypocritical New York Times at the same time they dislike the Hypocritical McCain.

I am curious. Why is it that so many Senators have such large jaw muscles. Any ideas?

Thanks for this explanation of what goes on in Washington among politicians, lobbyists and journalists but it simply proves what we already know, each protects its own interests at all costs. Although I support McCain, I'm hardly naive or alone in knowing he didn't get where he is by playing it safe. Lobbyist influence has a stranglehold on politicians who have a stranglehold on legislation that affects our lives every day. And journalists have a stranglehold on the message. Is it sheer irony Iseman lobbied for a media interest? Influence-peddling by powerful lobbyists protect legal, financial, healthcare, and of course, media interests, to the detriment of us all. Is there anyone out there who doesn't agree these institutions are in need of drastic reform? Given these lobbyists rake in millions protecting those interests, it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime, much less that of my children and grandchildren. The news media are as corrupt as the lobbyists and politicians they love to hate and criticize: Their motivation to print or not to print had nothing to do with what's right or wrong. Rather, it had everything to do with timing and egos, i.e., who would break the story first, credible or not. The NYT ignored the most basic tenet of journalism, couching the article's foundation on unnamed sources citing all manner of hearsay. In the end, this 10-year-old non-story isn't worthy to wrap a good fish.

Does this now give the msm a pass when it comes to examining McCrook's other dealings with lobbyists?

With Friends Like This!! you are so slanted. Why have we not seen anything by you about MR Obama's Long Time Friend? Under investigation, a person that took advantage of the very people that Obama was suppose to represent when he was in Ill Senate. Why won't any newsmen get into the nitty gritty of that friendship. I do not believe that the letter written was asking that a certian decision be made, just that they make one after years of this being in front of them.

Whether or not McCain was scthupping Iseman is unimportant. What is important is that after Iseman "lobbied" McCain, he wrote an entirely inappropriate letter to the FCC regarding Iseman's client, Paxson Communications in order to sway the FCC's decision. McCain headed the congressional committee which dealt with the FCC's budget. Perhaps McCain should have been stchupping Iseman and not writing letters at her urging. Who you sleep with is your business. What you do or don't do in a position of authority is the business of all Americans. McCain has demonstrated that he lacks judgement in this sensitive area and consequently he should not be awarded the nation's most important position, a job that demands sensitivity and credibility.