I COULD CARE LESS........

[Lone Laugher]

about John McCain possibly having an affair several years ago. It is a non-story.

If he ran around preaching against such activities, I might find him to be full of shit....but that is all.

So the guy may have gotten a little strange.....who cares?

[Sweet Tart]

People are far too uptight :lmao

[Yellowdogtexan]

My position is that McCain is too old and boring to even do a good sex scandal. There may be more to this mess given the reaction by the McCain campaign and the threats of litigation against the NYT.

[Wabash]

Strange stuff is good to find...

[Yellowdogtexan]

The NYT article was scrubbed by the lawyers. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179402.php We know that the McCain Camp went to the mattresses to get this story spiked back in December. And some heavy legal muscle was apparently brought to bear. When a story has to go through that much lawyering it often comes out pretty stilted and with some obvious lacunae. And this one definitely qualifies. Reading the Times piece it struck me as a bit of a jumble. The reference to a possible affair is there in the lede. But then most of the piece is a rehash of a lot of older material about McCain's record before getting back to the relationship with Iseman.

In terms of a relationship between the two, the Times piece seems quite hedged. According to two staffers, staffers became concerned there was a romantic relationship. They took steps to protect McCain from himself. According to the Times sources, after being confronted by staffers, McCain "acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman."

The Post did a quick follow up in the wake of the Times piece. But the emphasis is significantly different -- suggesting the 'concern' on the part of the McCain staff was not so much about a potential affair but rather having McCain too close to a lobbyist while running a reformist insurgent presidential campaign, a suggestion that strikes me as rather dubious. (Note the role of John Weaver in the Post story and possibly in the Times story too. Weaver is a key figure in McCain's turn toward reformism and then turn back away from it.)

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.The good news is that the stuff that was taken out by the lawyers will come out eventually. There is more to this story than what has come out to date and the rest will come out.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Strange stuff is good to find...You should like mccain even more now that it is clear that he was trying to follow in the foot steps of Grandpa Fred Thompson. McCain traded the wife who stood by him through his stint as a POW in Vietnam for a younger model who was only 18 years younger. Next he had an affair with a lady lobbyist who was 31 years younger. Jeri Thompson was a lobbyist when she met Fredericks of Hollywood but was only 24 years younger than Half Dead Fred.

I am pestered by the fact that McCain traded in the wife who stood by him while he was a POW for a younger model and so am not surprised at this affair.

[Trueblue]

The problems with McCain's involvement and possible influence on his votes and those of others is probably more of a problem than the affair. That goes completely against what he has preached for years.

[Calamity Jane]

The truth is beginning to unfold, instead of the DNC, NY Times version. Of course this sets in motion the version to be scoped up in rhetoric by Bathtub Boy Olbermann, and CNN's loyal Liberal puppets. If this bothered any of the jerks at the Times, and was any kind of a story back in 2000, why did the Times go ahead and endorse McCain?

Gutter Politics played by the Left and spun hard to tell all the gullible sheep out there, that the GOP is the dirty tricks Party!

[Trueblue]

This isn't the doing of the DNC, it's the doing of the NYT, who is in the business of selling papers. An organization so "liberal" :rofl that they allowed Judith Miller free reign in the lead up to the Iraq War.

The sheep are those who still believe that the media is somehow "liberal".

And really, Calamity, let's lay a bit of the blame at McCain's feet, shall we? Don't you believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY?????

[Calamity Jane]

You should like mccain even more now that it is clear that he was trying to follow in the foot steps of Grandpa Fred Thompson. McCain traded the wife who stood by him through his stint as a POW in Vietnam for a younger model who was only 18 years younger. Next he had an affair with a lady lobbyist who was 31 years younger. Jeri Thompson was a lobbyist when she met Fredericks of Hollywood but was only 24 years younger than Half Dead Fred.

I am pestered by the fact that McCain traded in the wife who stood by him while he was a POW for a younger model and so am not surprised at this affair.


At this point they are very carefully saying there were no improprieties, and according to Bob Bennet a Liberal Lawyer, its close to yellow journalism. What more would one expect from a paper more loyal to terrorists then America itself?

You want to see some real lies, no substance and people with skeletons(literally)in the closet.

[Trueblue]

At this point they are very carefully saying there were no improprieties, and according to Bob Bennet a Liberal Lawyer, its close to yellow journalism. What more would one expect from a paper more loyal to terrorists then America itself?

You want to see some real lies, no substance and people with skeletons(literally)in the closet.

How idiotic.

[jim]

Well the story is that McCain has had an affair with a lobbyist. My reaction...The same as with Bill Clinton: Who gives a damn???:D We have a lot more important things to think of: That simple.:yep:D:juggle:hmph

[Oceanbreeze]

Affairs are complete lack of respect of all involved. :soapbox

[patriotsblade]

I'm just waiting to hear Larry Craig to react to this the way he did to Bill Clinton.

Craig: Well, I don’t know where the Senate’s going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure resolution and it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s a, bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy. The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.

I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/28/1999-video-republican-larry-craig-calls-bill-clinton-a-nasty-bad-naughty-boy/

:wabash:devil:sparks2 :rofl

[toxic]

Well, I for one am SHOCKED!!!! God-less bastard.

Another TailHook Scandel by a Navy Pilot.

We need a Full Investigation, just like last time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_Association

...Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention. ...

[toxic]

Well, I for one am SHOCKED!!!! God-less bastard.

Another TailHook Scandel by a Navy Pilot.

We need a Full Investigation, just like last time, which took 2 years :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_Association

...Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention. ...

[Oceanbreeze]

about John McCain possibly having an affair several years ago. It is a non-story.

If he ran around preaching against such activities, I might find him to be full of shit....but that is all.

So the guy may have gotten a little strange.....who cares?

It's unethical. :soapbox

A cheat is a liar, a liar is never to be trusted. :soapbox

[jim]

Well, I for one am SHOCKED!!!! God-less bastard.

Another TailHook Scandel by a Navy Pilot.

We need a Full Investigation, just like last time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_Association

...Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention. ...

Yep: what a mess!! BTW: Didn't see the "I could Care Less" thread when I posted this one...:rooster

[toxic]

Yep: what a mess!! BTW: Didn't see the "I could Care Less" thread when I posted this one...:rooster

Yeah, I know, but it seems that it might be instructive to rub the nose of those who pointed at Bill Clinton, into the dirt.

Maybe they will be more "Christian" (forgiving) in the future.

Eventually, everyone discovers they live in a glass house and shouldn't throw rocks :)

[Saguaro]

TOLEDO, Ohio - John McCain emphatically denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist on Thursday and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is "not true."

"I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood beside him during a news conference called to address the matter.

"I've served this nation honorably for more than half a century," said McCain, a four-term Arizona senator and former Navy pilot. "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust."

"I intend to move on," he added.

McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.

The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to steer clear of McCain.

Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting before the 2000 campaign after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about Iseman.

But McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation, and denied that his aides ever tried to talk to him about his interactions with Iseman.

"I never discussed it with John Weaver. As far as I know, there was no necessity for it," McCain said. "I don't know anything about it," he added. "John Weaver is a friend of mine. He remains a friend of mine. But I certainly didn't know anything of that nature."

His wife also said she was disappointed with the newspaper.

"More importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America. He's a man of great character," Cindy McCain said.

The couple smiled throughout the questioning at a Toledo hotel.

"We think the story speaks for itself," Times executive editor Bill Keller said in a written statement Thursday. "On the timing, our policy is we publish stories when they are ready."

McCain's remaining rival for the Republican nomination, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, called McCain "a good decent honorable man" and said he accepted McCain's response.

"I've campaigned now on the same stage or platform with John McCain for 14 months. I only know him to be a man of integrity," Huckabee said in Houston. "Today he denied any of that was true. I take him at his word. For me to get into it is completely immaterial."

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship. Neither story asserted that there was a romantic relationship and offered no evidence that there was, reporting only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served.

The stories also allege that McCain wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman's clients.

In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson's chief executive, Lowell W. "Bud" Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign.

McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain's request "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" and "could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties."

McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company's jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.

"Riding on the airplane was an accepted practice," McCain said Thursday, adding that he supported a change in rules since then. As for the letters, he said: "I said I'm not telling you how to make a decision; I'm just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. I believe that was appropriate."

Since The New York Times story was published Wednesday night, the McCain campaign has sought to discredit it, distributing lengthy statements and deploying senior advisers to appear on news shows. The campaign calls the story a smear campaign to destroy the Republican nominee-in-waiting.

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, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."

Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, told NBC's "Today" show that McCain's staff provided the Times with "approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist's clients and her public relations firm's clients," but none of the examples were included in the paper's story.

"There is no evidence that John McCain ever breached the public trust and that is the issue and the only issue," said Bennett, who once represented former President Clinton, on Thursday.

McCain said he won't allow the reports to distract him from his presidential campaign.

"I will focus my attention in this campaign on the big issues and on the challenges that face this country," he said.

He defended his integrity last December, after he was questioned about reports that the Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican and that his aides had been trying to dissuade the newspaper from publishing a story.

"I've never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record," he told reporters.

McCain and four other senators were accused two decades ago of trying to influence banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate Ethics Committee ultimately decided that McCain had used "poor judgment" but that his actions "were not improper" and warranted no penalty.

McCain has said that episode helped spur his drive to change campaign finance laws in an attempt to reduce the influence of money in politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lobbyist;_ylt=AofH0MgZpc7AOT_xFCs8hGys0NUE

[toxic]

So the botom line is, McCain never denies having a romantic affair with her.

Come-on McCain, say, "I never had sexual relations with that woman." :rofl


Instead, McCain says:
- the article isn't correct. (He could be refering to any minor unimportant aspect)
- I didn't do any favors for anyone (that can be proven).
- I've served this nation honorably for more than half a century. (so what - we are asking where you getting blowjobs)
- At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust. (getting laid is not betraying the public trust).
- move foreward, quit asking me questions about my morality.
<- It's Bill Clintons fault.>

[Wabash]

You should like mccain even more now that it is clear that he was trying to follow in the foot steps of Grandpa Fred Thompson. McCain traded the wife who stood by him through his stint as a POW in Vietnam for a younger model who was only 18 years younger. Next he had an affair with a lady lobbyist who was 31 years younger. Jeri Thompson was a lobbyist when she met Fredericks of Hollywood but was only 24 years younger than Half Dead Fred.

I am pestered by the fact that McCain traded in the wife who stood by him while he was a POW for a younger model and so am not surprised at this affair.
Be pestered all you want. Your main goal here is to be a shit disturber! The wives of the two Senators is really none of your business, or anyone elses.
Divorces happen...for a huge variety of reasons....the POW and their relationship, is STILL none of your business!

At this point they are very carefully saying there were no improprieties, and according to Bob Bennet a Liberal Lawyer, its close to yellow journalism. What more would one expect from a paper more loyal to terrorists then America itself?

You want to see some real lies, no substance and people with skeletons(literally)in the closet.
Damn straight!

How idiotic.
Not at all.....whatever sells papers and makes em money....right? No matter how outrageous their stories....

[patriotsblade]

It's unethical. :soapbox

A cheat is a liar, a liar is never to be trusted. :soapbox

So, uh, who's your candidate then?

[Wabash]

Affairs are complete lack of respect of all involved. :soapbox
But hormones happen....it's the way our bodies work...

I'm just waiting to hear Larry Craig to react to this the way he did to Bill Clinton.



http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/28/1999-video-republican-larry-craig-calls-bill-clinton-a-nasty-bad-naughty-boy/

:wabash:devil:sparks2 :rofl
Sure you are...

Well, I for one am SHOCKED!!!! God-less bastard.

Another TailHook Scandel by a Navy Pilot.

We need a Full Investigation, just like last time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_Association

...Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention. ...
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Well, I for one am SHOCKED!!!! God-less bastard.

Another TailHook Scandel by a Navy Pilot.

We need a Full Investigation, just like last time, which took 2 years :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_Association

...Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention. ...

Too funny! Too silly!

It's unethical. :soapbox

A cheat is a liar, a liar is never to be trusted. :soapbox
What...you believe this malarky?

Yeah, I know, but it seems that it might be instructive to rub the nose of those who pointed at Bill Clinton, into the dirt.

Maybe they will be more "Christian" (forgiving) in the future.

Eventually, everyone discovers they live in a glass house and shouldn't throw rocks :)
Biil Clinton would have got a pass if he had just owned up to it and told the american people that it was none of their business or whatever. He Didn't! He lied to the entire country on National TV and to the investigators!

[Wabash]

So the botom line is, McCain never denies having a romantic affair with her.

Come-on McCain, say, "I never had sexual relations with that woman." :rofl


Instead, McCain says:
- the article isn't correct. (He could be refering to any minor unimportant aspect)
- I didn't do any favors for anyone (that can be proven).
- I've served this nation honorably for more than half a century. (so what - we are asking where you getting blowjobs)
- At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust. (getting laid is not betraying the public trust).
- move foreward, quit asking me questions about my morality.
<- It's Bill Clintons fault.>

Agreed!

[April15]

I wonder if he has a cyalis commercial in him?

[AYFR]

The problems with McCain's involvement and possible influence on his votes and those of others is probably more of a problem than the affair. That goes completely against what he has preached for years.
Problem it that it is not proven to be true.
Affairs are complete lack of respect of all involved. :soapbox
Agreed
It's unethical. :soapbox

A cheat is a liar, a liar is never to be trusted. :soapbox
Again agreed but McCain denies it and there is no proof to the contrary.

So the botom line is, McCain never denies having a romantic affair with her.

Come-on McCain, say, "I never had sexual relations with that woman." :rofl

He did
Instead, McCain says:
- the article isn't correct. (He could be refering to any minor unimportant aspect) Actually he says the article(whole thing) is not true

- I've served this nation honorably for more than half a century. (so what - we are asking where you getting blowjobs)Acctually he is being accused of something he says is not true. But to answer your question probably his wife.
- At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust. (getting laid is not betraying the public trust).
For some people a public offical cheating is betraying the people trust.
- move foreward, quit asking me questions about my morality.
He never said that. He said that HE intends to move foward

[Ringo]

Well, I for one am SHOCKED!!!! God-less bastard.

Another TailHook Scandel by a Navy Pilot.

We need a Full Investigation, just like last time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_Association

...Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention. ...

Which Country do you work for, ya fuckin traitor and military hater! This is a non story by your pussy friends at the Times and your LEFTIST Commie buddies!!!:godzilla

[toxic]

McCain has already been caught lying once today.

He said, he didn't talk to the NYTs on the story or try to disuade them from running it, then when confronted with specific questions, McCain admitted he both talked to them and wanted them to close the story.

What kind of AH just thinks he can do whatever he wants and get away with it?

I wonder if they will try to revive Romney?

[AYFR]

Toxic please do show me one politician, or better yet current candidate that hasn't been caught lying.

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship.

[toxic]

Toxic please do show me one politician, or better yet current candidate that hasn't been caught lying.

Evangical Position: Lying is okay if others do it.


Okay then, how about Blowjobs, "Real" Adulterious Sex and Republican Pedophilia?

[AYFR]

Evangical Position: Lying is okay if others do it.


Okay then, how about Blowjobs, "Real" Adulterious Sex and Republican Pedophilia?

See I never said it was OK. You are bringing up that McCain is lying in hopes that it stops him. I was just pointing out that you cannot show me one candidate taht has not lied.

I wish none would lie and would oinstead rely on integrity and honesty.


I was against Clinton's impeachment (I am guessing that what the BJ comment refers to) while it was immoral and wrong (would be wrong no matter who did it) it was not and impeachable offense.

As for Republican Pedophilia, it is just as disgusting as Democrat Pedophilia (local Democrat Leader - John Wayne Gacy, Barney Frank, and Gerry Studds)
All pedophiles are disgusting and should be punished to the fullest extent.

[Viki]

Sorry about this, but this one grates me big time ... the phrase (used by almost no one) is, appropriately, "I could NOT care less."

Think about it...you care so little you could NOT care less...

I know, I know, it's a hopeless cause, but I soldier on.

Carry on ...

[Wabash]

See I never said it was OK. You are bringing up that McCain is lying in hopes that it stops him. I was just pointing out that you cannot show me one candidate taht has not lied.

I wish none would lie and would oinstead rely on integrity and honesty.


I was against Clinton's impeachment (I am guessing that what the BJ comment refers to) while it was immoral and wrong (would be wrong no matter who did it) it was not and impeachable offense.

As for Republican Pedophilia, it is just as disgusting as Democrat Pedophilia (local Democrat Leader - John Wayne Gacy, Barney Frank, and Gerry Studds)
All pedophiles are disgusting and should be punished to the fullest extent.

He wasn't impeached for a BJ!!!!.....it was for LYING to the GJ!
You of all people should be straight on this!

[Ringo]

YOur being nice to Clinton Wabby, he should have been Impeached, charged with Treason, along with Fat Al, and both hung!!!:godzilla

Sex Affairs?? Did the TIMES cover this, did the TIMES break this story? This is shocking to some I guess, I wonder if Bill gets to watch??:LL

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/11/hillary-lesbian.html

[toxic]

He wasn't impeached for a BJ!!!!.....it was for LYING to the GJ!
You of all people should be straight on this!

No, he was impeached because he was a Democrat with a Republican Congress and the conservative based is too stupid to know the difference between:

1) sexual relations
2) intercourse
3) sex
4) blowjob
5) handjob
6) etc

Clinton said, he didn't have Sexual Relations with Monica, and he was correct.

McCain hasn't said that yet and probably never will :rofl

[toxic]

See I never said it was OK. You are bringing up that McCain is lying in hopes that it stops him. I was just pointing out that you cannot show me one candidate taht has not lied...

I guess I don't see the relevance of others lying, when McCain is the subject.

It does not diminish his failure and does draw into question his other statements.


Consider if you were in court: "But Judge, everyone was stealing money." ...

[Oceanbreeze]

No, he was impeached because he was a Democrat with a Republican Congress and the conservative based is too stupid to know the difference between:

1) sexual relations
2) intercourse
3) sex
4) blowjob
5) handjob
6) etc

Clinton said, he didn't have Sexual Relations with Monica, and he was correct.

McCain hasn't said that yet and probably never will :rofl


Toxic. :poke

If my spouse did any of the above I would divorce him. They are all sexual relations because they result in sexual gratification, DUMBA$$.

[Wabash]

No, he was impeached because he was a Democrat with a Republican Congress and the conservative based is too stupid to know the difference between:

1) sexual relations
2) intercourse
3) sex
4) blowjob
5) handjob
6) etc

Clinton said, he didn't have Sexual Relations with Monica, and he was correct.

McCain hasn't said that yet and probably never will :rofl
Yes and they ARE sexual relations!!! Clinton is a LIAR! He was punished for it...not severely enough IMO!!
The McCain story is a smear job by the NYT and obviously erroneous!

I guess I don't see the relevance of others lying, when McCain is the subject.

It does not diminish his failure and does draw into question his other statements.


Consider if you were in court: "But Judge, everyone was stealing money." ...
Yep...you have it correct...You Can't See, or think!!

Toxic. :poke

If my spouse did any of the above I would divorce him. They are all sexual relations because they result in sexual gratification, DUMBA$$.

Ain't THAT the truth!!!

[Yellowdogtexan]

Be pestered all you want. Your main goal here is to be a shit disturber! The wives of the two Senators is really none of your business, or anyone elses.
Divorces happen...for a huge variety of reasons....the POW and their relationship, is STILL none of your business!McCain's divorce and how he treated his first wife does reflect on his character. Remember that it was the GOP that decreed that sex outside of marriage was an impeachable offense.

Here is more on how McCain treated his first wife. http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccain_and_iseman.phpObviously, I don't know whether or not McCain had sex with Iseman. I suppose by "what the meaning of the word 'is' is" standards, he didn't even deny having had sex with Iseman. Certainly it'd be a bit rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career. That's well known, I should say, except to the electorate, who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's "character" appeal.These facts are relevant to whether McCain is the type of person to be in charge and may be relevant to the evangelical voters who are already not happy with McCain

[Wabash]

McCain's divorce and how he treated his first wife does reflect on his character. Remember that it was the GOP that decreed that sex outside of marriage was an impeachable offense.

Here is more on how McCain treated his first wife. http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccain_and_iseman.phpThese facts are relevant to whether McCain is the type of person to be in charge and may be relevant to the evangelical voters who are already not happy with McCain

Bill Clinton's actions in Arkansas should have precluded him from ever becoming President....but some groups will vote for any body!

[Yellowdogtexan]

I do not feel too sorry for McCain. He is using the NYT story to raise money. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/already_mccain_raising_money_o.php[QUOTE]Well, that was pretty predictable. The McCain campaign is already raising money off the uproar over the Times piece, depicting it as nothing more than the work of a left wing cabal -- including the paper, the Democratic Party and of course MoveOn -- that is bent on destroying the GOP nominee.

From a new McCain fundraising email:Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand.To be clear, we think there's much in the story that's legit, particularly the stuff focused on the questions around McCain's professional relationship with the lobbyist and the broader pattern of influence peddling that's alluded to. The anonymous suggestions of a romantic affair, however, have only made it easier for the McCain camp to respond as they did above.

Interestingly, the fundraising email makes no mention of the fact that the paper endorsed McCain./QUOTE]

[Yellowdogtexan]

Bill Clinton's actions in Arkansas should have precluded him from ever becoming President....but some groups will vote for any body!Does McCain's treatment of the wife who stood by him while he was a POW in Vietnam disqualify him from being president? I admit that I find McCain's treatment of his first wife disturbing just as I found Newt's delivery of divorce papers to one of his ex-wives while she was recoverying from cancer to be disturbing.

[Wabash]

I don't feel sorry for him either....I never liked him...but he's still better than obama or hillary!

[Wabash]

Does McCain's treatment of the wife who stood by him while he was a POW in Vietnam disqualify him from being president? I admit that I find McCain's treatment of his first wife disturbing just as I found Newt's delivery of divorce papers to one of his ex-wives while she was recoverying from cancer to be disturbing.
Well, you get disturbed at the drop of the word Republican....so what's new?

So then if hillary stands by Bill, thru all the years of HIS unfaithfulness, she should get a medal for it? She shouldn't dump his lying ass because it could negatively impact her campaign?

[Oceanbreeze]

McCain's divorce and how he treated his first wife does reflect on his character. Remember that it was the GOP that decreed that sex outside of marriage was an impeachable offense.


Wow, if that ain't calling the kettle black.

[jim]

Bill Clinton's actions in Arkansas should have precluded him from ever becoming President....but some groups will vote for any body!

Y'all need to learn some things about politics and politicians...They are all into affairs. One psychology professor said once: "This is not the steereotyped American image of a responsible man, but the fact is they are responsible." I don't know: That might be generally true - in some ways - but I think the professors statement is a bit overwrought. One opinion I have heard is that Bill and Hillary had a "friendship" marriage in the first place...I figure that as long as the job gets done - who should give a damn...I sure as hell don't:lmao:hotdog

[Trueblue]

Sorry about this, but this one grates me big time ... the phrase (used by almost no one) is, appropriately, "I could NOT care less."

Think about it...you care so little you could NOT care less...

I know, I know, it's a hopeless cause, but I soldier on.

Carry on ...

But the thing is, when someone says "I could care less" it is extreme sarcasm. So it is appropriately phrased, IMO.

[Lone Laugher]

Guilty as charged.

COULD CARE LESS

COULD NOT CARE LESS




Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless.

[Wabash]

Y'all need to learn some things about politics and politicians...They are all into affairs. One psychology professor said once: "This is not the steereotyped American image of a responsible man, but the fact is they are responsible." I don't know: That might be generally true - in some ways - but I think the professors statement is a bit overwrought. One opinion I have heard is that Bill and Hillary had a "friendship" marriage in the first place...I figure that as long as the job gets done - who should give a damn...I sure as hell don't:lmao:hotdog
But there are many, some right here, that care soooo much about Thompson's young wife and McCain's young wife as if that makes any damn difference about how well they can do the job.
It doesn't!

[AYFR]

He wasn't impeached for a BJ!!!!.....it was for LYING to the GJ!
You of all people should be straight on this!
That was what he was impeached for BUT there would not have been a grand jury to lie to had the Reps nor pursued the stupid case in the first place.
No, he was impeached because he was a Democrat with a Republican Congress

This part I would have to agree with.
I guess I don't see the relevance of others lying, when McCain is the subject.

It does not diminish his failure and does draw into question his other statements.


Consider if you were in court: "But Judge, everyone was stealing money." ...

I actually agree with you, one person doing something does not make it right for someone else to do it.

My thing is that people are focusing on ones persons lying and ignoring the others.

[Wabash]

That was what he was impeached for BUT there would not have been a grand jury to lie to had the Reps nor pursued the stupid case in the first place.

This part I would have to agree with.


I actually agree with you, one person doing something does not make it right for someone else to do it.

My thing is that people are focusing on ones persons lying and ignoring the others.
If he would have been up front with Everyone in the first place, the Republicans would have had nothing at all!
That still doesn't excuse him lying to ALL Americans on national TV ...right to our faces!
Let's be clear...Bill's problems begin with BILL!

[Trueblue]

And McCain's problems could be solved if he'd just come clean, too!

[AYFR]

If he would have been up front with Everyone in the first place, the Republicans would have had nothing at all!
That still doesn't excuse him lying to ALL Americans on national TV ...right to our faces!
Let's be clear...Bill's problems begin with BILL!

Bill's problems are Bill's, not disagree with that; BUT infidelity is a Husband/Wife issue not a political, Republican/Democrat one. Cheating on your spouse is wrong and stupid no argument there. but it does not affect the state of this nation. If his wife could forgive him then why should America do any less?

Why should he have been upfront? It was none of anybody's business but his wifes.

[nixon]

Bill's problems are Bill's, not disagree with that; BUT infidelity is a Husband/Wife issue not a political, Republican/Democrat one. Cheating on your spouse is wrong and stupid no argument there. but it does not affect the state of this nation. If his wife could forgive him then why should America do any less?

Why should he have been upfront? It was none of anybody's business but his wifes. It is no one's business, but it shows you thier principles and values. If they cheat and lie to thier spouse, do you think they will honest with you?

[AYFR]

It is no one's business, but it shows you thier principles and values. If they cheat and lie to thier spouse, do you think they will honest with you?

Probably not but that is an election issue to be taken up by the people when they vote.

It still does not make it a political issue.

[Wabash]

And McCain's problems could be solved if he'd just come clean, too!

He already has...the NYT are the liars here...

[Wabash]

The NYT endorsed McCain and had this story before the endorsement, but comes out with it anyway now! WTF!!!!

[Lone Laugher]

Hmmmmm...maybe the editorial side and the news side are not acting in concert. What were the reasons given for endorsing him?

[Wabash]

Hmmmmm...maybe the editorial side and the news side are not acting in concert. What were the reasons given for endorsing him?

Why the Best person to be President, what else? !:thumbsup:rofl:rofl:rofl

[Trueblue]

He already has...the NYT are the liars here...

You know that's not true. Have you read the actual story?

[Wabash]

You know that's not true. Have you read the actual story?

Nope...but unless they can verify their sources....it's a bogus story!

[Yellowdogtexan]

The NYT scandal is doing two things. First it is highlighting what a cad Mccain was to his first wife. I was not aware of the facts here and I actually think a great deal less of the man. I used to admire McCain but after 2004 and now after learning about this behavior, I really think that he is unfit to be President.

Second, the NYT scandal is brining focus on McCain's ties to lobbyists including exposing Mccain's lies about these ties. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/21/mccain-special-interest-money/At a townhall meeting in New Hampshire last November, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the audience that he’s never allowed himself to be corrupted by lobbyist money:Everybody says that they’re against the special interests. I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to.According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has taken nearly $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the telephone utility and telecom service industries, more than any other Senator. McCain sides with the telecom companies on retroactive immunity.

McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks — formerly Paxson Communication — receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006.

In 2004, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain reversed a position and took “crucial legislative action” that saved Paxson Communications from “financial ruin.” Drew Clark reports:McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters — but not the great bulk of television stations — off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with “fear and trepidation” at a hearing on September 8, 2004.

Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson — and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.Vicki Iseman has represented Paxson since 1998, longer than any of her other clients. The Washington Post reports that Iseman’s clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.

UPDATE: Huffington Post reported recently:All told, McCain has received more than $400,000 from lobbying firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And among his major fundraisers (”bundlers”) 59 have been identified as lobbyists by the non-profit organization Public Citizen.McCain's lies about not taking money from special interests are relevant. The NYT story has exposed some of the favors that McCain has done for the industry that he was responsible for regulating. Again, McCain has lied about taking money from special interests. That is indeed relevant to his qualifications to be president.

[Viki]

But the thing is, when someone says "I could care less" it is extreme sarcasm. So it is appropriately phrased, IMO.

Ooooh, how I wish that were true, but, sadly, I don't believe it...

[Trueblue]

I've heard people say it dripping with sarcasm, so that's just how I've taken it. :shrug

[Trueblue]

The story has been adequately sourced. When newspapers say "anonymous sources" they don't mean that somebody called up and refused to give a name, but the paper just went ahead and published the story.

There is more than one highly placed staffer telling the same story, and the elements of the story have been verified by documentation and by others in a position to know the facts.

[toxic]

One day after The New York Times published an article raising ethical questions about Sen. John McCain's dealings with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, the Arizona senator pushed back today at a press conference in Cleveland, telling reporters, "Vicky Iseman did not force me into any positions."

Calling suggestions that Ms. Iseman could make him assume a different position "ridiculous," Sen. McCain said, "At my age, I'm not about to try out new positions that I'm uncomfortable with."

While Mr. McCain was vague about his official dealings with Ms. Iseman, he told reporters, "I would not allow a lobbyist to perform any favor for me unless it felt really, really good."

The Republican frontrunner said that neither he nor Ms. Iseman had been aware that The New York Times was conducting an investigation into their relationship, adding, "Vicki and I have been in the dark together for a long time."

But he vehemently defended the lobbyist's professionalism, telling reporters, "Vicki Iseman is an energetic and passionate woman who has bent over backwards to please me."

Early reaction to Sen. McCain's comments was mixed, with some Republicans wondering whether he had done himself more harm than good.

But Mr. McCain did receive high marks from at least one Senate colleague, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Id.).

"I called John today to offer him my encouragement," Sen. Craig said. "I said, 'It's hard, and it's going to get harder, but stick it out.'"

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He is the host of "Countdown to '08" at the 92nd Street Y on Tuesday, May 13 at 8 PM with his special guests Susie Essman (HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Jeffrey Toobin (CNN, bestselling author of The Nine. For tickets, go to 92y.org.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/mccain-lobbyist-did-not-_b_87903.html

[Trueblue]

:rofl

[Yellowdogtexan]

One day after The New York Times published an article raising ethical questions about Sen. John McCain's dealings with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, the Arizona senator pushed back today at a press conference in Cleveland, telling reporters, "Vicky Iseman did not force me into any positions."

Calling suggestions that Ms. Iseman could make him assume a different position "ridiculous," Sen. McCain said, "At my age, I'm not about to try out new positions that I'm uncomfortable with."

While Mr. McCain was vague about his official dealings with Ms. Iseman, he told reporters, "I would not allow a lobbyist to perform any favor for me unless it felt really, really good."

The Republican frontrunner said that neither he nor Ms. Iseman had been aware that The New York Times was conducting an investigation into their relationship, adding, "Vicki and I have been in the dark together for a long time."

But he vehemently defended the lobbyist's professionalism, telling reporters, "Vicki Iseman is an energetic and passionate woman who has bent over backwards to please me."

Early reaction to Sen. McCain's comments was mixed, with some Republicans wondering whether he had done himself more harm than good.

But Mr. McCain did receive high marks from at least one Senate colleague, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Id.).

"I called John today to offer him my encouragement," Sen. Craig said. "I said, 'It's hard, and it's going to get harder, but stick it out.'"

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He is the host of "Countdown to '08" at the 92nd Street Y on Tuesday, May 13 at 8 PM with his special guests Susie Essman (HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Jeffrey Toobin (CNN, bestselling author of The Nine. For tickets, go to 92y.org.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/mccain-lobbyist-did-not-_b_87903.htmlI love Andy Borowitz. Satire is best when it is close to the truth

[Sofa King]

I'm not so sure it is true, but if it is, then anyone concerned about his advanced age and being too old to hold the office of president should be reassured. If he can get it up at all, especially when under the pressure of having to "perform" that's pretty good. :snicker

Seriously, I can't even picture him proposing the idea of a sexual favor to someone. He is not exactly the Casanova type. I just can't picture it.

[Wabash]

I'm not so sure it is true, but if it is, then anyone concerned about his advanced age and being too old to hold the office of president should be reassured. If he can get it up at all, especially when under the pressure of having to "perform" that's pretty good. :snicker

Seriously, I can't even picture him proposing the idea of a sexual favor to someone. He is not exactly the Casanova type. I just can't picture it.

It's most likely a bunch of jealous pricks that can't get any themselves. I've seen it happen many times in many different places I have worked and played...or a bunch of obese matronly types, that haven't had it for so many years...they too are jealous!

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is amusing There once was a man named McCain
Who had the whole Whitehouse to gain
But he was quite a hobbyist
Of boning his lobbyist
So much for his '08 campaign

Thanks Stephen Colbert
http://www.nofactzone.net/?p=3255