McCain VS the New York Times
Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 02:24PM John McCain denied accusations today by the New York Times that he had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist in 1999 and favored the woman’s interests as a lobbyist. The Times story cited “unnamed sources” and sat on the story even before it endorsed McCain for Republican nominee.
Here’s the original NYT article. Below is McCain’s press conference:
McCain denied the allegations saying:
“Obviously, I’m very disappointed in the article — it’s not true, At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest or would favor anyone or organization.””
Bottom Line: There’s no evidence that McCain did anything wrong 9 years ago (an affair is connoted, not alleged), but if he did, maybe now he can swing some of those Democratic voters who can’t stomach Hillary Clinton but are fond of Bill.
Either way…
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1604682
08 Elections, McCain, VIDEO 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (52)
Not really sure why this is even a story to begin with. It's not like he's got some spotless moral record to taint.
As everyone knows, McCain cheated on his first wife and ran off to marry the younger and more useful wealthy beer baroness.
As a political story, it's a bit of a ho hummer....
This is a pathetic way of trying to take votes away from McCain. Not that I even care, since I am rooting for Huckabee.
I don't even know how this became a Headline?
I think between the Obama campaign and the ny times editorial board there is a conspiracy to drive conservatives to vote for McCain. Amazing.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. And what does it mean for someone to say "I have not betrayed the public trust"? Does that mean I've done some private things I'd rather not talk about?
And there's plenty of evidence that McCain did some bad things in connection with the Keating 7 and in connection with his first wife and......
It's a non-issue but the New York Times is despicable. They endorsed him knowing they had a smear article waiting for around the time he'd get the nomination, further alienating him from Consevative voters. All it's actually done, though, is make most Conservatives rally around him because if true it was years ago and either way the New York Times has been acting dispicably for years.
Did he have an affair with this woman? I doubt it. It doesn't mean they didn't hang around too much making his staff uncomfortable but this goes to show that Romney or Huckabee, unquestionable family men, would have made better candidates. As grumpy said above, McCain does have some blemishes in his background.
If it is true, this would underline why it's so important to have a TRUE conservative candidate. Cheating isn't a right wing religious value.
The lesson I hope McCain learns here is YOU CANNOT REACH ACROSS THE AISLE TO LIBERALS; THEY MUST BE DEFEATED. We need to treat them as they do us. Bush's achilles heal was being too darn understanding to the Democrats and not standing up for the Republican Party in the name of bi-partisanship.
Jim,
Wasn't it the Keating 5, any way I guess being buddies and taking cash form Tony Rezko proves where there is smoke there is fire.
The lesson I hope McCain learns here is YOU CANNOT REACH ACROSS THE AISLE TO LIBERALS; THEY MUST BE DEFEATED."
Shouldn't you at least attribute this comment to Limbaugh?
The only thing that is being defeated is the rightwing ideology.
You people are just too funny.
Why, Pedro! I had no idea you listened to Rush!
This is common sense. McCain's weakness is that he reaches out to liberals.... which is why the NYT endorsed him.... but because he's Republican is why the NYT is running this smear campaign.
To the libs who read and post hear:
Why did Clinton get a pass on MULTIPLE affairs, lies, etc but with a Republican you demand perfection? Why the hypocracy?
I can hear it now Jesus (R, Galilee) walks on water PROVING HE CAN'T SWIM!!! Details at 11.
"Why, Pedro! I had no idea you listened to Rush!"
I listened to the blowhard back in the late 80's before he took off. I even paid money to see his "Rush To Excellence" standup show at the Midland theater in downtown KC. Heck, I even bought the mug.
The comment that you failed to attribute to him has been quoted all over the Internets. You must have copied his quote from one of those sites.
"This is common sense. McCain's weakness is that he reaches out to liberals."
It's a smart move. Liberals are Americans. They get to have a say in how this country is run. They will get to run the country since it is apparent that the people who you have supported are incapable of performing this function. This can't be a fun time for you. Your ideology is losing badly. Every time you folks behave in the same old manner, you prove Obama's point about how ill our country is. Keep it up!
"but because he's Republican is why the NYT is running this smear campaign."
If the story was about a Democrat, would you consider it a smear? Try not to be too focused on the alleged affair. Jumping in bed with lobyists and even letting them run his campaign for free is the bigger issue.
Did you appreciate Judith Miller's work with the NYT? Perhaps you are a big fan of David Brooks and Bill Kristol? Attacking the messenger is merely a diversion. Hey, perhaps you can get Huckleberry to be your candidate.
"Why did Clinton get a pass on MULTIPLE affairs, lies, etc but with a Republican you demand perfection? Why the hypocracy?"
I seem to recall an impeachment back in December of 1998. What was that all about?
I meant from YOU, Pedro. And your friends. Are you telling me, that you, Pedro, supported the impeachment?
"I meant from YOU, Pedro. And your friends. Are you telling me, that you, Pedro, supported the impeachment?"
Of course I thought the impeachment was baloney. The allegations of an affair for McCain is a non-starter for me. I think it is interesting, but I will let you culture warriors dwell on the sexual aspect.
The bigger issue is with McCain's credibility on ethics. At this point I am just an observer enjoying the freak show. I am not passing judgement against McCain ... yet.
The bigger question is not just McCain's ethics but his ethics, or lack thereof, stack up against the ethics of Obama and Hillary. 'Cause the last time I checked old, plagarisn Barry (the lawyer to Chicago's #1 slumlord) and Whitewater/cattle futures Hillary may have a few "ethics" lapses in their past as well. (But then, what politician doesn't, I guess)
Jay, I don't give a hoot about Hillary. Obama is my man. I encourage you to be as nasty as you want about him. It works to his advantage and plays into his talking points about how sick this country is. Your rhetorical style is the disease.
So it's a smart move that McCain listens to liberals but a wise move that Democrats don't listen to Conservatives or, say, commanders on the ground in Iraq? Now that's priceless hypocrisy.
Our ideology is "losing badly"? Among whom, the dolts who back Obama and Clinton? Who cares? Throughout history the people who have been right have been fewer. Yet we're still pretty powerful or you wouldn't feel so inclined to point it out.
If the NYTimes smeared a Democrat it would be just as wrong. I'd sue if I were McCain, IF he is wrong. There is NO evidence whatsoever to supoort their assertion. None. Zero. And everyone who isn't an "unidentifed source close to the McCain camp" stands by the fact that they didn't notice any such things going on. Only the "unnamed sources" know better.
And I didn't steal Rush's words. I've been saying this about Bush from inauguration day 2001 that he shouldn't be bending over to "reach out" to Democrats because they don't reach back. They need to be defeated politically.
Pedro,
I knew you were an Obama man. He is an empty suit and your arguments are just as empty.
Also, the fact that you have no facts, but engage in strictly personal attacks proves my point.
My rhetorical skills? Man, that's all Obama is! HOPE Change Hope Change over and over again. Hope to change, Change the hope, look at me I know Obama's speeches by heart!!
Pedro Queso,
What I find intresting is that Obama followers and Obama have this strange relationship. The more he talks about hope, unity, and inspiration, the more they become filled with rage, hate, and contempt.
"So it's a smart move that McCain listens to liberals but a wise move that Democrats don't listen to Conservatives or, say, commanders on the ground in Iraq? Now that's priceless hypocrisy."
Amy, conservatives have been overheard. Their rhetoric doesn't match their performance. That is why they are being fired.
Also, the "commanders on the ground" argument is absolutely ridiculous.
"Our ideology is "losing badly"? Among whom, the dolts who back Obama and Clinton? Who cares? Throughout history the people who have been right have been fewer. Yet we're still pretty powerful or you wouldn't feel so inclined to point it out."
Your rhetoric is falling on deaf ears. Your rhetoric has become symbolic for failure. It is the rhetoric of hate, and most of America is sick of it. You are just part of a loud and shrinking minority. But you just keep up that condescension towards those that are defeating you in the market of free ideas. The rightwing tactics of hate and deception is becoming your undoing.
"If the NYTimes smeared a Democrat it would be just as wrong. I'd sue if I were McCain, IF he is wrong. There is NO evidence whatsoever to supoort their assertion. None. Zero."
You just keep telling yourself that. I think there is a WHOLE lot more about this story that we don't know about yet. If there was a reason for McCain to sue over this story, he would have done so last December when he attempted to prevent NYT from reporting the story. Fun times ahead!
"And I didn't steal Rush's words."
Yes you did. You posted those words on the same day that they appeared all over the Internets.
"They need to be defeated politically."
Okay, well the next time you folks defeat liberals, make sure that your leadership is competent to the point where they can perform at the job they want to claim power too.
But right now, you folks are being defeated by liberals. Fun times ahead!
"I knew you were an Obama man. He is an empty suit and your arguments are just as empty."
Thank you, Jay. That was a brilliant argument.
"Also, the fact that you have no facts, but engage in strictly personal attacks proves my point."
I have been defeated by your fact-up points.
"What I find intresting is that Obama followers and Obama have this strange relationship. The more he talks about hope, unity, and inspiration, the more they become filled with rage, hate, and contempt."
Robert, we are incapable of the love, mercy and compassion that is the trademark of rightwing America.
"The lesson I hope McCain learns here is YOU CANNOT REACH ACROSS THE AISLE TO LIBERALS; THEY MUST BE DEFEATED." - Amy Proctor(Plagiarizer) February 21st, 2008
"The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this, and what is the lesson? The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle." - Rush Limbaugh(Polarizer) February 21st, 2008
Pedro,
Who is we? Anyway in addition, to contempt rage and hate, I will arrogance and sanctimonious behavior. Man if and when Obama loses you will rend your cloths and gnash your teeth. Either way he will end up disapointing you.
"Who is we?"
That would be people like me who are voting for Barack. We are the ones who are filled with rage, hate and contempt.
"I will arrogance and sanctimonious behavior."
I would like to add sarcasm and mockery to that list of behaviors.
"Man if and when Obama loses you will rend your cloths and gnash your teeth. Either way he will end up disapointing you."
I will take that risk. Robert, I am more concerned about your wardrobe and dental health.
Pedro is one of those who cheered when Obama blew his nose. After all. it was the only thing of substance that Obama did all day.
"Pedro is one of those who cheered when Obama blew his nose. After all. it was the only thing of substance that Obama did all day."
Wait, I thought I was the one who engaged in personal attacks. Quit lowering yourself to my level, Jay. You are far better person than that ... or me. :)
pedro,
defeated by liberals, that would explain giving the president what he wants in regards to Iraq, the budget, oh wait, there are economic issues, so your liberal congress decided to cut taxes and hand out rebates. Liberalism is winning, that also must explain why gun rights are more secure then ever, or how abortion has somehow receded from the headlines, oh wait, you have got stem cell research, sorry Bush was right about that to. But don't you worry I am sure something will pan out, of course then your candidate may have to actualy take a stand instead of giving speeches.
I'm just wondering when you guys ever took the New Amsterdam Times seriously in the first place.
Robert, I guess what I mean, is that they are winning because conservatives are losing power. In national polling, Democrats are favored on every issue. Legislation will soon follow and you can yell louder about how victimized you have become.
"I'm just wondering when you guys ever took the New Amsterdam Times seriously in the first place."
Mudkitty, they took it seriously when Judith Miller was scaring them with WMD's.
And you are torturing me with the word "Amsterdam." I am just six months away from revisiting my favorite European city.
I'm just trying to make a point, that will most likely escape Amy, unfortunately. All of a sudden, they take the NYT seriously. That means they're running scared. They HATE the NYT, and yet, here they are quoting it. And they don't see the disconnect.
I'm not following you, MudKitty. I don't see where they are now taking the NYT seriously. Did we just pass through a timewarp where the wingers are quoting the NYT to investigate Whitewater or Monica? Perhaps you are referring to something written by Judith Miller, David Brooks or Bill Kristol. This is where they will take the NYT seiously.
Now if the NYT reports on the criminal behavior of the Bushies, they clearly think that the NYT has become a rogue clan of Islamohuggers who need to be tried for treason.
Pedro,
There have been 4 house races since 2006, Republican have won 3 out of 4. Latest Rasmussen polling is at 44% Dem. 40% Republican. The lowest difference in years. One of the reasons Dems won in 2006 was by Co-Opting some Conservative ideas. What is currently going on is not as simple as it appears.
So, even though Americans favor Democrats on every issue, those two points of yours is all I should focus on to believe that conservatives are not losing in America?
Man, you are just too freaking awesome at this online debating thing?
pedro,
nope, but do not become a victim of hubris.
"but do not become a victim of hubris"
Your condescension is noted.
Pedro,
I wasn't being condescending. Here lets try this, what is liberalism and specificaly what policies are triumphing. We have been throwing around terms, lets specify what we are talking about.
Robert,
It appears that you are trying to be reasonable. This site is not where people come to have reasonable discussions. This is where people snipe at each other. Are you requesting a reasonable discussion or a spicy discussion?
I would be very interested in reasonably discussing many things with you if you are interested. If so, you need to be aware that I am disgusted with the state of the country that I deeply love. My rhetoric towards those who have been running our country may appear as unreasonable to you. That is something that you will have to take into consideration. Since typing and formatting consumes a lot of time, I will not be interested in spending the evening digging up statistics or quotes on Google to prove some point, but that's not to say it won't happen. We will just discuss ideas and beliefs.
Are you interested in having this type of conversation?
RV - I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word liberal in the dictionary.
Pedro,
Sure, lets start with Free Trade, unless you prefer another topic, I am just throwing that out there.
Robert,
Free Trade doesn't inspire me to bang away at the keyboard.
You alluded to the definition of what a Democrat and a liberal is.
Are liberals to be defeated at all costs? Are liberals a key participant in the American experience?
I figured a discussion on policy issues might be more enligtening then a full debate, but let me start anyway. I diagree with numerous policies liberals espouse but I am okay with that because this is a country of 300 million and not everyone will agree. I adamantly oppose people of the left who embrace the view of the United States as a corrupt evil hegemon spreading its vile american ways around the globe. Freedom exists so we can have a choices and a critical lens is needed to see what has been done wrong by accident and on purpose in our country. My beef is with people who take the critical lens and use that to shape their entire worldview. The logical outcome of this worldview is that places like Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, etc aren't all bad and who are we to complain. Of course these are and were horrendous dictatorships that have run their countries into the ground, commited repeated acts of genocide, commited massive economic and environmental damage, and spread ak-47's and rpg's around the planet.
I believe policy issues mean nothing if elected politicians are determined to prevent the other side from succeeding.
A large group of Americans hate other Americans. So before we proceed on discussing anything, I need to know how if you think it is good for the country if there is opposition to conservative and Republican positions.
You see, I think our country is seriously ill. Do you see where I am going with this?
Are liberals to be defeated at all costs? Are liberals a key participant in the American experience?
"I diagree with numerous policies liberals espouse but I am okay with that because this is a country of 300 million and not everyone will agree."
Okay, but there are people, including our hostess, who believe that people like me are a cancer that must be eliminated. I believe that you align yourself with this crowd.
What are your thoughts on this rhetoric?
"I adamantly oppose people of the left who embrace the view of the United States as a corrupt evil hegemon spreading its vile american ways around the globe."
I adamantly oppose ANYONE who makes these claims. These people are few and brought to the forefront by folks on the right to use as a strawman towards the left in general.
We currently have an administration and a large group of enablers/supporters who believe that we can defeat our enemies by becoming more like them ... who believe that military force is the way to get others to embrace our world leadership.
When we invaded Iraq and no WMD's were found, and when the 9-11 commission determined that Iraq was not involved with 9-11, it became clear to the world community ... and rightly so, that the United States of America had overstepped it's role in world affairs.
You can not dismiss these realities.
"My beef is with people who take the critical lens and use that to shape their entire worldview."
That is the reality of living in a country where "freedom exists so we can have a choices ..."
"The logical outcome of this worldview is that places like Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, etc aren't all bad and who are we to complain."
Robert, the only time I hear that there are people who like those places is when someone from the political right claims that is happening throughout our country. I am not saying that there aren't a few people who think this. Big deal. They are few and it is their right to think this.
"Of course these are and were horrendous dictatorships that have run their countries into the ground, commited repeated acts of genocide, commited massive economic and environmental damage, and spread ak-47's and rpg's around the planet."
So what's the answer? Do we wage war against every country that doesn't meet our standards? If we do that, the United States could rightly be perceived "as a corrupt evil hegemon spreading its vile american ways around the globe."
I try to avoid hyperbole. But the comment I made below is hyperbole. It just didn't come out the way I intended.
"We currently have an administration and a large group of enablers/supporters who believe that we can defeat our enemies by becoming more like them."
I don't believe that this is what the enablers/supporters are seekng. I believe that this is the unintended consequences of their actions.
Pedro,
1. Amy P respects your right to speak and be involved (You are posting here.), she just wants to see politicans you support lose elections, that is democracy.
2. I am glad you do not except the hegemon theory.
3.I respect the right of people who adopt a theory that despises this country, I also want to see their ideas ignored.
4. I do not think america is becoming a communist state, maybe you are right and there are less people who say good things about places like Cuba then actualy is. Considering alll of the Che Guevera nonsense and the frequency of certain journalists and movie makers to say great things about cuba, it may be more then you think.
5. The answer to other regimes, no we do not wage war on everyone, we pick and choose and drive on.
Now what do you think of people on the right?
"1. Amy P respects your right to speak and be involved (You are posting here.), she just wants to see politicans you support lose elections, that is democracy."
I have interacted with Amy along time. I can tell you that she is far less open about the expresssion of ideas than you might think.
As for the latter part, let me quote you something she said several days ago:
"The lesson I hope McCain learns here is YOU CANNOT REACH ACROSS THE AISLE TO LIBERALS; THEY MUST BE DEFEATED."
I made it plainly clear to Amy and those that read my remarks that compared her comment to something that is identical to what Limbaugh had said that same day. Outspoken conservatives have made it clear that defeating liberals goes far beyond winning elections.
Perhaps you will never understand this until you have walked in the shoes of a proud liberal.
"3.I respect the right of people who adopt a theory that despises this country, I also want to see their ideas ignored."
Let me start addressing the first part of what you said. It is true that there will always be a group of people that will despise the country in which they live. My problem with what you are saying, is that there are those you are aligned with that have characterized people who dissent against the ACTIONS of our government as hatred against our country. I hope you haven't fallen for this deception.
The last thing you said makes my skin crawl. It almost makes me think that you want to have ideas you disagree with ignored by force. Please tell me I am wrong.
"4. I do not think america is becoming a communist state"
Americans do not know how to be communists. This is a fear tactic developed by the low-percentage of people who control the high-percentage of wealth.
"Considering alll of the Che Guevera nonsense and the frequency of certain journalists and movie makers to say great things about cuba, it may be more then you think."
Even if that is the case, so what? I don't get it. We have extreme rightwing hate groups that love to show up and taunt people with their message. Since they don't seem to be getting you all worked up, should I assume that their influence is less than those that might hold the government of Cuba in high regard?
"5. The answer to other regimes, no we do not wage war on everyone, we pick and choose and drive on."
Robert, the attitude of picking, choosing and driving on might give many people a good reason to believe that the United States is "a corrupt evil hegemon spreading its vile american ways around the globe."
Perhaps you would like to find a better way of expressing your thought.
"Now what do you think of people on the right?"
They are really decent people who shouldn't talk politics around me. They, like liberals, are part of the American experience.
I also think that a vast majority of rightwing pundits are truly aweful people who get paid a lot of money to bring out the worst in people. Should I provide a few names, or do you already know who these poisonous people are?
Pedro, you and I haven't been engaging for "along time" unless you're using an assumed pseudonym. Don't mistake my conviction for being closed "about the expresssion of ideas".. liberals have the corner on that. I have changed my mind on a number of issues politically and theologically and evolved in ways many people don't. Moral absolutes and dogma/doctrine are fixed; I just adhere to them. Or try to.
I don't want this to be personal about me or you for that matter. You should be careful judging people's movtives or personalities based on the internet.
Aside from that, I'm not sure if you're referring to the fact that I deleted a comment of yours but I have no regret doing so when anyone violates the ROE.
Amy, I had started to write a response to some of things you just said. The things I was writing were honest perceptions I have about you that I think you need to consider. Almost all of it is in regards to you suggesting that I be careful about judging your motives and personality. And while you would have read what I wrote, I believe that you would have deleted the comment for challenging your motive and personality. So I stopped and wrote what you are now reading.
Just so you know, I challenge your personality and motives because I believe that is what drives your politics. When you challenge the personality and motives of people in your posts, you leave yourself open to the same challenge. Think about that.
Pedro,
Its real easy to pick at someone else's comments. Why don't you lay some thought out there.