PDA

View Full Version : John McCain may be involved in an affair with lobbyist


Yosemite Joy
Feb 20, 2008, 09:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=4&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

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.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

...

Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.

“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”

Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.

It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.

Ms. Iseman acknowledged meeting with Mr. Weaver, but disputed his account.

“I never discussed with him alleged things I had ‘told people,’ that had made their way ‘back to’ him,” she wrote in an e-mail message. She said she never received special treatment from Mr. McCain’s office.

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries.

The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.

Mr. Davis and Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s top strategists in both of his presidential campaigns, disputed accounts from the former associates and aides and said they did not discuss Ms. Iseman with the senator or colleagues.

“I never had any good reason to think that the relationship was anything other than professional, a friendly professional relationship,” Mr. Salter said in an interview.

He and Mr. Davis also said Mr. McCain had frequently denied requests from Ms. Iseman and the companies she represented. In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients’ hopes.

The McCain aides said the senator sided with Ms. Iseman’s clients only when their positions hewed to his principles

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history.

“Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter,” he wrote, “would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy.”

Statement by McCain

Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign issued the following statement Wednesday night:

“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

BGW
Feb 21, 2008, 08:42 AM
During the time I lived in Arizona, McCain was constantly caught up in some sort of scandal ( remember the Keating Five) or at least being accused as being a part of something shady. Being suspected of having an affair is nickel and dime stuff compared to what he has been accused of in the past.
McCain looks good on paper until you read the small print. I know some of you take Wikipedia with a grain of salt---I can vouch for the Arizona stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Yosemite Joy
Feb 24, 2008, 12:37 PM
McCain "Friends" clip, showing his lobbyist friends and who they work for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEROVh8zK4

mary oleary
Feb 26, 2008, 11:50 AM
Don't you think it is suspect that info regarding a relationship from 1999 is surfacing now?

McCain has been in the national spotlight for quite sometime...hmmm could be dirty tricks?

Kind of like the Obama picture being circulated...total dirty tricks

Shame to smear someone...it's not like he is being accused of sexual misconduct of an underling in the oval office, which was proven to be true...:o

Politics suck these days- It's the MTV generation- Xer's eat up Michael Moore

Soccer moms have become afternoon tv addicts
Oprah supports Obama- Ellen Supports Hillary...
...Maybe Dr Phil needs to weigh in!?

Where is Elvis when you need him?

CatdaBrat
Feb 26, 2008, 04:28 PM
Not that I am defending anyone or justifying their actions, but I am betting that it would be pretty hard to find anyone in high-level politics who has a clean slate as far as affairs, pot smoking, spousal abuse or whatever, goes. It would be nice if candidates would, or could, live up to our moral expectations, but I'm not holding my breath for it to actually happen.

Yosemite Joy
Feb 26, 2008, 10:23 PM
Don't you think it is suspect that info regarding a relationship from 1999 is surfacing now?

McCain has been in the national spotlight for quite sometime...hmmm could be dirty tricks?

Kind of like the Obama picture being circulated...total dirty tricks

Shame to smear someone...it's not like he is being accused of sexual misconduct of an underling in the oval office, which was proven to be true...:o

Politics suck these days- It's the MTV generation- Xer's eat up Michael Moore

Soccer moms have become afternoon tv addicts
Oprah supports Obama- Ellen Supports Hillary...
...Maybe Dr Phil needs to weigh in!?

Where is Elvis when you need him?


Oh please. Could it be that the college aged kids (aren't they gen Y?) are eating what Obama and Hillary are feeding because they are tired of the decisions that have been made since they started paying attention? I am a soccer mom, I guess, and I resent the assumption that I and perhaps 98 percent of the people I know are only Democrats or voting such a way because we watch afternoon tv (which I do not, but others do). Celebrities endorsement doesn't go far for people I know, and I personally could care less if every single "famous" or afternoon junk show loved McCain.


McCain is not being "smeared". If any right wing media had said this before the New York Times, though the Keating five is a google away, the right wing (even those who "hate" McCain, hi there Coulter and Limbaugh!) pundits wouldn't be sobbing about a smear campaign.

If someone has some info about Obama or Clinton of past, 1975, the year doesn't matter, that is damning, please come forward! We deserve to know everything about these people, look what happened when we looked the other way regarding a certain draft dodging Texan, and swift-boated the contender.

You sound slightly resentful about the impending Democrat win. Ho hum for you. Yay for the rest of America.

mary oleary
Feb 27, 2008, 09:08 AM
Missed my point completely.
I'm no fan of McCain.

I agree that it is ridiculous to expect "moral perfection" and I don't have such expectations.

My point is that these smear campaigns muddy the issues. We as a nation can't seem hear or learn past the media anymore. The elections are controlled by the media. The media is controlled by consumers. And the media loves every story that will get consumers to "tune" in.

Most people don't understand how the political system should work, or how to interact with it. Most people have unrealistic expectations of what the government should/can "do" for them. Most people don't even get the differences between National vs. State vs. County control. Most have no clue how or where tax dollars are spent.

Yet the media continues to feed us these "scandals" and celebrities continue to use their popularity to sway voters. And the saddest part is Voters are swayed.

Presidential candidates seek appearances on Saturday Night Live, the Tonight Show...they seek celebrity endorsements. They do it for one reason, it sways voters.

It is a sad predicament - not a Party issue.

My point was that the McCain "scandal" above was obviously an attempt to sway voters NOW, not report "news". Same with the Obama in a turban picture.

I don't blame the candidates , I blame the media, but I can't blame the media for giving the consumers what they seem to want ...so it leaves me disappointed with consumers, and discouraged regarding our ability to choose leaders.

I'm not resentful of an impending democrat win, part of me wants to see if Hillary or Obama are more than just blameshifting idealists. If the Democrats have the answers then great, I just haven't heard anything substantive from them except that the republicans are to blame.

Yosemite Joy
Feb 27, 2008, 09:02 PM
I disagree that the media is controlled by consumers. The media is controlled by the forces that own them, GE, Disney, and the other merging corporations and big wigs control what we learn from CNN to the Today Show. http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=16
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

I recently read a book that compared the differences between the negative and positive media between Gore and Bush in 2000.

You can see the results (that are quoted in the book) here:
http://www.journalism.org/node/309
http://www.journalism.org/node/315
or click on the links to the research on the right side of the screen on those pages.


Besides the "negative" media will do nothing to McCain regardless. It is so early yet in the year, he has months to come up with a good fear tactic to scare people into voting for him.