McCain/Lobbyist Story In The New York Times Finally Drops

There's lots of fairly well-reported innuendo about a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman and a well-written recapitulation of the case against McCain as a good judge of optics... ... but nothing to suggest that McCain compromised his political principles. That said, the interest will be intense because the story was so heavily anticipated. And the wink-wink-nod-nod assertion that McCain allegedly acknowledged unspecified "improprieties" to some aides is bound to be the part of this that kicks for a while.

Key graphs:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

May I speak for all of humanity when I say:

Ew.

Ewwww.

Ew ew ew ew ew ew ew [shudder]

Posted by ethan salto | February 20, 2008 8:31 PM

"Both say they never had a romantic relationship."

Sex without romance. How sad and impersonal.

On a more serious note: will any American pundit or politician be able to utter the phrase "in bed with lobbyists" henceforth without giggling?

Posted by lampwick | February 20, 2008 8:33 PM

These republicans are the worst conservatives for sure.

They talk values but go and screw around with boys, prostitutes, airport passengers, and now lobbyists. These are the same hypocrites/morons who castigate others.

Its pathetic that a 65 year old man (McCain that time) was having an affair with a 32 year old lobbyists.

Posted by Tracy | February 20, 2008 8:35 PM

McCain caught with his pants down with a lobbyist. What a perfect headline.

Posted by Bill | February 20, 2008 8:37 PM

Wow. This probably isn't the miracle Huckabee was looking for - but I'm sure he'll take it anyway. How serious is this?

Posted by Lynne | February 20, 2008 8:38 PM

Wow. This probably isn't the miracle Huckabee was looking for - but I'm sure he'll take it anyway. How serious is this?

Posted by Lynne | February 20, 2008 8:38 PM

Was that lobbyist a male or female?

Posted by Bill | February 20, 2008 8:39 PM

File it under developing, It appears there is still a lot of muck coming up.

Posted by file it | February 20, 2008 8:42 PM

And this person, McCain, has the nerve to say today that when he puts his name on a piece of paper and makes a commitment he would never think of backing out of it...in reference to Mr. Obama's rethinking public financing. What's he talking about? McCain has been divorced...put his name down on paper....commitment?? Ha.

He is has the distinction of being a war hero; I applaud him for that.

A war hero, a president does NOT make, not now, not never.

And the above story is so yucky...what do these women see in him...I agree with the previous poster...ew ew ew...shudder and definitely NOT president.

Posted by illinoislady | February 20, 2008 8:43 PM

McCain taking Dough from lobbyist has special meaning now. I love it!

Posted by gopsht | February 20, 2008 8:44 PM

I don't think it will change anything for the nomination or the general but hopefully it can be the first chip in Saint John's armor making it easier for the media to realize all his more consequential flip-flops.

Posted by Benjamin | February 20, 2008 8:45 PM

The Straight Talk Express sure is making a whole lot of laughable stops along the way to the White House. Also, if the NYT is attacking McCain, does that mean that Rush and the MSM are finally on the same page about something?

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 8:46 PM

Crazy as it might sound, the first thing I wondered when I heard this on Olbermann's show a little while ago was whether or not this story could revive Romney's campaign if the story ends up having legs.

Posted by SDinIA | February 20, 2008 8:50 PM

So, in reality the Straight Talk Express was really a "Pimp My Ride" in 2000.

Posted by Nancy, PA | February 20, 2008 8:51 PM

When is the Blue Dress going to come out?

Why are the married republican politicians so horny for ladies other than their wives?

Posted by BN | February 20, 2008 8:53 PM

Maybe this is just the McCain version of the NYT's Obama drug story: A lot of time spent hunting the whale, but only coming up with a minnow. We'll see, but unless some other goodies shake free in the coming days, I doubt this will hurt him at all. The bit I found more intriguing is whether he did any political favors for her. If that can be nailed down it would be far more damaging to McCain than a little sex.

Posted by NHCt | February 20, 2008 8:55 PM

Funny that after John McCain is playing holier-than-thou with Obama on campaign financing, we find that he is in bed with a lobbyist, perhaps more than metaphorically.

Man, I bet the Republicans wished they hadn't been so hard on the Morman guy.

But, I guess the right wingers can take heart in one thing.....

Nobody can doubt that John McCain has better taste then Bill Clinton.

Posted by RKA | February 20, 2008 8:58 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, but this is really just a pathetic story if you read it in total. Leaving aside that it happened 8 years ago, the evidence when put together is really thin.

In addition this a string of NY Times stories based on thin evidence: insinuating that Obama was bought off by Exelon and the Clinton-Kazakh deal. Personally I think the Clinton-Kazakh story had the most substance, but I'm willing to say I am less than objective about this.

I don't like McCain, but this story is pathetic. If there's more print more, otherwise don't run it.

Posted by Greg | February 20, 2008 9:01 PM

McCain is now saying it's a hit and run by NYT.
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 9:03 PM

Look,if the Republicans have some remorse and want to field a new nominee against Obama, I hear that Alan Keyes is available!

Posted by RKA | February 20, 2008 9:05 PM

Is this a story? If so, how? It doesn't seem to be a political story. There's no illegality, abuse of power, or policy implication. Actually, I don't even know that this story asserts wrongdoing in the first place. The facts of the story are this:
McCain feared that he was engaging in an inappropriate relationship and opted for restraint.
This is gossip fodder.

Posted by Nick | February 20, 2008 9:16 PM

What a bunch of partisan freaks on this blog. As a true non-partisan I can truly say that it is people like you who have created this polarized country. There is no substance here. No source. As a journalist I find the excerpts above to be offensive. The only thing more offensive is the red meat this creates for partisan hacks such as the likes of y'all. You are the problem...not the solution.

Posted by Joey | February 20, 2008 9:20 PM

Look,if the Republicans have some remorse and want to field a new nominee against Obama, I hear that Alan Keyes is available!

Oh. Oh, yes. God this is rich. We could have a redux of the debate where Keyes accuses Obama of supporting incest because adopted children don't know who they're related to, so they could end up sleeping with their sister or brother or dad or something. And Obama just sat there and sort of smiled, thinking, "I am the luckiest person who ever ran for Senate in the history of the United States."

So yes, please God, for humor alone, let it be Obama vs. Keyes round 2.

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 9:21 PM

Straight C*ck express-what? If she was on top does that make McCain a Fup? I wonder if any of the nibbles left earmarks ;)

This is just too easy. (She was as well I hear..)

Posted by Sgt Bob | February 20, 2008 9:21 PM

So who did you think provided the leak and impetus for this story...I dare say his own party...some interesting circumstantial evidence...Huckabee just stays in the race against all odds..just because....Romney mentions specifically that he wasn't ending his campaign but rather "suspending" it...there was mention early in the primaries of this story surfacing and the other republican candidates waiting for it to break (never did)...they defintiely were aware of this and how damaging...so the question is why now?

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

Poor republicans! Can't they find just one clean pol to run and perhaps lead?

Posted by jim | February 20, 2008 9:33 PM

Good to hear from all the people in Susan Thomases' boiler-room.

But none of this remotely compares to a President of the United States masturbating into a sink in the Oval Office while engaging in what the Starr Report politely referred to as oral-anal contact.

(GO, OBAMA!)

Posted by slinkybender | February 20, 2008 9:34 PM

Sgt Bob and the rest of you losers. So this innuendo story that has become your red meat...or should I say "blue"?

Lucky for McCain it wasn't an intern.

Posted by Joey | February 20, 2008 9:34 PM

Poor republicans! Can't they find just one clean pol to run and perhaps lead?

Posted by jim | February 20, 2008 9:34 PM

All I can say is that it is clear to me that God wants Barack Obama to be president.

First in the 2004 IL Senate Dem Primary, it was Blair Hull imploding over nasty stuff in his divorce files...

Then in the 2005 Senate general election, it was Jack Ryan imploding over him forcing his model wife to go to sex clubs.

And now, McCain too.

Can all these events be coincidences?

I think at this point divine intervention is more likely.

Posted by RKA | February 20, 2008 9:36 PM

Well, doesn't this sum up McCains knowledge of economics: He knows how to save, but not where to spend.

Posted by David Sailer | February 20, 2008 9:36 PM

Well, doesn't this sum up McCains knowledge of economics: He knows how to save, but not where to spend.

Posted by David Sailer | February 20, 2008 9:36 PM

Hey illinoislady.

What are you talking about?

{"A war hero, a president does NOT make, not now, not never."

Posted by illinoislady}

Washington, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Eisenhower...the list goes on.

You must have gone to one of those terrific public schools...did you learn any real history or just egalitarian politically corrrect bull*rap?

Posted by BoB P. | February 20, 2008 9:36 PM

Hey illinoislady.

What are you talking about?

{"A war hero, a president does NOT make, not now, not never."

Posted by illinoislady}

Washington, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Eisenhower...the list goes on.

You must have gone to one of those terrific public schools...did you learn any real history or just egalitarian politically corrrect bull*rap?

Posted by BoB P. | February 20, 2008 9:36 PM

Hey illinoislady.

What are you talking about?

{"A war hero, a president does NOT make, not now, not never."

Posted by illinoislady}

Washington, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Eisenhower...the list goes on.

You must have gone to one of those terrific public schools...did you learn any real history or just egalitarian politically correct bull*rap?

Posted by BoB P. | February 20, 2008 9:37 PM

a journalism question:

Of the many accusations in this excerpt, how many are from named sources?

General Betray-us. People, remember what "news" paper you are reading.

Posted by reality | February 20, 2008 9:39 PM

Wow, there is a massive amount of absolutely nothing here. The NY Times is pathetic in throwing this one out there and the liberals on this message board - not the brightest bunch - will giddily cling to any mud on a republican because they can't debate on the issues.

Posted by Fowler | February 20, 2008 9:41 PM

McCain is a war-wonger crazy nut. If he is elected, he will start 4 wars in 4 years. He was already singing "Bomb Iran, Bomb Iran". Imagine what he will do when he get control of the nuclear button.

Posted by winter32842 | February 20, 2008 9:49 PM

IF HIS OWN WIFE CANT TRUST HIM, HOW CAN WE?

Posted by paul | February 20, 2008 9:50 PM

Ok,as much fun as I am having with this, there is a serious political point to be made here. While many of us could care less whether John McCain is screwing around or not, the problem is that the Republican evangelical base does care a lot. I predict Obama will get a lot of disaffected evangelicals in the general against McCain, or they'll just stay home.

Posted by RKA | February 20, 2008 9:56 PM

Iseman has apparently dropped down the memory hole. She's not at the link.

Posted by Bloix | February 20, 2008 10:00 PM

..so the question is why now?

Bingo. It hardly seems like coincidence that this long anticipated story dropped right before McCain secured the nomination.

Posted by Just Karl | February 20, 2008 10:00 PM

Look - this is all media generated crap that isn't good for the political process in this country. I don't like McCain and I support Obama but this is what Obama is talking about with all this polarized "gotcha" politics. It really time to get past all this.

Posted by Eric | February 20, 2008 10:04 PM

Oh, c'mon....if the Times wanted to save this for maximal effect,they would have waited until October to drop this.

The real reason is that the New Republic was about to write a story about why the Times was spiking the piece and sothe Times stopped covering for McCain and dropped the story.

Don;'t forget, the media love McCain and they were covering for him as long as they possibly could....this took 8 years to break!

Posted by RKA | February 20, 2008 10:05 PM

MSNBC just reported that the New Republic was ready to print a story on why the NYT held this story and that served as the impetus for dropping it.

Doesn't this story really help McCain? It is thin on incriminating evidence and the NYT held it long enough for him to be the presumptive republican nominee. Shouldn't Romney be incredulous and Huckabee ecstatic that the NYT is obviously inserting iself in the GOP nominee race?

One thought of caution for McCain: It took 20 years after the Keating 5 Scandal for him to gain redemption, hopefully this is a prevarication for which he will not need an additional 20 year redemption term.

Posted by Dawn | February 20, 2008 10:12 PM

MSNBC just reported that the New Republic was ready to print a story on why the NYT held this story and that served as the impetus for dropping it.

Doesn't this story really help McCain? It is thin on incriminating evidence and the NYT held it long enough for him to be the presumptive republican nominee. Shouldn't Romney be incredulous and Huckabee ecstatic that the NYT is obviously inserting iself in the GOP nominee race?

One thought of caution for McCain: It took 20 years after the Keating 5 Scandal for him to gain redemption, hopefully this is a prevarication for which he will not need an additional 20 year redemption term.

Posted by Dawn | February 20, 2008 10:12 PM

Washington - First one so we can't really judge
Grant - Total failure as a president
Teddy Roosevelt - Not bad
JFK - Pretty great
Eisenhower - Awful.

Others:
Clinton - never served in the regular army.
Lincoln - Militia - never served as a regular.
FDR - never served (4-F)

...so it seems that military service doesn't really influence presidential qualifications either way.

Posted by John H. | February 20, 2008 10:15 PM

Looks like her bio is yanked from lobbyist site, but google still has it cached.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:W-T5zeWDuq0J:www.alcalde-fay.com/meet_the_firm/BiosDetail.cfm

Posted by Need2No | February 20, 2008 10:17 PM

It smells like other lame NYT stories (a front page story last year about how his style in pick-up basketball would influence him as president? That was ridiculous), but it does highlight how far McCain gets by *claiming* to be so full of integrity, when in fact he does what so many other senators do: Give their ear (or maybe more in this case) to those with money or whose clients have money. I hope the media will pick up that part of the story -- McCain gets a free pass simply by claiming that he's so full of integrity. He's not.

Posted by Bill | February 20, 2008 10:18 PM

The real reason is that the New Republic was about to write a story about why the Times was spiking the piece and sothe Times stopped covering for McCain and dropped the story.

Interesting. If the Times was worried about being scooped, that sort of ends the debate about whether this is a non-story. This story is huge. It opens up all the Larry Craig, Mark Foley hypocrisies of the Republican Party. Obama can simply lump them together and run against Republican impropriety without mentioning McCain by name. It doesn't matter that nothing happened sexually.

Posted by Just Karl | February 20, 2008 10:18 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 10:22 PM

OMG. That photo of her on the cached Google page from her firm? She looks a lot like Cindy McCain. Guess the senator likes being around a certain type, even if he didn't, well, you know.

Posted by Bill | February 20, 2008 10:24 PM

I trust he took a wide stance

Posted by LLoyd James | February 20, 2008 10:31 PM

WTF was McCain doing with a lobbyist turning up with her at fund-raisers and in his offices and aboard a lobbyists client’s corporate jet?

McCain has used poor judgement all his life. He was part of Keating 5 scandal, he himself admitted that he cheated on his first wife. He divorced that wife and married millionaire Cindy with few month. Now he is found cheating on his second wife. Whats up with republicans and cheating their wives?

Posted by toyota | February 20, 2008 10:32 PM

Maybe this is why Huckabee has refused to quit. In a recent interview Huckabee responded he would not quit because among other reasons, "You never know...he, (McCain) could misstep." The times indicates they have been sitting on the story since December. Think about it. Why is Huckabee still here anyway? Huckabee has been like the Uncle who won't move out of the guest room. I also heard Romney has yet to release his delegates...

Posted by Debbie | February 20, 2008 10:35 PM

Hey, Republicans, console yourselves: At least this story is about heterosexual sex. And they most likely did not do it in the toilet.

Posted by Joel | February 20, 2008 10:36 PM

McCain and lobbist troubles... go figure! NY Times may wish for readers to recall...

The Keating 5. McCain was the only survivor left standing. He admitted he was wrong for asking for favors for Keating... during the investigation. McCain apologized, gave back some Keating money, and ceased to routinely fly on Keatings Jet to Keating paid vacation spots.

He was on fire for campaign reform thereafter.

Same mistakes through out his political career.

Keating and his S & L. Cindy's family money to run for the senate. Did you notice that Cindy & Ms. Iseman look abit like one another?

Posted by Kathy | February 20, 2008 10:43 PM

This is just the first savo by the MSM now that McCain has the nomination sowed up. Remember, the media pulled big time for McCain and never mentioned true conservatives like Duncan Hunter, a real hero, an Airborne Ranger Infantryman Vietnam Vet. The good stuff is to come. If nothing else the 71 year old can bump Bob Dole off and get the Viagra commercials. Seriously, if you want something atrocious that the MSM didn't run google Senate Select Committe on POW/MIA and read about J.F'ng.Kerry and John McCain. This is truely disgusting. What it was is this committee was set up to investigate POW/MIA from primarily Viet Nam. After a couple of years and 22,000 pages of live sightings, testimony, and documents were shreaded and the committee chairman, Sen Kerry stated that there was no evidence that POW remained and recommended normalization with Vietnam. Senator Kerry's relatives supposedly got a multi million dolar contract in Viet Nam, McCain, I don't know why! GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN!

Posted by Mac-101 | February 20, 2008 10:44 PM

I can hear John now, "I did not have sexual relations with that lobbyist!" "I did not trade legislation for sex!" Damn, this is so disgusting! I bet he got his viagra from Bob Dole! I also read on an AZ online paper that they (the paper) thinks this is a smear and they can't wait till Obama is smeared. That too is disgusting, but this appears to be fact about McCain, isn't the first time either! Watch for a third party consrvative candidate.

Posted by Ron | February 20, 2008 10:49 PM

If Ron Paul was President these sleaze stories would fall from the headlines. Hillary, McCain and little doubt Obama all purchased and paid for in the employ of those that can care less about you.

Posted by HGWard | February 20, 2008 11:04 PM

There might be more to this story at some point, but right now it sounds like much ado about nothing.

Posted by Mike G. | February 20, 2008 11:21 PM

mccain has probably been with many lobbyists and aides. he probably has had sex with lots of really dumb blondes like his current unarticulate mouthpiece for letting him have adult lobbyist friend finder liasons.

i hope john you wake up and smell your agent orange.

Posted by Hilary Clinton | February 20, 2008 11:24 PM

Isn't this where the term "Dirty Old Man" comes from??

Saint McCain thinks he's more a patriot than any other American. Only he knows how much whining he really did in captivity. Maybe that's why he was released. I always felt that there is something phony about the guy.

Posted by V. Yet Kong | February 20, 2008 11:33 PM

YO JOHN! McCain caught with his pants down with a lobbyist. What a perfect headline. I am currently serving in Iraq and we do not support John Mccain. Support the troops not this guy who screwed his lobbyist!

Posted by Chris, Navy Cowboy on the ground in my humvee | February 20, 2008 11:34 PM

Take a look at this woman and tell me McCain doesn't belive in torture. That's my real concern.

Posted by pauline | February 20, 2008 11:39 PM

All of those right wing kool aid drinkers are so pathetic and such sorry hypocrites.

Posted by weewee | February 20, 2008 11:41 PM

Let me first disclose that I am an Obama supporter, and second, that I have been very suspect of JM's political integrity and capacity to lead (given his volatile nature) for years now.

However, this is 2nd rate reporting by the NYT, and suspect at best. If they don't have the fish, they shouldn't be reeling so quickly. If anything, a story like this will mobilize the Rebublican base FOR McCain.

Nothing makes friends quicker than a mutual enemy.

Posted by David | February 20, 2008 11:41 PM

Fish is the best way to express it. Blowfish.

Posted by Billy | February 20, 2008 11:47 PM

The Nation -- In a bombshell article that is already roiling the presidential race, the New York Times reports that Sen. John McCain has a long-running entanglement with a lobbyist, a series of "potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest" and a "self-contradictory" fundraising operation that he ran through the nonprofit Reform Institute.

According to two former McCain associates who became "disillusioned" with the Senator, McCain admitted to "behaving inappropriately" with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The Times reports that McCain denied allegations of a romantic relationship, and he "declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman." The article raises several other allegations about McCain's acceptance of corporate favors, private jet rides, corporate contributions, and conflicts of interests with companies that he oversaw as a U.S. Senator.

Tom Mattzzie, a Democratic operative and former MoveOn.org official, said it was potentially devastating for McCain. "We have a story that carries the narrative about McCain and lobbyists in bed together -- pun intended," he told The Nation.

The McCain Campaign rushed to stem the fall-out, assailing The Times for lowering "its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign" and issuing a denial of the allegations of conflicts of interest. "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," said Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker.

Yet the article meticulously details McCain's questionable ethics history, dating all the way back to his role as an original member of the Keating Five.

mr vietnam vet gets a taste of his own medicine..

karma is a b*&*&%

Posted by McCain's Bombshell Scandal | February 20, 2008 11:49 PM

As a true non-partisan

Ha ha ha ha ha!

You and David Broder.

Posted by TomT | February 20, 2008 11:56 PM

Poor, poor John. And just when life was finally looking good and he was looking forward to more free plane rides.

Posted by Jim B | February 21, 2008 12:23 AM

I'm no fan of John Mccain, nor any other republican for that matter, but I don't think this story is going anywhere. It's old news. Plus if the Obama camp even tries to bring it up, they would be considered hypocrites for engaging in slum politics they say we are all tired of.

Posted by georgeM | February 21, 2008 12:24 AM

I'd hit it.

McCain that is.

Posted by Larry Craig | February 21, 2008 12:32 AM

Regardless of whether or not more evidence comes forth, the thing that gets me is that Since December, he has refused to confirm or deny the validity of the claims his own aides have given about confronting him on this issue.

That seems somewhat evasive to me.

Posted by ThisAintKoolaid | February 21, 2008 12:32 AM

As someone in the center, someone truly nonpartisan,I think this is bad news for McCain. But I also think a lot of you partisans -- on both sides -- are overreacting.

Posted by CentristGuy | February 21, 2008 12:44 AM

This is a great day in American Journalism!!!!!
Let's see, if you could get away with it, would you cheat on your wife?
Johnny McCain,
GOTCHA!!!!

Posted by Phyllis | February 21, 2008 1:17 AM

Give it to me Grandpa!

Posted by Dave | February 21, 2008 2:32 AM

It's none of anyone's dang business. If we were worried about who is zooming whom, we would never have elected Thomas Jefferson president. Period. Move on, America.

Posted by Leigh | February 21, 2008 6:31 AM

"Whose your Pappy"

Posted by janet | February 21, 2008 6:38 AM

On the one hand, this story quotes only unnamed sources. As we all know, that is not front-page journalism but rather tabloid fodder.

But on the other hand, based on what we already know about Sen. McCain, it does seem to fit a lifelong pattern, doesn't it?

Memo to Cindy: If he cheated WITH YOU, then he'll probably cheat ON you....

Meanwhile Huckabee is still married to his highschool sweetheart after 33 years.

Posted by L.W. | February 21, 2008 7:19 AM

Only one candidate is dirt free - Ron Paul. He has a lot more delegates than the media is reporting. For instance, in Colorado, he may get ALL the delegates. The criminal MSM is reporting unbound delegates to McCain because he won the primary, but a lot of delegates aren't bound to the primary winner, and can vote however they want at the convention. Will republicans vote for a guy sleeping with lobbyists? Or a guy who can't raise funds?
Ron Paul has been faithfully married to the same woman for over 50 years and is the logical choice for conservatives if they can give up on this phony war. For those brainwashed - the MSM doesn't cover Ron Paul because of his monetary policy of abolishing the Federal Reserve. The bankers will do whatever they can to stop Ron Paul.

Posted by Jeremy | February 21, 2008 9:25 AM

THIS IS A PURE HIT JOB BY THE NEW YORK TIMES.
I am no McCain supporter but when you consider the timimg at a time when he was reaching out to the Social Conservatives. This story is surely met to make him unappealing to them.
I feel sorry for him.
The media should not be doing this. It is a big shame.

Posted by Leye | February 21, 2008 10:20 AM

C'mon.......boys will be boys. Even good ole boys deserve to have some fun.

Posted by TampaJim | February 21, 2008 10:22 AM

C'mon.......boys will be boys. Even good ole boys deserve to have some fun.

Posted by TampaJim | February 21, 2008 10:22 AM

C'mon.......boys will be boys. Even good ole boys deserve to have some fun.

Posted by TampaJim | February 21, 2008 10:22 AM

It's hard for the McCain campaign to say that this is a hit and run by the NYT when Drudge carried it eight years ago.

WaPo's on it. New Republic is on it (and claim to have spooked the NYT into publishing first).

The "liberal NYT" response is flaccid. But what do you expect? The McCain campaign is total Bush League.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 21, 2008 11:18 AM

Sorry, Drudge wasn't on this in Dec. 2000, he ran with this in Dec. 2007.

But it isn't new and it isn't the New York Times. The McCain campaign is even more pathetic than the John Kerry campaign. They have NO IDEA what to do with this.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 21, 2008 11:23 AM

"THIS IS A PURE HIT JOB BY THE NEW YORK TIMES."

How can you say that? They wanted to run the story leading up to the Iowa caucus and staved off until now, when McCain is the front-runner on the GOP nomination. It is more likely that they wanted to wait until McCain was the GOP's guy, then come out with this story so Obama can win in the fall. They're a very liberal newspaper. Why would they wait with this information?

Mitt Romney may have been slimy, but he didn't seem to have any personal improprieties like this or giving favors to people he was having affairs with. It's completely obnoxious on McCain's part to do that with the public's money. This is why people appreciate a candidate like Ron Paul-- he has integrity, whether you agree with him or not.

Posted by Libertarian Girl | February 21, 2008 12:42 PM

Today’s front page article in the New York Times, ‘For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk’ and the cover article of the current issue of The New Republic, ‘Maverick vs. Iceman’ only serve to reinforce that if these items were touched on before the Republican nominating campaign effectively was over, we very well could be looking now at a different nominee, i.e. Mr. Romney.
In a nutshell:

McCain
Perception:
Authentic straight talker.
Reality:
Sanctimonious, argumentative politician whose decades of political experience gives him the self-confidence to say whatever he feels, true or not, and get away with it, facilitated by his relationship with the media which follows him.

Latest “double-talk” today is McCain criticizing Obama for considering not taking federal financing for the general election (an apparent change of opinion by Obama, due to his unexpectedly stronger fund-raising), while McCain at the same time is changing course on torture, saying President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and the like on terrorist suspects. As the current issue of The New Republic points out: “The fact that the war was increasingly unpopular with the public at large, paradoxically, made it all the more effective for McCain. His hawkish stance signaled to conservatives his willingness to buck public opinion. And reporters, bizarrely, interpreted his position as more evidence of McCain’s probity–here was a man, gushed a string of campaign reports, willing to lose the presidency for the sake of his beliefs. In fact, the war was an issue where McCain’s beliefs aligned perfectly with his self-interest, since the constituency he needed to woo, conservative stalwarts, supported Bush……..It is a truly impressive skill McCain has–the ability to adopt new beliefs and convince his new allies that his conversion is genuine (or, at least, irreversible) while simultaneously strengthening their belief in the immutability of his principles. ”

Romney
Perception:
Flip-flopping panderer.
Reality:
Businessman, whose political footing has not been grounded in decades of political practice, and who has more recently crystalized his political views on national issues, without a historical relationship with the political media. A positive, strong leader, well-spoken, intellectually curious, very intelligent, pragmatic, exemplary role model of a citizen, that would represent America extremely well in the world.

As you know, presidential politics has been full of examples of failure, and subsequent redemption. Just in recent decades alone, Reagan came back and won after he lost to Ford in his attempt at the Republican nomination in ‘76 (plus after his first foray in ‘68). Nixon came back and won after he lost in his first race against Kennedy in ‘60. The elder Bush came back and won after he lost in his first attempt for the nomination against Reagan in ‘80. McCain came back and is winning the nomination after he lost in his first bid against the younger Bush in 2000. In my view, eventually so can Romney.

Posted by James | February 21, 2008 5:17 PM

Today’s front page article in the New York Times, ‘For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk’ and the cover article of the current issue of The New Republic, ‘Maverick vs. Iceman’ only serve to reinforce that if these items were touched on before the Republican nominating campaign effectively was over, we very well could be looking now at a different nominee, i.e. Mr. Romney.
In a nutshell:

McCain
Perception:
Authentic straight talker.
Reality:
Sanctimonious, argumentative politician whose decades of political experience gives him the self-confidence to say whatever he feels, true or not, and get away with it, facilitated by his relationship with the media which follows him.

Latest “double-talk” today is McCain criticizing Obama for considering not taking federal financing for the general election (an apparent change of opinion by Obama, due to his unexpectedly stronger fund-raising), while McCain at the same time is changing course on torture, saying President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and the like on terrorist suspects. As the current issue of The New Republic points out: “The fact that the war was increasingly unpopular with the public at large, paradoxically, made it all the more effective for McCain. His hawkish stance signaled to conservatives his willingness to buck public opinion. And reporters, bizarrely, interpreted his position as more evidence of McCain’s probity–here was a man, gushed a string of campaign reports, willing to lose the presidency for the sake of his beliefs. In fact, the war was an issue where McCain’s beliefs aligned perfectly with his self-interest, since the constituency he needed to woo, conservative stalwarts, supported Bush……..It is a truly impressive skill McCain has–the ability to adopt new beliefs and convince his new allies that his conversion is genuine (or, at least, irreversible) while simultaneously strengthening their belief in the immutability of his principles. ”

Romney
Perception:
Flip-flopping panderer.
Reality:
Businessman, whose political footing has not been grounded in decades of political practice, and who has more recently crystalized his political views on national issues, without a historical relationship with the political media. A positive, strong leader, well-spoken, intellectually curious, very intelligent, pragmatic, exemplary role model of a citizen, that would represent America extremely well in the world.

As you know, presidential politics has been full of examples of failure, and subsequent redemption. Just in recent decades alone, Reagan came back and won after he lost to Ford in his attempt at the Republican nomination in ‘76 (plus after his first foray in ‘68). Nixon came back and won after he lost in his first race against Kennedy in ‘60. The elder Bush came back and won after he lost in his first attempt for the nomination against Reagan in ‘80. McCain came back and is winning the nomination after he lost in his first bid against the younger Bush in 2000. In my view, eventually so can Romney.

Posted by James | February 21, 2008 5:17 PM

Today’s front page article in the New York Times, ‘For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk’ and the cover article of the current issue of The New Republic, ‘Maverick vs. Iceman’ only serve to reinforce that if these items were touched on before the Republican nominating campaign effectively was over, we very well could be looking now at a different nominee, i.e. Mr. Romney.
In a nutshell:

McCain
Perception:
Authentic straight talker.
Reality:
Sanctimonious, argumentative politician whose decades of political experience gives him the self-confidence to say whatever he feels, true or not, and get away with it, facilitated by his relationship with the media which follows him.

Latest “double-talk” today is McCain criticizing Obama for considering not taking federal financing for the general election (an apparent change of opinion by Obama, due to his unexpectedly stronger fund-raising), while McCain at the same time is changing course on torture, saying President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and the like on terrorist suspects. As the current issue of The New Republic points out: “The fact that the war was increasingly unpopular with the public at large, paradoxically, made it all the more effective for McCain. His hawkish stance signaled to conservatives his willingness to buck public opinion. And reporters, bizarrely, interpreted his position as more evidence of McCain’s probity–here was a man, gushed a string of campaign reports, willing to lose the presidency for the sake of his beliefs. In fact, the war was an issue where McCain’s beliefs aligned perfectly with his self-interest, since the constituency he needed to woo, conservative stalwarts, supported Bush……..It is a truly impressive skill McCain has–the ability to adopt new beliefs and convince his new allies that his conversion is genuine (or, at least, irreversible) while simultaneously strengthening their belief in the immutability of his principles. ”

Romney
Perception:
Flip-flopping panderer.
Reality:
Businessman, whose political footing has not been grounded in decades of political practice, and who has more recently crystalized his political views on national issues, without a historical relationship with the political media. A positive, strong leader, well-spoken, intellectually curious, very intelligent, pragmatic, exemplary role model of a citizen, that would represent America extremely well in the world.

As you know, presidential politics has been full of examples of failure, and subsequent redemption. Just in recent decades alone, Reagan came back and won after he lost to Ford in his attempt at the Republican nomination in ‘76 (plus after his first foray in ‘68). Nixon came back and won after he lost in his first race against Kennedy in ‘60. The elder Bush came back and won after he lost in his first attempt for the nomination against Reagan in ‘80. McCain came back and is winning the nomination after he lost in his first bid against the younger Bush in 2000. In my view, eventually so can Romney.

Posted by James | February 21, 2008 5:18 PM

Today’s front page article in the New York Times, ‘For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk’ and the cover article of the current issue of The New Republic, ‘Maverick vs. Iceman’ only serve to reinforce that if these items were touched on before the Republican nominating campaign effectively was over, we very well could be looking now at a different nominee, i.e. Mr. Romney.
In a nutshell:

McCain
Perception:
Authentic straight talker.
Reality:
Sanctimonious, argumentative politician whose decades of political experience gives him the self-confidence to say whatever he feels, true or not, and get away with it, facilitated by his relationship with the media which follows him.

Latest “double-talk” today is McCain criticizing Obama for considering not taking federal financing for the general election (an apparent change of opinion by Obama, due to his unexpectedly stronger fund-raising), while McCain at the same time is changing course on torture, saying President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and the like on terrorist suspects. As the current issue of The New Republic points out: “The fact that the war was increasingly unpopular with the public at large, paradoxically, made it all the more effective for McCain. His hawkish stance signaled to conservatives his willingness to buck public opinion. And reporters, bizarrely, interpreted his position as more evidence of McCain’s probity–here was a man, gushed a string of campaign reports, willing to lose the presidency for the sake of his beliefs. In fact, the war was an issue where McCain’s beliefs aligned perfectly with his self-interest, since the constituency he needed to woo, conservative stalwarts, supported Bush……..It is a truly impressive skill McCain has–the ability to adopt new beliefs and convince his new allies that his conversion is genuine (or, at least, irreversible) while simultaneously strengthening their belief in the immutability of his principles. ”

Romney
Perception:
Flip-flopping panderer.
Reality:
Businessman, whose political footing has not been grounded in decades of political practice, and who has more recently crystalized his political views on national issues, without a historical relationship with the political media. A positive, strong leader, well-spoken, intellectually curious, very intelligent, pragmatic, exemplary role model of a citizen, that would represent America extremely well in the world.

As you know, presidential politics has been full of examples of failure, and subsequent redemption. Just in recent decades alone, Reagan came back and won after he lost to Ford in his attempt at the Republican nomination in ‘76 (plus after his first foray in ‘68). Nixon came back and won after he lost in his first race against Kennedy in ‘60. The elder Bush came back and won after he lost in his first attempt for the nomination against Reagan in ‘80. McCain came back and is winning the nomination after he lost in his first bid against the younger Bush in 2000. In my view, eventually so can Romney.

Posted by James | February 21, 2008 5:19 PM

This innuendo says much more about NYT and people who think it's a story than anything about McCain. BJ Clinton screws around and LIES about it and it's no big deal, but because a Repub has high standards and then, when he's seen in public with an attractive woman, he must be messing around? This isn't just a double standard, it epitomizes the Left's twisted view of everyone based on politics alone.

Posted by John | February 21, 2008 8:40 PM

Posted by Tracy;

"These republicans are the worst conservatives for sure.

They talk values but go and screw around with boys, prostitutes, airport passengers, and now lobbyists. These are the same hypocrites/morons who castigate others.

Its pathetic that a 65 year old man (McCain that time) was having an affair with a 32 year old lobbyists(it's lobbyist)."

NO, Tracy, what's pathetic is that you get your "FACTS" from a two-bit, scumbag propaganda paper such as the NYT's. It's quite sad, one, that you lump ALL conservative Politicians into some "pedophile or sex-crazed corrupt" camp, while having NO EVIDENCE. You know, that little thing that came up with Billyboy? And, secondly, have nothing to say about the hundreds of Liberal politicians that have slandered your party all on their own. This story, by the NYT's, has been not only RIPPED TO SHREDS but, furthermore, MANY,even within your own party, are calling for this reporter's head on a plate. HE SHOULD BE FIRED, period, for this unethical CRAP, that you so quickly took as "the Marxist Manifesto" truth.

Go figure, a liberal believes, on first glance, what is reported by the NYTimes.(A paper, by the way, THAT'S IN THE PROVERBIAL TANK!)

You should be ashamed of yourself, Tracy. Why not start developing an OBJECTIVE information network, as you can see by my attendance here, I already do?

In fact, reading on, many of you are just more of the same; Parroting, Slander when you can't discuss facts, Indoctrinated communists in training. Why not head to D.C. and, see if you can't just volunteer for the new Manchurian Candidate Program today? You're half way there as it is.

Enjoy Obama-Socialism or Hillary's "TV in every public building telling you how to raise your kids" Liberal Fascism, when and if you get it. I just hope, for your sake, you don't have any individual goals or ambition. Because, you're about to find out, if they are elected, just how little they care about your individuality. Rather, how HEAVILY they care about redistribution of your wealth, should you ever have any. Please save your, "typical Neo-con, cares more about same-sex marriage and abortion than helping the poor", since, Religious Conservative Americans are 3 TIMES more generous to charity, per capita, than social liberals are, ANYWHERE in the world. FACT!

I am as unhappy as many of my Democratic friends are, in regards to Bush policies thus far. He's literally betrayed the conservatives who'd elected him. The difference is, most of my friends, whether Republican or Democrat would never be so shallow and uninformed as to "run" with a story like this one above, whether they agree with McCain's politics and past actions or not(MANY of which, I do not). Furthermore, most of those that I know who lean to the left, do not jump on bandwagon after bandwagon, personally attacking Republican Candidates, for the sake of their parties cause.

Why don't you people pick up a book(NO, Marx and Lenin are not considered objective ideological comparisons). While you're at it, avoid slewing slander with information the paper can't even substantiate, AT ALL, whether or not you hate his record and ideology.

NVM, anyone who qualifies a NYTIMES story as objective substantiated ammo to justify their attack of someone deserves the future they ask for.

Hey, why not watch Archangel, with Daniel Craig and Equilibrium, with