Vicki Iseman: Times Story's Motives, Timing Questioned

Why Did the NY Times Sit on Story?
Why Did Alcalde & Fay Pull Vicki Iseman's bio from its website?



The story of Vicki Iseman and any relationship to John McCain is starting to shift.

Questions are starting to arise as to the way the New York Times handled the story, when they chose to publish it, and their motives.

For a "scandal", unless the Times, which has spent a lot of time on the story, has any more information it's sitting on, this story will have the legs of Long John Silver.

Senator McCain's campaign has issued a response the NY Times article.

“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.”

---
DBKP Political Scandal Library
-- Over 40 stories and videos on scandals involving 2008 Presidential Candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and John Edwards.
----

Reuters has reported that "McCain will address the Times story at a news conference in Toledo, Ohio, at 9 a.m. EST (1400 GMT) on Thursday."

McCain was asked about the Times story by reporters at the airport in Toledo, after returning from campaign events in Illinois. "I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment," he said.

It's hard to see what everyone is so worked up about: the Times story is mostly some innuendo, some hints and a long recounting of McCain's involvement in the Keating Five Scandal.

Still, we wonder about the disappearance of Vicki Iseman's biographical info and picture from the lobby firm, Alcalde & Fay's website last evening.

What does that mean?

As reported in our earlier story, "Who is Vicki Iseman?", that Iseman's information and photo had disappeared from the Alcalde & Fay website shortly after we'd copied it for the story.

The enterprising folks at Buckeye State Blog were quick enough to grab a screen shot of the page before it vanished.

It is reproduced below in--all in the cause of history.

Click on image to enlarge

As the folks at BSB put it: "Since Vicki Iseman, John McCain's alleged special interest, profile may be deleted from Alcade & Fay, BSB's more than happy to host it. You know, googlecache only last so long, but BSB is forever."

The New York Timess story, in which it hints at a romantic relationship between Iseman and McCain, has no proof.

Indeed, there is nothing in the story but some "imprudent" appearances.

It's not like the Senator hired Iseman to do work for his campaign--say a campaign video.

Or that she is now pregnant.

Or that she is living in a McCain supporter's house.

Or that Iseman is driving around in a BMW owned by a former, high-ranking McCain campaign official.

Those are the details in the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair, which the Times hasn't covered at all.

The Times stated that McCain declined repeated attempts at an interview.

How about one question from a Times reporter to John Edwards on the Rielle Hunter affair?

Just one.

No Times reporter thought it news to ask John Edwards if he denies he has been in telephone contact with Rielle Hunter since she found out she was pregnant.

Where is the persistence of the Times journalists in that story?

Just one question.

The difference in the Times attitude toward John McCain--a candidate that has none of the damning evidence against him that Edwards had in the Rielle Hunter story--is revealing about how the Times covers "news" and "scandals".

The lack of even one attempt to ask one question to John Edwards vs. "repeated attempts to interview John McCain on Vicki Iseman.

Sam Stein, at Huffington Post, makes an interesting observation.

In the wake of revelations that Sen. John McCain had a close and perhaps romantic relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist, political observers are left wondering why The New York Times chose to run the article when it did. Meanwhile, conservatives are contemplating how different the election would be had the story been published sooner.

Back to Vicki Iseman.

The following is the damning part of the entire Times story:

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

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.

Nothing there that we can see.

The Times then unloads on what is a decidedly disappointing--for a scandal--money shot.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”

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.

The Times says that during the 2000 primary contest with George Bush, "Mr. Bush’s allies called Mr. McCain “sanctimonious.”"

And that is mostly what the story is about: John McCain's arrogance. It's something that conservatives have long complained of when the Arizona senator spurned conservative principles to garner media approval, such as on global warming.

Being arrogant is no scandal, though.

If it were, the New York Times would reek of scandal.

Even the Times article title, "For McCain, Self-confidence on Ethics Poses its own Risks", could be emblazoned upon a plaque and affixed to the front of the Times Building--minus the "For McCain".

FYI:

Vicki Iseman's 2007 Clients and Amount of Lobbying Contract for Alcalde & Fay Arison Family Trust $60,000 BearingPoint Inc $700,000 CACI International $160,000 [total] City of Miami, FL $60,000 Computer Sciences Corp $400,000 Homer-Center School District $20,000 Indiana University of Pennsylvania $40,000 Ion Media Networks $60,000 Jovan Broadcasting $60,000 Operation Warm $20,000 Saga Communications $40,000 Total Living Network $40,000 --from The Center for Responsive Politics

What did the Times story accomplish? Stein speculates, as does Bay Buchanan, an adviser for Mitt Romney's suspended campaign.

Regardless of the paper's motives, conservative pundits were left fuming, noting that the Times had, at once, spared McCain at the point of his greatest vulnerability (when his campaign was still a long shot) and denied his primary opponents perhaps the knock-out blow. Would the GOP have a different candidate on its hands had things been handled differently?

"Oh, there's no question it would have impacted [the race]," Bay Buchanan, a former adviser of ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, told CNN. "I think John McCain would not have won this primary if there's any evidence whatsoever that surfaces that these stories are true... McCain's lawyers went into the New York Times and said do not touch this story. Do not move on this story. And there's no question this was beneficial to McCain to hold the story. No question. His nomination was very much threatened by this story if it broke too early. So what they did was hurt the Republican Party by not allowing this to be aired properly at the time they received this information."

As we've said before, until the New York Times, and the rest of the Mainstream Media, show the persistence about other candidates, we'll assume it's the same old NY Times.

John McCain may be arrogant and "sanctimonious".

But he's a piker compared to the Times.

"All the news that fits--the Times' agenda."

by Mondoreb
images:
* Buckeye State Blogs

Sources:
* Why Did the NY Times Hold the McCain-Lobbyist Story?
* For McCain, Self-confidence on Ethics Poses its own risks
* Buckeye State Blog
* The Center for Responsive Politics



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

John McCain's Double Talk Tango

Next Stop for the "Straight Talk Express":
The Waffle House

"Let me give you some straight talk."
--John McCain



John McCain promises "Straight Talk" at every campaign stop.

After months of campaigning, careful readers are still waiting for him to deliver on that promise.

Perhaps, no politician has bent the truth and been on both sides of more issues more times than John McCain. The only one that even comes close is former President Bill "The Meaning of 'is'" Clinton.

A recent look at Mr. Straight Talk, John McCain, through the eyes of Ann Coulter.

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.

I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.

And I might lie if I had called the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "dishonest and dishonorable."

McCain is the favorite Republican of the liberal Mainstream Media because McCain agrees with so many MSM positions.

Global warming? Illegal immigrants? Tax cuts? Free Speech?

John McCain comes down--and comes down hard--on the side of liberals on every one of the above issues.

With a GOP nominee like McCain, who needs Democrats?

In fact, on almost every issue, John McCain and Hillary Clinton are virtually in perfect, harmonious agreement.

One of the few differences is people who disagree with them: where Clinton thinks that those who disagree with her are part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", McCain thinks they are "racists", "dishonorable", or "dishonest".

Robert Novak and others think that John McCain is unstoppable because of some recent victories in a couple primaries--primaries which allowed Democrats and Independents to vote for the Republican nominee.

Let's look at a breakdown of how McCain fared among Republicans in Michigan, for instance.

What kind of Michigan voters preferred McCain? Voters in the GOP primary who don't like President Bush, who oppose the war in Iraq and who report that they have no religion at all. Oh, and those who say they are not, in fact, Republicans.

"Let me give you some straight talk."
--John McCain

This just in: Ann Coulter replays a "Mr. Straight Talk" moment.

But like the Democrats, McCain thinks if he simply says something over and over again, he can make people believe it's true. Thus again at the South Carolina debate on Jan. 10, McCain was proclaiming that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge.

Since he would deny it about two minutes later, here is exactly what Mr. Straight Talk said about the surge: "I supported that; I argued for it. I'm the only one on this stage that did. And I condemneded the Rumsfeld strategy before that."

The next question went to Giuliani and -- amid great flattery -- Giuliani noted that he also supported Bush's surge "the night of the president's speech."

Mr. Straight Talk contradicted Giuliani, saying: "Not at the time."

Again, Giuliani said: "The night of the president's speech, I was on television. I supported the surge. I've supported it throughout."

To which McCain finally said he didn't mean that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge. So by "the only one on this stage," McCain really meant, "one of several people on this stage." OK, great. Now tell us your definition of the word "is," Senator.

On the issue of the Law of the Sea treaty--which is both a direct slam at U.S. sovereignty and provides a way for the United Nations to tax U.S. companies--McCain is his typical, straight talking self.

Here’s a listing of McCain’s various statements on the treaty:

* McCain joins liberal Republican Senators Susan Collins and John Chafee in a 1998 letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging immediate consideration and approval of the Law of the Sea.


* McCain declares to Senator Richard Lugar in 2003 that he wants to testify in support of ratification but a scheduling conflict prevented his appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee for this purpose.

* McCain submits written testimony in 2003 in support of the treaty to the Foreign Relations Committee.

* McCain tells conservative bloggers on October 25, 2007, that he would “probably” vote against it because it negatively affects U.S. sovereignty.

* McCain sends a letter to a constituent on November 14, 2007, declaring that the treaty is beneficial to the U.S. but that he will keep in mind the objections to it.

On his website, there is a 2006 McCain speech to the conservative Federalist Society, in which he says that “We are a nation that limits government so that government cannot limit us. I believe this notion of limited government will stand as our lasting contribution to the world. We are proof that people can frame a government to serve as an instrument of the people, not the other way around.”

"Let me give you some straight talk."
--John McCain




McCain has perhaps been toughest on free speech--or as he phrases it, "campaign finance reform"--McCain-Feingold.

Others would label it "unconstitutional" or "incumbent re-election insurance".

Whatever you think of a law limiting what free people can or cannot say on the public airwaves with their own money at certain times of the year, McCain arrived at such a hard stance via a 1980's scandal that occurred during his first Senate term: The Keating Five Scandal.

The Keating Five Scandal featured several familiar McCain trademarks: backroom deals, arrogant handling of anyone calling him on it and a chummy relationship with a fat cat donor who steered plenty of campaign cash into the Senator's coffers.

The Arizona Senator was just learning the ropes then.

The Keating Five (or Keating Five Scandal) refers to a Congressional scandal related to the collapse of most of the Savings and Loan institutions in the United States in the late 1980s.

This allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); John McCain (R-AZ); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI), who became known as the Keating Five.

After months of testimony revealed that all five senators acted improperly to differing degrees, the senators continually said they were following the status quo of campaign funding practices. In August 1991, the committee concluded that Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle's conduct constituted substantial interference with the FHLBB's enforcement efforts and that they had done so at the behest of Charles Keating. The committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."

As a member of the infamous Keating Five, John McCain was investigated and found to have engaged in a lot less than "straight talk". McCain is the only member of that renowned quintet to still be in the public spotlight.

While squashing ordinary citizens' rights to express their displeasure with an incumbent Senator, for instance, McCain hasn't changed his ways when it comes to lobbyists and the favors they can do for him.

Last month, reports surfaced that McCain and his campaign tried to spike a story at the New York Times which portrayed the Arizona senator dispensing special favors to a "female telecom lobbyist".

The Mainstream press was quick to leap to McCain's defense, calling the story "rumors" and "innuendo".

McCain himself first vehemently denied the story, then later "clarified" himself into confirming, at least parts of, the story.

McCain responded to the story Thursday by denying all charges of granting special favors to lobbyists, but admitted that his staff had been in contact with the New York Times regarding the story (see AP). While McCain denied having any personal contact with the paper, Politico has confirmed that McCain himself had indeed spoken with executive editor Bill Keller on concerns regarding the story.

"Let me give you some straight talk."
--John McCain

For those McCain supporters who are backing the "Straight Talk Express" and its senator engineer, because they like his tough stance on the War on Terror, it might be wise to consider McCain's other tough stances on issues--before he faced any pressure.

For those voters who like their presidential nominees with a certain "moral flexibility", John McCain is just the ticket.

As far as everyone else, they're still waiting for someone who doesn't deliver "Straight Talk" out of both sides of their mouth.

by Mondoreb
images: michael totten;freakingnews
Sources:
* GOP to Edwards: How Much for that Concession Speech?
* McCain: No More Mr. Straight Talk Express
* Straight Talk Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth
* U.N. Double Talk from Straight Talker John McCain
* The Dirt on John McCain and the Telecoms
* Keating Five



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

McCain Campaign Officials Pressure NYTimes To Kill Lobbyist Story

Battle Between McCain and New York Times


Battle Within the Times Itself over Story


To Publish or Not to Publish?

Names have been named in the John McCain Storying Quashing Story.

The latest report from Drudge details a heated media battle, not only between Senator John McCain and the New York Times over publishing a story about "special treatment" to a lobbyist, but also, a battle within the Times itself.

The decisions being made are said to frustrate certain Times staff.

Could one of the frustrated staff have been responsible for the leak to Drudge?

Somebody talked.

The latest on the McCain Quashing incident from the Drudge Report.

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.

Who was the lobbyist in question?

What did the "special treatment" consist of?

Drudge reports of a battle between the paper's Jim Rutenberg and a reporter working on the McCain story and Times' editor, Bill Keller.

More:

The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation.

The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

Rutenberg, along with reporter David Kirkpatrick, has been developing the story for the last 6 weeks.

Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday, sources reveal, but editor Keller expressed serious reservations about journalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election.

McCain campaign officials Rick Davis, Charlie Black and Mark Salter are also said to have met with the NEW YORK TIMES in an effort to halt publication.

Drudge has "Developing" on the story, so expect to see more added to the McCain-Times story soon.

by Mondoreb
[image:Drudge]
Source: Media Fireworks: McCain Pleads with New York Times to Spike Story



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

McCain Tries Spiking NY Times Story: Ghosts of Keating Five Reappear

Drudge:"Special Treatment of Lobbyist" Causes McCain Trouble

Ghosts of Keating Five Past Returns to Haunt McCain?

John McCain, a member of the Keating Five back in the 90s, has reportedly tried to talk the New York Times out of running a story about the Arizona Senator giving special treatment to a lobbyist.

According to the Drudge Report, McCain has even hired super-lawyer and Washington insider Bob Bennett to tackle the problem.

Drudge uses the word "charges": whether he means it in the legal sense of the word is hard to tell.

The following just popped up on the Drudge Report website a few minutes ago.

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

John McCain has put a lot of ground between himself and lobbyist treatment since his involvement in the Keating Five scandal.

It was speculated that McCain has backed the controversial campaign finance law, McCain-Finegold, because he wanted to change his public image after the Keating Five affair.

A little about the Saving and Loan honcho Charles Keating and the Keating Five:

In 1972, Keating began to work for American Financial Corp., a company involved in insurance and banking. Four years later he moved to Phoenix, Arizona to run the real estate firm American Continental Corporation, a spin-off of American Financial Corp. In 1984, American Continental Corporation bought Lincoln Savings. Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money, a change of which Keating took advantage.

Some regulators noted the danger and pushed for more oversight, but Congress refused. Some of this may be due to the Keating Five, five Senators (Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, John Glenn, Don Riegle and Keating's good friend John McCain) who had received some $300,000 from Keating in the 1980s as political contributions. They later met twice with regulators who were investigating American Continental Corp., in an attempt to end the investigation. (In 1990, they would be rebuked to various degrees by the Senate Ethics Committee.)
--Wikipedia: Charles Keating

Conservatives, free speech advocates and Libertarians have solidly come down against McCain-Finegold as unconstitutional. It remains a particular sticky point for McCain in winning wide-spread conservative support in his quest for the presidency.

About the effects of the Keating Five scandal on John McCain and his support for McCain-Finegold's limits on, what some call, the constitutionally protected speech of campaign giving.

The image of John McCain has long been something of a straight-talking maverick.

Some of those qualities were forged following an early chapter of McCain's political life, when he was one of the so-called Keating Five. That was a group of senators whose meetings 20 years ago with the owner of a failed Arizona savings and loan led to an ethics investigation and almost derailed McCain's career.

An Improper Proposal

In the spring of 1987, McCain was just beginning his first term in the Senate. Charles Keating was a friend, a campaign contributor, and owner of Lincoln Savings and Loan. At the time, Lincoln was under investigation by federal regulators. As McCain recounted the story in an NPR interview two years later, Keating came to his office and offered to do certain things for him, as McCain put it, in return for McCain's interceding with regulators.
--NPR: Scandal Shaped McCain's Sense of Honor in Office

Any hint of McCain giving "special treatment" to a lobbyist would bring unwanted media coverage of his past concerning the Keating Five, where he escaped being indicted for--giving special treatment to a savings and loan.

More to come.

by Mondoreb
note: Little Baby Ginn
[image:drudge]
Source: McCain Pleads with NY Times to Spike Story



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.