McCain Campaign Responds To Times Story

Communications director Jill Hazelbaker:

"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."

Comments

Mr. McCain, tell us did you hit and run this lobbyist or not?

Give us a simple answer.

Posted by Go Huck | February 20, 2008 9:04 PM

Can senator mccain tell us whether his lobbyist lover serve with honor and integrity?

Posted by Sam | February 20, 2008 9:06 PM

Can senator mccain tell us whether his lobbyist lover serve with honor and integrity?

Posted by Sam | February 20, 2008 9:08 PM

McCain got "romance" from the lobbyist in return for favors from the lobbyist.

Can McCain give a simple answer as "yes" or "no" to whether he was involved with lobbyist or not? C'mon DoubleTalkExpress.

Posted by cindy | February 20, 2008 9:12 PM

I'm one that doesn't think if he had an affair it matters much at all, but I do think it's interesting that there is NO DENIAL on that front in this statement. I think that is telling.

The real issue in the article is his lobbying problems...that cuts to the core of who he is.

Posted by TW | February 20, 2008 9:12 PM

Seriosuly? This is what passes as journalism these days??? I did not vote for McCain in the Maryland Primary and have never been crazy about him. However, this is just absurd that anyone would even waste their time on this. No wonder profits have dropped below Congresses approval rating at the "Grey Lady"

Posted by Are you kidding? | February 20, 2008 9:14 PM

This is why the NYT is both tone deaf and stupid. This story is a joke, and the the fact that the idiots at the NYT are going after McCain with a bogus story will only rally conservatives and independents to his cause. We all know they are already in the tank for the democrats, and republican enthusiasm is low. This will only help McCain.

Posted by JBJB | February 20, 2008 9:24 PM

It's not absurd if the story indicates that Senator Straight Talk® was, in fact, keeping a personal friendship going with someone who was paid to curry his governmental favors. Whether there's a sexual element to the story or not, a US Senator who'd already been burned by a previous round of playing favorites with his friends should have been doubly careful about letting someone in that line of work become his special friend.

Posted by Sean | February 20, 2008 9:26 PM

Surely it DOES matter whether McCain had an affair with lobbyist Ms. Iseman - not because the private lives of political leaders are a matter of public importance per se, but because human beings tend to make errors of judgment when they are tempted by money or sex. And since judgment is one of the most important assets that anyone aspiring to be President can have (we have all heard by now that neither "experience" nor "eloquent words" will, by themselves, cut the mustard), I think that McCain's relationship with Ms. Iseman is something worth worrying about. And something about which McCain should be honest and come clean.

Posted by bittersweetfiasco | February 20, 2008 9:30 PM

This will only help McCain.

Uh-huh. Up is down, black is white, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. And obviously this will help McCain.

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 9:31 PM

It seems really strange to me that there is not actually a denial of an affair in that response.

Wouldn't they want to unequivocally deny that an affair occurred? "there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career." seems like a much weaker denial than they would want to be putting out.

Posted by Dan | February 20, 2008 9:40 PM

I don't care about affairs, but Jill's statement is known to be false, since McCain was one of the Keating 5.

Posted by John DE | February 20, 2008 9:41 PM

Allow me to translate that press release:

We are terrified that there really is something to this story, but we haven't had time to get our story straight and figure out whether our candidate has lied to us or not. And more importantly, we don't know what the New York Times knows, so we have to be careful exactly how big of a lie we try to pass off on the general public. So for now, we're issuing this non-denial denial.

We are confident, however, that if we play the victim and claim a hit job from the "liberal media," right-wing fanatics will whip themselves into a lather and rally to our cause even though they can't stand our candidate."

Posted by SDinIA | February 20, 2008 9:47 PM

1. "there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career"

this is a non-denial denial

2. "John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career"

this denial is false -- see Keating 5

3. http://www.alcalde-fay.com/meet_the_firm/BiosDetail.cfm?id=44

this is the firm's website of the woman mentioned in the article
or it was, until half an hour ago, when they took it off

4. anyone can think of a reasonable way a person can start with a degree in Elementary Education from a university you have never heard of and within 8 years get to be a partner in a lobbying firm whose "staff includes former congressmen and White House staff"?

let's change the problem a bit: how about if that person was a beautiful woman?

Posted by davidv | February 20, 2008 9:59 PM

This "story" has apparently been out there for a while. I doubt that the McCain campaign was caught off guard. Drudge has been teasing it for some time. The NYT has such little credibility anyway, how could it possibly matter? It only proves that the scum at the NYT were waiting to drop a non "story" once the timing was right. Actually, I would argue that this is exactly what McCain needs to rally the support of the very people who are cautious about his candidacy. Once the swine liberal media elite go after you, you start making the right friends.

Posted by JBJB | February 20, 2008 9:59 PM

Latest statement from Senator's office:

"It is a shame that the Straight Talk Express has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run love affair with a lobbyist 35 years younger than him. McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with Keating-5, war mongering, lying, decit and adultery. He has never violated the public trust by doing any adultery in senate office, if at all he has done anything it was inside his straigh talk express. Though he had love affair with the lobbyist he has never done favors to her other than having affair with her in return of lobbying favors, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election which is morality. Though McCain has been married twice and had an affair with lobbyists he considers himself as a family value man."

"Americans are sick and tired of only hearing about Larry Craig, David Vitter and Mark Foley and it is not fair. They should pay some attention to this 72 year old man who had an affair with 32 year old woman. Senator McCain has every right to neither deny nor accept that he had an affair with the lobbyist because he is considered a maverick."

Posted by McCain | February 20, 2008 10:19 PM

Agree with Kos.. "The Maverick may have been cheating on his wife and voters ---- all at the same time. How long before McCain is forced to make a "I did not have sex with that woman" type statement? Or worse yet.....a confession? As of now, they are both denying the story. Regardless of whether they were having an intimate affair or not, didn't John McCain realize that it was inappropriate for a telecommunications lobbyist to be "turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet?" How could he not realize how inappropriate that is on a variety of levels? But, this isn't the first time that John McCain used poor judgement when it comes to lobbyists. And it wouldn't be the first time (by his own admission) that he cheated on his wife. He married his current wife, Cindy, only one month after he divorced his first wife. You'd think that he would have learned his lesson by now."

Posted by Tim | February 20, 2008 10:26 PM

I posted this at Yglesias as well, but it merits cross-pollination over here for those who might not see it.

The campaign's statement: "He has never violated the public trust, never ... violated the principles that have guided his career" is proven false by his campaign finance shenanigans in this campaign.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=the_pete_rose_of_politics#104506

money quote: "I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is a promise to perpetuate a fraud on the American taxpayers: if he no longer intended to seek the presidency, he made a legally-binding promise to pretend to remain in the race just long enough to collect public money to repay the loan."

McCain is ON RECORD, in a legally binding document,promising to deceive voters in order to take tax payer dollars as collateral against a loan he used to avoid the campaign finance reform provisions in the bill he himself wrote. This is just... stunningly disingenuous to say the least. How has the media not jumped on this yet?

Posted by Becker | February 20, 2008 10:37 PM

I voted for McCain in 2000. Nonetheless, his record in the 80s was bad. His record since 2000 is talk without walk. Witness his recent vote on the bill to ban waterboarding. Witness his silence at Bush's signing statement ("I don't have to obey statute") for his own anti-torture bill. Witness his complete lack of sustained interest in medical and mental health care for veterans.

McCain has a high opinion of himself. Only God knows if he deserves it.

Personally, I am skeptical.

Posted by tc125231 | February 20, 2008 10:51 PM

I have no real insight here, just a request: Can we call this "Viagra-gate"?
Please?

Posted by ArtB | February 20, 2008 10:51 PM

Let us not forget this man cheated on his first wife with current wife Cindy, whose influential family then made the way for him in AZ politics.
Once a cheater always a cheater...

Posted by Bridget | February 20, 2008 10:56 PM

Let us not forget this man cheated on his first wife with current wife Cindy, whose influential family then made the way for him in AZ politics.
Once a cheater always a cheater...

Posted by Bridget | February 20, 2008 10:56 PM

The Post has a story up as well. This one focuses on her claims to other lobbyists that she had special access to McCain. Far more than any affair, this is dangerous. If St. McCain ain't so saintly anymore, he's just a cranky old guy with bad ideas.

Posted by NHCt | February 20, 2008 11:06 PM

why doesn't the statement just say it's not true

Posted by Barbara Levin | February 20, 2008 11:17 PM

What about the Washington Post story?

Posted by Mike | February 20, 2008 11:17 PM

"This will only help McCain.

Uh-huh. Up is down, black is white, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. And obviously this will help McCain."

Both of you are wrong. This clearly helps Rudy! Just wait until Florida.

Posted by Rudy Rudy Rudy!!!!! | February 20, 2008 11:19 PM

Well, we all know why the story is coming out now...and it does matter, but in a few days this will be a story about the NYT as well as McCain. And by the way, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and we conservatives tried to tell you people...

Posted by Ron J | February 20, 2008 11:22 PM

This will matter, probably more within the Republican party than with the general population or the Democrats. Sex, not influence, is the wedge, and the non-denial denial is evidence of the opening the wedge is already creating. He has not silenced his enemies in the party, and this is the opportunity they may feel will force him to leave the race, or otherwise bend even more to their will. One can say what one wants about it being a non-issue, or the work of the evil NYTs, but what matters is the uses the allegations can be put to by various interested parties. If there is value to anyone, they will use it to discredit McCain, and I would predict that it will be the Republican right that makes the most of it. Perhaps not in a conspicuously public manner, but it will be used to force him into a corner.

Posted by GBH | February 20, 2008 11:24 PM

The hilarious thing about the McCain response to that NY Times article is that they accuse the NYT of "lowering its standards."

WTF? Any journalistic standards that newspaper ever had went out the window when A.O. Sulzberger took over the reins as publisher. Do the McCain people think we have forgotten the role of the NYT in the Bill Clinton witch hunt, or the reporting of Judy Miller?

Oy.

Posted by cousin vinnie | February 20, 2008 11:35 PM

Boo-yah!

It's this issue that's going to drive McCain out of the race.

Extremely minor issues like all the lies he's told and all the misleading statements he's made mean nothing.

Extremely minor issues like one of his staffers being a former cabinet-level official in the Mexican government mean nothing, even despite that staffer doing outreach to U.S. voters on his behalf as he holds dual citizenship and after appearing on countless TV shows pushing Mexico's agenda.

All that means nothing, and Ambinder was correct to ignore or possibly mislead about the second story.

Posted by TLB | February 20, 2008 11:50 PM

Yea, this is some kinda hutzpa from John McCain:

"He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists ..."

In fact, exactly the opposite is true and on the record. John McCain attempted to interfere with federal banking regulators on behalf of a campaign contributor and investor that his own wife was in business with.

He was rebuked officially by the Senate Ethics committee for precisely doing favors for special interests and lobbyists. Three Democratic Senators who joined him were censured and did not run for reelection in the face of polls demonstrating their coming defeat.

These are official acts of the United States Senate ... not mere allegations by the NY Times.

This is a "denial" for certain. The kind where you wonder why John McCain is in such denial about his own ethics.

And why won't McCain answer questions about inappropriate sexual relations with young lobbyists seeking his favor - and getting letters written on her behalf, and legislation submitted on her behalf in exchange? To the point where his own staff had to intervene?

Since when do Presidential candidates get to say "No Comment?"

Haven't we had enough of Republicans and their sexual escapades with Washington K-Street insiders and underage Congressional Pages preventing them from getting major policy initiatives enacted?

I guess not.

Posted by mccainwatcher | February 21, 2008 12:06 AM

So the NYT runs with rumor about McCain, but did they ever cover John Edwards' pregnant lover who moved to NC and lived in a campaign contributors house around the corner from his office? Oh those rumors are just sleaze right.

Posted by Ursus | February 21, 2008 12:14 AM

Obama vs. Jack Ryan (part two)

Posted by Blaire Hull | February 21, 2008 12:14 AM

Two biggest loosers!

68 year old Sen Dole in Viagra ad after his election loss

=

72 year old Sen McCain in bed with a Lobbyist doing a Viagra ad right before loosing election

Posted by ViagraMcCain | February 21, 2008 12:18 AM

McCain said today that President Bush should veto legislation that would limit the CIA's interrogation techniques to those specified in the Army Field Manuel. But... no torture.

McCain also said that he did not have anything to do with the lobbyist, he only screwed her few times.

Posted by hypocrite | February 21, 2008 12:23 AM

Obama might be for change, but his followers are going to disappoint him. As we see, they are incapable of change. Same old garbage from the left and right.

Obama (if elected) won't change sh*t.
And their gang is acting like a cult. Scary. Yet it doesn't surprise me how easily liberals are swayed. And they make fun of the fundies on the right? lmao.

I believe. I believe!

McCain? Who cares. Yawn. Compared to most senators, he's extremely honest and principled (even though I dislike his politics).

Posted by slick | February 21, 2008 12:26 AM

"...extremely honest and principled"?

Obviously you're in a state of historical denial if you believe that!

Do yourself a favor and read up on his PERSONAL involvement with the Savings And Loan meltdown.
Not only did he personally visit with the Banking regulators on multiple occassions to stall an investigation in to his then first wife's investment partner Charles Keating, he even got one of Mr. Keatings associates nominated to the board of the very same federal banking agency responsible for overseeing the industry.

And by the way...we are all STILL paying for that disaster in such that Ronald Reagan had to sign a bailout package whose initial funding was $150B FINANCED over 39 years. And guess what interests rates were back in the early 80s? This is part of that $10 TRILLION National Debt your Great-Grand Children will be paying for.

Please take the time and study some Modern American and World History. For a lack of understanding of the past leaves one prey to the false statements of current as well as future leaders?

Did you know its not true when the President says there have never been a democratic government in the Middle East?

Iran had one TWICE, before we overthrew them TWICE. The first was overthrown simply because the president of their Parliamentary style government nationalized their oil industry after having the audacity to push a British oil company for a more equitable 50-50 revenue sharing agreement for oil profits(which they refused), instead of the 80-20 that was currently in effect.

Did you realize the birthplace of BP is Iran?

Posted by ThisAintKoolAid | February 21, 2008 1:16 AM

Correction: That was Bush I that signed the $300B S & L Bailout package.

Posted by ThisAintKoolAid | February 21, 2008 1:25 AM

This was published in 1996:

"The General Accounting Office today released the most comprehensive Government study so far on the costs of the savings and loan bailout, placing a total price tag on the debacle of nearly half a trillion dollars, including more than $130 billion from taxpayers."

"The bad news in this report is that the cost of the failure of many thrift institutions, with interest, approaches half a trillion dollars and that taxpayer accountability due to bonds issued will continue through the year 2030," said Representative Jim Leach of Iowa, a Republican who is the chairman of the House Banking Committee.

Posted by ThisAintKoolaid | February 21, 2008 1:37 AM

"Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and we conservatives tried to tell you people..."

That he's a bit of tomcat with a history of questionable adultery? Are you sure you aren't thinking of what Dobson was trying to "tell us people." I thought Limbaugh and Hannity were the ones going on about his record on immigration, McCain-Feingold, or the estate tax. Okay this is a campaign finance issue in a way, but I'm pretty sure they were just against that. I didn't think their position was "he's not as reformist and acceptable to the New York Times as you believe."

Posted by Thomas R | February 21, 2008 2:21 AM

The truly interesting dimension from the political fallout so far is that a number of conservatives have already gone on record as saying "Why didn't you tell us earlier?" I find it fascinating because their implications are that the GOP could have and indeed would have nominated a different candidate had this came out a few months ago.

That bodes very poorly for McCain. Normally you would expect the Republican base to rally to the nominee and call out the NY Times as Liberal, Socialist, traitors, etc., but instead a number of conservative activists still seem fairly agitated that McCain ended up with the nomination. Potentially this is a very good sign if you are a Democrat going into the general election.

The GOP base has fractured, and perhaps McCain is simply not the man who can put it back together again.

Posted by Scott | February 21, 2008 5:13 AM

I agree with Scott. It's significant that the Republicans aren't angry about the publication of this story, but about its timing (which is the best possible from McCain's standpoint, coming as it does after he has the nomination sewed up but long enough before the general elections for it to be forgotten by then). Obviously they're angry that the NYT didn't help Romney.

But what I don't understand is why this is front page news now, when WaPo wrote about it back in December (albeit without insinuating any sexual relationship). Is it, then, only the sex that really matters, not the undue influence of lobbyists?

Posted by Hans B | February 21, 2008 5:37 AM

I don't like John McCain.But like the LA Times and Arnold, the NYT running hit pieces might persuade me to vote for him. McCain has just about insured that the conservative base will sit this one out, but go ahead lefties, talk us into caring again. You always overplay your hand and publishing old BS is going convince conservatives that McCain might be worth another look. The one institution that the GOP base distrusts more than McCain is the NYT and the lapdog media.

Posted by Ken Hahn | February 21, 2008 6:36 AM

"Is it, then, only the sex that really matters, not the undue influence of lobbyists?"

It's only the, possible, sex that's interesting. Lobbying malfeasance, for the majority of people, is kind of boring. Even potential bribery is kind of dull. What gets more attention William Jefferson with his freezer of cash or Larry Craig with his wide stance? Likewise what was more interesting to citizens Clinton's shady campaign donors or Lewinsky?

Posted by Thomas R | February 21, 2008 7:23 AM

"It's only the, possible, sex that's interesting."

"Alleged" might have been a better word there than "possible." "Sex scandal allegations" are generally more interesting, and understandable, than ethical violational of lobbying.

Posted by Thomas R | February 21, 2008 7:26 AM

I'm an Obama supporter, and I don't want to see this type of story at all, true or not. We can do better than following this type of journalism in our proud country. A sane world is at stake. Let the presidential contest return to issues, where it belongs.

Posted by Ann in Colorado | February 21, 2008 7:26 AM

But like the LA Times and Arnold, the NYT running hit pieces might persuade me to vote for him.

Wow, some conservatives are far more stupid than I could have ever imagined. Do you really just vote for the person who gets the worst press? And do you then seriously crow to your friends and neighbors, "That'll show you, you EEEVIL MEDIA!!"

Posted by Craig | February 21, 2008 7:45 AM

I'm an Obama supporter, and I don't want to see this type of story at all, true or not.

What? What?

Forget the sex. The sex is just part of the story. This is about power. It's about another government official showing poor judgment, having no ethics, currying favor with lobbyists, aiding in government corruption. You know, the things that McCain says are his platform. I'm an Obama supporter as well but if it comes out that he's been intimately involved with a lobbyist, then of course I'd like to know.

Posted by Craig | February 21, 2008 7:50 AM

Unfortunately for McCain, his communications director Jill Hazelbaker has a history of sock-puppetry and lying.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/9/21/174/29062

Posted by Onslow | February 21, 2008 8:21 AM

"It's about another government official showing poor judgment, having no ethics, currying favor with lobbyists, aiding in government corruption"

Wait... there is a story about Obama and Tony Rezko in the NYT?

Posted by Ursus | February 21, 2008 8:49 AM

No, the Rezko story can be found here.

Posted by Craig | February 21, 2008 8:52 AM

I love that the worst thing on Obama is Rezko.

Posted by Craig | February 21, 2008 8:55 AM

$100 for a makeover to look young

$200 for speechwriter who can attack 'hope'

$500 grand from Keating Five

$1 millions to sell out to conservatives

$2 millions to get elected to senate from AZ
using millionaire wife's fortune

Getting in bed with a 32 year old lobbyist.......
* Simply Priceless *

There are some things that money can't buy.

Vote for McCain 08!

Posted by McCainISFraud | February 21, 2008 10:12 AM

"I love that the worst thing on Obama is Rezko."

Obama did more for Rezko than McCain did for any of his supporters...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

To quote one of the leftards, "It's about another government official showing poor judgment, having no ethics, currying favor with lobbyists, aiding in government corruption"... unless there is a (D) by the name apparently then it's no big deal

Posted by Ursus | February 21, 2008 10:46 AM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 8:44 AM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 8:44 AM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 8:44 AM