John McCain And Vicki Iseman And The Affair

Yes, Mr Ethical Crusader who helped force thousands of Native Americans off their lands and relocated many to a nuclear waste spill superfund site so a coal mining company could strip mine the reservation. Nice reform. Obama and Clinton should take Richardson's Native American policy and add it to their platforms.

So we're supposed to believe that Bob Dole 2.0 was virile enough to down some beta blockers, a pain pill and a viagra, then heave himself off his hemmorhoid doughnut and flop on top of his mistress like a pile of laundry on top of another pile of laundry?

Maybe 20 years ago. But in 2000? I don't buy it. Did they even have Viagra then?

I should mention that I stole that from a Patton Oswalt routine, btw.

All aboard John McThuselah's Stray C*ck Express!

That was spit-on-screen funny, Dr. VDH-j.

Ah yes. Let the smear campaign begin and with the NY Times to boot.

You guys didn't learn much from the 90's did you?

Funny how this story didn't come up while the NYT was in the midst of endorsing him during the primary. There goes that Conservative Media Bias again...

Jay: "Ah yes. Let the smear campaign begin and with the NY Times to boot."

Fucking hell, you're playing the victim card? Here's a hint, we are not as stupid as you are. We won't fall for that.

SaveFarris: "There goes that Conservative Media Bias again..."

Exactly. There's evidence that this story didn't just break, but that reporters knew about for a while and they didn't publish it. And that is certainly evidence of a bias.

Jay, why is this a "smear?" Could someone on the right actually explain what "smear job" means beyond "the New York Times printed it?"

why is this a "smear?"

"Unnamed Sources worried that a relationship almost developed 10 years ago" is not exactly a stop-the-presses headline. There was more evidence for the Kerry and Edwards affair storys, and neither of those were deemed "fit to print" over at Timesville. What's the difference, other than the 'R' after McCain's name?

I'm sure there's legitimate dirt on McCain.
Being in public life for so long, the law of averages says there has to be. But this ain't it.

"Unnamed Sources worried that a relationship almost developed 10 years ago" is not exactly a stop-the-presses headline. There was more evidence for the Kerry and Edwards affair storys

There was? Funny, how no one else seemed to print it either. Except Matt Drudge, of course, who then hid the story with no explanation whatsoever 24 hours after making it his front page story.

And seriously, the "unnamed sources" bit is just lame. That's how journalism actually works, despite the efforts of people like Drudge and Malkin trying to claim otherwise. Your response is, essentially, that you don't believe the Times. Which is a damn shame because they simply have more credibility as a news source than some guy using an alias on the internet. Deal.

You guy's seem to have no problem with unnamed sources when the target's name is John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton.

But now, you're reaching for the vapors.

Hey August, you guys should know exactly what the term 'smear' means as it used any time an accusation about anything is leveled against a Democrat.

This qualifies as a smear not because unnamed sources were used, but because there's no evidence that McCain and Iseman had an affair yet the rumor makes it into a front page NY Times story and Oliver's titling the entry like it is a fact when crap like this belongs on TMZ or on Page 6 of the Post.

You mean just like how Mark Foley and Larry Craig were "smeared"?

OW: "You mean just like how Mark Foley and Larry Craig were 'smeared'?"

And we already know that there was talk of this in the press for a while. This leads me to suspect that something new came out recently, something that backs up the story.

I don't think I've ever read a more positively written smear job. It smacks of heavy editing and rewrites. Poor John McCain! His super genuine niceness puts him in a position that might look like an impropriety in a lesser man than John McCain who learned from his mistakes in the Keating 5 scandal. Why he's always doing favors for friends. In this case lots and lots, going so far as to get an official rebuke from the FCC for trying to pressure their deliberations on behalf of his non-girlfriend's clients. Give me a break.

Jay doesn't seem to understand the scandal is twofold. The possibility of an affair, which is not farfetched considering McCain has a history of infidelity. And doing special favors for lobbyists which contradicts his super reform image he has tried to cultivate.

In the cases of Foley and Craig, there was actual evidence (salacious emails and an arrest record). Here, we have ... anonymous sources with an 8-year old tale about something that ALMOST happened. Not quite the same.

I'll be happy to change my tune should new evidence (or in this case, any evidence) appears. Should the NYT investigate? Sure! But to splash what they have now (nothing) and try to pass it off as a legitimate story "as is" is indefensible.

I said official rebuke, it was a rebuke but I don't think it was official on the record. More like a timely response to his demand letters telling him to knock it off.

This qualifies as a smear not because unnamed sources were used, but because there's no evidence that McCain and Iseman had an affair

Great; the article also had no evidence that John McCain is a space alien, because that's not what the article is saying in the first place. The article claimed with multiple confirmations that he was confronted about the affair and how he responded. It also said he denied a "romantic relationship" with her. It's part of the larger story of his repeated history of proven impropriety as a man of "ethical standards."

If the article actually said "McCain had an affair" and offered no evidence or sourcing (like the Drudge piece on Kerry), you'd be right. But it didn't. You're just whining that it did so you can claim it's a "smear", and you're wrong.

Here, we have ... anonymous sources with an 8-year old tale about something that ALMOST happened.

Umm, no. Here we have multiple sources confirming the same story about something they claim DID happen (confronting McCain about his relationship with the lobbyist and his response to them). If you don't like that they're anonymous, well, tough shit. This is how journalism works. Take a few classes if you aren't just pretending you don't know why sources often have to be unnamed.

This story could probably have used some more conditioning before they let it out of the gate.

That said, McCain's got that pesky history of philandering, which doesn't do anything to tamp down the credibility of the story.

Who said Mark Foley and Larry Craig were smeared?

Honestly, boys and girls, who cares about the sex? He is an adult. This woman is an adult. He and his wife are the ones who have to deal with this issue and it is their business alone.

If there is evidence that McCain's relationship resulted in corruption on behalf of this woman's telecommunications clients, then I have a real issue with it, particularly in light of McCain's history of influence peddling.

Great; the article also had no evidence that John McCain is a space alien, because that's not what the article is saying in the first place.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The report plants the seed of an extra-marital affair in the third sentence of a 3000 word piece.

Yet here you are, in the comments of a blog entry entitled, "John McCain And Vicki Iseman And The Affair" attempting to claim that the only thing the times is 'reporting' is that aides were convinced he was having an affair and that it is just part of a 'larger' story. Are you prepared to sell some of what you're smoking?

Oliver is focused entirely on the alleged affair for the most part. He links to two other entries that discuss nothing but the alleged affair and you're actually going to sit there with a straight face and say this isn't a smear? This is a text book definition of a smear. Accusing somebody of doing something without actually accusing them. It's perfect.

If the article actually said "McCain had an affair" and offered no evidence or sourcing (like the Drudge piece on Kerry), you'd be right.

Oh horseshit. They didn't say, but they were happy to speculate. And that's what makes it a smear.

Yes, the Republicans would never ever never push innuendo about John Kerry purposefully shooting himself in Vietnam, Al Gore lying about creating the Internet, Hillary Clinton killing Vince Foster or Barack Obama being a terrorist sympathizer.

They would never do that. They are our moral superiors.

"This is a text book definition of a smear. Accusing somebody of doing something without actually accusing them. It's perfect. "

Is this the same Jay that defended Glenn Reynolds for using basically the same tactic? Because if it isn't you ought to kick his ass for stealing your handle.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, I'm pretty clear here that I'm saying you are. You're the one declaring what the Times is "really saying" and then getting angry at them for it.

Yes, there's innuendo, and I admit that's not really top-notch reporting. If they actually have evidence that McCain had an affair, they certainly need to present it. But I'm refuting your claim that they accused McCain of an affair, rather than reported on actual events they had backing for. That's the difference between a smear and a story.

Oliver, I've read through all of these comments, yet I don't see a single person who has said, "Republicans don't do this kind of thing."

However, YOU'VE been decrying such tactics since this blogs inception. Apparently, you have no problem engaging in the same kind of stuff if you think it's going to help your candidate win. As such, I would suspect we'll see an end to any complaints on your part when the favor is returned, which it most likely will be on the part of Obama or Hillary.

I don't believe in unilateral disarmament. I think in an ideal world politics is decided on the issues. But that's not the world we live in. And I totally expect the bullshittiest stories about Obama or Clinton - that's what the right does.

If one side gets in the mud and keeps winning, I don't see any advantage to my side keeping its suit clean on principle.

Shorter Oliver: It's impossible to be a hypocrite if you have no morality to begin with!

Affair or not, MCCAIN WAS DOING FAVORS FOR HER. As the champion of lobbyist reform it is super strange and hypocritical.

If one side gets in the mud and keeps winning, I don't see any advantage to my side keeping its suit clean on principle.

Ok, can't argue with that.

Jay said:

Ah yes. Let the smear campaign begin and with the NY Times to boot.

Funny - I don't recall seeing you making a similar remark when the 'Barack Obama is a muslim' smear appeared all over the pages of the same paper that you are critiquing now. With considerably less evidence of it being true (and actually a bunch of evidence proving it wrong). Funny how the supposedly liberal NYT put that rumor on the front page, and they buried disclaimer that it was all a flaming pile of bull$hit 20+ pages back.

I've also read that this story has been spiked for years because it might make the Anything-But-Straight-Talk Express look bad, and one of the reasons it's being published now is that there's another newspaper that won't sit on the story. I'm not sure how much you know about that - being as it might poke some holes in your Republican't propaganda operation here - but I'm also sure that being scooped might have been a factor in when they published.

OK, how's this, Jay:

It's a repellant, hideous piece of journalism that has little merit and no place on the front page of the country's leading newspaper.

That said, it's mighty funny how some people have suddenly become sensitiive to this sort of thing.

Hey Jay, here's a smear on St. McCain: his own words, which reveal him to have lied to the American people.

"I have refrained from ever intervening in the regulatory decisions of the federal government if such intervention could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as done solely or primarily for the benefit of a major financial supporter of my campaign."

The stories breaking today reveal McCain will say whatever it takes, regardless of the truth:

"In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson's chief executive, Lowell W. "Bud" Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain's request "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" and "could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties."

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

And also this:

"After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell “Bud” Paxson, finally ruined his company.

Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.

McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters – but not the great bulk of television stations – off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with “fear and trepidation” at a hearing on September 8, 2004.

Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson – and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change."

Sorry Cons, but Saint McCain is a liar. I don't care how many of his wives he's cheated on, but I do care that he's apparently willing to say anything to get elected. Even Rush Limbaugh knows that.

You guys didn't learn much from the 90's did you?

Oh, but we did.
We learned it from watching you.
The Starr Report was very instructive.

You have to admire the balls-out insanity of Michelle Malkin, too. She will literally say anything that's slanderous about a Democrat, and she'll have hundreds of thousands of dittoheads mouthing it like gospel minutes later all across the country.

AS HOT LOOKING THAT THIS VICKI CHICK IS, VERSUS MAVIN'S WIFE: ANY MAN IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE AN AFFIR WITH HER.. I KNOW I WOULD

AS HOT LOOKIN, AS THIS VICKI CHICK IS, VERSUS WHAT MCCAIN HAS: WHAT MAN WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE AN AFFIR, WITH HER?.... I KNOW I WOULD... [IF I WERE IN HIS SHOOES]

Are you lost, sir?

You'd think it would be hard to play the victim card when you hit the ground lying.

Wow. A politician that lies!! OH MY GOD!!! If everybody commenting here declared they wouldn't vote for somebody that lied, nobody would be able to vote. They all lie. Yes, that includes Hillary and Obama. Big whoop.

If Democrats would focus more on the fact that an Arizona Senator intervened in an FCC matter on behalf of a company based in Florida, it would be a better line of attack.

But seeing you people talk about McCain lying as though the candidates you support never have, is freaking hilarious. Excuse me for becoming more cynical over the last 10 years, but I've seen enough to know that ALL politicians lie.

All of them.

So Jay, it's not the sex OR the lying, it's...um, what is it again?