This morning's huge story in the New York Times raises suspicions of an inappropriate relationship between John McCain and a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. McCain has already given a stern and measured denial at a press conference in Ohio. However, rather than the content of the story, it's the piece itself that seems to be the subject of scrutiny.
The piece raises the idea of the relationship, which allegedly surfaced eight years ago, and the controversy stems from the seeming lack of proof or real story. The extent of the affair seems to be this:
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
A short paragraph later the piece admits:
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship.
The reaction to the piece has been focused on whether an unnamed source reporting that McCain's campaign staff had decided to lessen Iseman's presence, and the fact that both parties had categorically dismissed the story, makes it real news. In addition, the release of the story the day after McCain had used the word "nominee" raises questions of a possible smear tactic.
What do you think? Is there more to the story we don't know yet? Is the real problem that the woman was a lobbyist, whether or not there was a sexual component? Is the presence of suspicion of an affair damaging to a candidate who holds his integrity up as his identity? Was the Times grasping at straws?









V.I.K
Butterfly
Meltin Pot
Finally, I have been waiting all morning for this one!
1Well, well, well Michlle and Brack had thrir share of mud slung at them in the last week welcome to the ring McCain, let's see him do the two step out of this one.
2If there is no real basis, this shouldn't take up space in the NY Times of all places.
3I have been waiting for this one, too. I think this is wrong. If this was a male lobbyist, this story WOULD NOT be front page news. Most Senators and Congressmen have a few lobbyists with whom they are very close. This woman is a lobbyist and there seems to be no concrete evidence that an affair took place!
4The Times had this story from the middle of December. Why did they wait so long to run with it? Now, McCain is the only viable Republican candidate. Then, there were several others. It seems to me that this was deliberately held back until now.
Tresjolie - I'm really curious to hear what you think about this.
5It is really sad that this story is breaking now. The timing is so fishy and makes me want to ignore the story. I suppose we have a little over eight months of these types of stories to go.
6Do people really need proof in a presidential campaining or do they need just a whiff of a rumour to start spinning a story and start influencing voters??
7Well usually republican males have affairs with men so this would be a lil different.
I'm sure theres more to the story...uh oh!
8
hotstuff
9So true, hotstuff!! The story does seem a little skeezy for the NYT, but unfortunately stuff like this is part of the modern political world. Personally, I couldn't care less whether he had an affair with this woman. It seems like men in power tend to have affairs. If this had been a Democrat, you know the Republicans would be all over them for it...destroying family values and all. But since it is a Republican, it's a smear campaign. It's things like this that make people not want to pay attention to the news or politics, and quite honestly I don't blame them.
10On one side; if it is untrue, then I think and hope that the truth will come out. If it's false I think we should get to the bottom of this right away, so that we don't hurt a candidate that hasn't done anything wrong.
The timing; The timing is obviously good for John McCain, since he has no other opponents at this point. Had they released it in late December/early January he might not have gotten the shoe in that he did. I bet Mitt Romney is pretty mad right now. At the same time, we really don't know if the story was ready for publishing around Christmas. Some stories take a long time to dig up sources from, and they apparently wanted to interview McCain himself about the story but he declined back then. I don't know. But better now than three weeks before the General Election. If it's not true, then he'll have tons of time to make amens.
If it is true I definitely loose respect for McCain, and respect is what has always been his pull. I said earlier that based on character(not policies) I would probably choose McCain over Clinton, because the way she campaigns; going negative and lying, is not leadership qualities in my book. So, we'll have to wait and see. His campaign manager did call in this woman to tell her to stay away from McCain, and that sounds pretty incriminating to me.
11I think whether this had been a Republican or a Democrat, the other side would be "all over" the candidate for this. Republicans would criticize a Democrat for having an affair, just as Democrats (at least the ones I've been around today) are "all over" McCain for this. I get so upset when people on either side act like the other side is the only one that plays dirty. (I'm not saying that anyone specifically is doing that, just that it seems like a lot of people on both sides do.)
12And honestly, had the shoe been on the other foot, I would have the same comments. Yes, I like McCain, but that's not the main thing driving my thoughts and comments on this issue. I don't think any major news source should report on a story like this until it has all of the facts. The suggestions of the affair take away from what should be the focus of the story, that McCain enjoyed a close personal relationship with a lobbyist (whether male or female) while he was working for tighter restrictions on lobbying activities. Unfortunately, if that were the only element to the story, it would probably not be making front page news.
13Vicky Iseman is a "hometown" girl, a graduate from the university where I used to teach. The townsfolk are buzzing and the reporters are swarming. I'm not sure who is talking, but we're all watching this story.
14I actually think the timing helps McCain. It's February... it's practically impossible for him to lose the nomination, and November is far, far away.
As for the NY Times, it'll be interesting to see what they do next, now that McCain has called their bluff. And, I don't think the romance, or lack of romance, between the two should be the focus of the story.
Ok, that's my two cents... for now.
15Lilkimbo - I agree with you wholeheartedly!
When will the NYT change their name to "I HATE REPUBLICANS DAILY". This paper makes me so sick, I can't believe people still choose to read it. This is the kind of reporting I'd expect from Star magazine not a supposedly respected paper.
I heard a pundit say this morning "If this had been a man with a golf club in his hand, we wouldn't be hearing about it at all." I completely agree.
As far as the story running in December, I heard this morning that McCain called the NYT himself to tell them not to run the story because there are no facts. Clearly he would be seeking self-preservation, but this is a guy who normally admits to his mistakes. Unlike a lot of politicians, he is usually more humble and willing to admit when he made an error. Because of that I think he's a pretty honest guy who, if this was true, would have admitted it or at least done more at the time it was going on to cover it up or stop it before it got out anymore.
And I'm sorry but I don't believe for a SECOND that a McCain staffer would talk to the NYT.
16However, I think this will bite the NYT in the butt because this will rally Republicans and some Independents around McCain which will be good for him.
What bothers me most about this situation is the deteroration of journalism in this country. This is what passes for truthful reporting? That is sickening.
Speaking to the AP Keller, the Times editor, explained that the paper's judgment that the story was ready to print "means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction"
That is so depressing and shows a lot about the "integrity" of this paper.
17I hate it when the Republican smear tactics are used against them.
18I am SO TIRED of hearing about politician's love lives. I don't CARE! If it affects their policy, that is one thing. But other than that, I just don't care to think about what they do in their bedroom. Not important!
19cabaker27, you put it so well. the bias of "the paper of record" is really aggravating.
20yeah, hotstuff! i'm just refreshed by the story of a male politician having an affair with a female.
21Just to specify; I don't care about any affairs, only the lobbyist aspect. I might not been too clear about that.
For many conservatives, though, family values are extremely important. I'm not a conservative, so I don't know what they think about it. In any case it should resolved quickly. If The Times were over their head on this one then it should be easy to prove that it is merely innuendo. No matter what is true they should try to keep their journalism out of the bedroom.
22although....apparently they printed the story because New Republic was going to go with it, and they decided they couldn't sit on it any longer. So maybe they were trying to hold it til after he secured the nomination, so they could make sure the "good" (most Dem-like) Republican got the nod.
Regardless, I think the timing of this does work for McCain. By rushing to print it, the NYT and New Republic look pretty shoddy, and they then become the story. Meanwhile, he has plenty of time to deal w/ any fallout, provided it doesn't get worse.
23Why do people get all up in arms when politicians act like politicians?
24If what I heard this morning is true - that McCain knew that they had plans for the story and got them to hold off until the nomination was secured, that just me more irritated with both him and the press. Forget about the did he or did he not have an affair, it brings up a lot of his inconsistencies and hypercritical nature. I would much rather this have come up early in the primary voting. It would have really helped to counter to his blatantly lying attack ads the eve before an election, for example.
25I don't care who the article is about, but I do have concerns about other issues.
26The first is, this is lowering the bar for NY Times. Since when did they focus on such trivial and prosaic articles? If I wanted to read anything of this nature, I'd have turned to a celebrity magazine.
The second concern is that because Vicky Iseman is a woman, and that, to NYT, automatically means affair? I'm not a feminist, but it aggravates me that a woman in the government doing her job would translate so quickly to an affair. Men are flown in corporate jets so often that it's not even noteworthy!
I hardly ever read the New York Times anymore, because I too, feel that their integrity has diminished quite a bit.
I agree with cabaker; the NY Times are so profoundly biased. It's the same with the news on TV. You'd never even know there was a Republican party!
I suppose politicians will be politicians, and newspapers will be newspapers...
27Lilkimbo said "The suggestions of the affair take away from what should be the focus of the story, that McCain enjoyed a close personal relationship with a lobbyist (whether male or female) while he was working for tighter restrictions on lobbying activities." I couldn't agree more.
That's the only part of this story I care about. I don't care if he had an affair with the woman. I don't care if he has a fetish for circus performers. His love life is none of my business. But if his policy has been affected by his relationship with a lobbyist, it becomes everyone's business.
28Hi All,
I know you missed me, but I've been busy studying for the GMAT. Don't worry, I'll be back soon.
Just had to comment:
"The story does seem a little skeezy for the NYT" - :rofl:
29Shady business, NYT! Call me back when you actually have a story, and until then, keep your "National Enquirer" articles on the drawing room floor.
30You're back mmm!
31yeah they need proof before they publish these things. NYTimes just wants to make McCain look bad
32I dont think its right for any news organization to put something like that out there without proof , what happened to reporting actual news instead of rumors? I dont care for McCain myself but I think this was wrong.
*Humming "dirty laundry" by the Eagles.
33All I'm gonna say is for once I'm glad I'm not seeing yet another smear campaign against the Obamas. As far as McCain's troubles with this story, I could care less but with his record of cheating, how do you really know that it isn't true even in the slightest? Yeah...
34M3 - I hated taking the GMAT! Good luck!! I'm sure you'll do well!
Don't ever leave again!!!
35"Shady business, NYT! Call me back when you actually have a story, and until then, keep your "National Enquirer" articles on the drawing room floor."
Cabaker got it right when she called them "I hate Republican's daily". The Times are a freaking joke.
If they ran an article like this about a Liberal a would say the same thing.
And of course I agree with Jovianskies!
36Jovian - "You'd never even know there was a Republican party!"
So funny and so true.
37Is is M3 now? I just got used to 3M!
38I don't care what politicians do in private.
I don't care what religion they are.
I don't care how much money they have.
I don't care how much "stage presence" they have.
All I care about are their plans for the future of America and how realistic they are.
39Hey Indie, Didn't Obama use drugs in the past? If it came out that he was using drugs again without concrete evidence I am sure you would fight tooth and nail to defend him.
I mean I personally would rather have a cheater then a drug addict running the country.
40I like to think of it as M cubed.
And Cine, we did have a cheater running the country remember?
41No no, cabaker! It was not sexual relations, and he did not inhale. You have forgotten about the loop holes.
Now he made a trust worthy President!
42M cube is perfect! It makes him sound cool. Of course I am still a fan of the mmm.
43@ Indie. So I suppose it's just as fair for news sources to publish stories about Obama being a wife abuser and Hillary being a pedophile... afterall, MAYBE they could turn out to be true. You know that's an irresponsible way to run a media outlet, so quit fakin.
44Is this a conservative badge of honor?
45Liberty, it may be! Like I said, I really think this will rally some of the far right conservatives who have expressed dislike for McCain...
46Liberty, it may be! Like I said, I really think this will rally some of the far right conservatives who have expressed dislike for McCain...
47"Liberty, it may be! Like I said, I really think this will rally some of the far right conservatives who have expressed dislike for McCain..." - Very nice concept you have there miss!
48I'm sorry but he's 71... and I guess we'd have to ask Bob Dole about his little blue pill usage. And perhaps I'm being agist but I just can't see this being true at all...
49P.S. You all rock. Thanks for the support.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.