His farking lobbyist lobby FROM HIS BUS!

This guy has no credibility.

I wonder if the republicans are wishing they had superdelegates right around now.

DarkIdol: Even if any of this crap is true, does it matter at all?

Neither Obama nor the democrats are making an issue of this, because it is entirely irrelevant - why should the media be so damned rabid about unearthing gossip? This crap detracts from real debate and through no fault of his own, makes Obama look bad (to short-sighted observers anyhow). It would be nice if someone of Barack or Hilary's stature were to tell them to shut the hell up about it.

uh, i don't know what school of journalism you come from or what brand of politics you study, being influenced by a lobbiest with tits is still a pretty big story in these here parts.

DarkIdol Quote 2008-02-24 05:13:29 PM
Even if any of this crap is true, does it matter at all?

Yes.

a) Because it shows he is a hypocrite. Half his reputation is staked on his anti-lobbyist fighting stance. This is eroding pretty quickly with or without a romance scandal.

b) If this can be proved true, McCain will be in hell of trouble because he flat out denied it and called the NYT liars. If he gets proved wrong, he will go down like Gary Hart in 88.

DarkIdol: Even if any of this crap is true, does it matter at all?

Neither Obama nor the democrats are making an issue of this, because it is entirely irrelevant - why should the media be so damned rabid about unearthing gossip? This crap detracts from real debate and through no fault of his own, makes Obama look bad (to short-sighted observers anyhow). It would be nice if someone of Barack or Hilary's stature were to tell them to shut the hell up about it.


Hypocrisy is always relevant. John McCain has said repeatedly that he would campaign against lobbyists and that he does not do business with lobbyists. That's why it matters.

DarkIdol: why should the media be so damned rabid about unearthing gossip?

Hmm, so here we have a story about JOhn McCain who has made a career our of straight talk and being above Washington influence allegedly having an affair with a lobbyist.

Nothing at all to see there I'm sure. In fact I am quite sure this is just as irrelevant as if he were farking the chick who works in the coffee shop down the road from Congress.


/facepalm

US News and World Report had not found enough evidence of a McCain-Iseman relationship last year to publish it

FTFY. I'm not a big fan of McCain either, but this whole "affair" story is based on hearsay. The lobbyist ties are much more damning anyway.

At least McCain likes adult women. He is a republican dream.

Pound's detailed story, which ran in the May 20, 2007 issue said that despite positioning himself "as a die-hard opponent of special-interest influence," McCain had been "an avid seeker of special-interest money to support his campaigns and initiatives" throughout his 25-year career in Congress. "The pattern goes all the way back to his first House race in 1982," the magazine reported. "Moreover, as the boss or No. 2 member of the Senate Commerce Committee, he has drawn heavy support from PACs and individuals associated with industries overseen by that committee-especially telecommunications, media, and technology firms."

More important than any sex scandal in my opinion. We already know that he is an adulterer; the fact that his 'straight talk' is a bunch of BS is way more damaging.

DarkIdol: unearthing gossip

Maybe you consider undue lobbyist influence on an elected official "gossip." I tend to consider it news. It's especially news when the candidate has spent a decade telling us that he's completely above this.

What makes me weep for America is the public's reaction to this story. Read the comments on any story online. They say something along the lines of "shame on the New York Times for suggesting that John McCain is anything other than a hero." Or, "it must be political, why else would they print the story?" I should note that even Democrats are saying things like this. As it if were the job of the New York Times to only print things that confirm people's preconceptions.

The facts of the story are not in dispute. This woman had spent a lot of time with McCain, and there were strong rumors that she was influencing his legislative behavior. There were also worries from McCain's own people that they might be having an affair. This isn't up for debate. And the NYTimes simply reported what McCain's people said. Yet for the vast majority of America, this story cannot be true, for it conflicts with their established perceptions of who John McCain is and what it's about. That is scary. It would indicate that Americans are not willing to learn about their candidates. It would indicate that if news conflicts with their preconceptions, they reject the news, not their preconceptions. That is farked up.

Let me be clear that I have idea if McCain has done anything wrong. But to somehow believe that newspapers shouldn't investigate credible rumors about McCain is beyond me. I simply do not understand why so many Americans feel this way.

A failed investigation into rumors = "evidence of a McCain-Ismen relationship"?

inTheJungle: It would indicate that if news conflicts with their preconceptions, they reject the news, not their preconceptions. That is farked up Republicans for you.

Fixed that fore thee, my boy.

What I like best is the hubris to demand that such a 'smear' be redacted because it is attacking the 'war hero' McCain, yet we heard nothing on the matter during the Swift Boating of John Kerry.

At least McCain is having sex with WOMEN.

That's a first for a Republican man, you know.

Shaggy_C: inTheJungle: It would indicate that if news conflicts with their preconceptions, they reject the news, not their preconceptions. That is farked up Republicans for you.

You know, I'm as diehard of a Democrat as you'll find, and even I'm willing to recognize that this is not something unique to the other party. I'm sure there are other examples that run the other way.

Paedophile_Deluxe: US News and World Report had not found enough evidence of a McCain-Iseman relationship last year to publish it

FTFY. I'm not a big fan of McCain either, but this whole "affair" story is based on hearsay. The lobbyist ties are much more damning anyway.

the sex bit is the part of the story that let's the rest of the story happen. without it, the story would go unnoticed. the sex gets everyone's attention. that's why it's still there.

Mistah Scrotie: I wonder if the republicans are wishing they had superdelegates right around now.

No, right now the party leaders are just happy McCain was sleeping with a woman and not some cute guy from the janitorial staff.

inTheJungle: The facts of the story are not in dispute. This woman had spent a lot of time with McCain, and there were strong rumors that she was influencing his legislative behavior. There were also worries from McCain's own people that they might be having an affair.

The facts are in dispute. Two anonymous ex-staffers ("who said they had become disillusioned with the senator," according to the NYTimes article) have made this allegation, which consist of nothing more than rumors. Nobody caught them farking, nobody drove McCain for a midnight rendezvous. It was a smear piece.

The lobbyist issue is more important. Did she get influence? I have yet to have anyone point to where he voted for something she wanted him to, but McCain's people point to a couple of cases where he voted against policies she favored.

You can argue all you like about McCain's integrity, but the Times story isn't the blunt object you see it as.

MrEricSir: At least McCain is having sex with WOMEN.

That's a first for a Republican man, you know.

Damn. ya beat me to it!

That aside - I mentioned the same thing to my father (an ardent Republican for years now) and all I got in return was embarrased silence.

Where is the outrage from the neocons who wanted a Clinton impeachment for the blowjob? Where are they now?

/hypocrites and liars

inTheJungle: You know, I'm as diehard of a Democrat as you'll find, and even I'm willing to recognize that this is not something unique to the other party. I'm sure there are other examples that run the other way.

It's everyone. I once had a quote about the news and how when it reinforces your preconceptions, you will immediately accept it as fact, but if it does not you view it with suspiscion and will try to discredit it somehow.

I got this one though, at least it's close:

We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions.
Jessamyn West

Who wants to bet me that Huckabee is behind this? If the allegations are true, Huckabee is set to make some serious headway, pass Romney in the delegate count, and be the lead horse in a brokered convention.

bacccc: Where is the outrage from the neocons who wanted a Clinton impeachment for the blowjob? Where are they now?

As far as I know McCain has not lied under oath. Clinton was not and could not be impeached simply for a blowjob.

bacccc: Where is the outrage from the neocons who wanted a Clinton impeachment for the blowjob? Where are they now?

/hypocrites and liars

Did McCain lie about it under oath? No?

STFU then.

Now, if you want to comment about McCain saying he's against lobbyists all the while he's been banging some hot lobbyist chick - THEN you have a solid foundation to stand on.

Shaggy_C: As far as I know McCain has not lied under oath. Clinton was not and could not be impeached simply for a blowjob.

The lie under oath came LONG after the initial witch hunt.

atomsmoosher:
The facts are in dispute. Two anonymous ex-staffers ("who said they had become disillusioned with the senator," according to the NYTimes article) have made this allegation, which consist of nothing more than rumors. Nobody caught them farking, nobody drove McCain for a midnight rendezvous. It was a smear piece.

You're right, no one caught them farking and these are rumors. But that's what the NYTimes reported. Briefly, in an article about allegations undue lobbyist influence.

Are newspapers no longer going to look at unnamed sources? Are we only supposed to get news from people who agree with McCain on everything? Is that the type of news that you want to see?

doyner: Shaggy_C: As far as I know McCain has not lied under oath. Clinton was not and could not be impeached simply for a blowjob.

The lie under oath came LONG after the initial witch hunt.

I don't see an exception in the legal code that allows for perjury after being hounded by one's political enemies.....

Don't lie under oath. how hard is that to grasp?

More Cagle cartoons here (new window)

Weaver95: I don't see an exception in the legal code that allows for perjury after being hounded by one's political enemies.....

Don't lie under oath. how hard is that to grasp?

I'm not disputing that. Nor am I defending Clinton. In fact, it was his "depends on what the definition of is is" statement that (I believe) was directly responsible for the "Family Values^TM" Neocon candidate "winning" in 2000. My point was that there was a pre-evidence period in the Lewinski affair and we may be in the pre-evidence period in the Ismen affair. This in no way contradicts my assertion that they are all scumbags.

Mistah Scrotie: I wonder if the republicans are wishing they had superdelegates right around now.

They do have superdelegates. They're just in less of a position to ever matter. The numerous winner-take-all states in the GOP primaries make a race close in delegates less likely.

I find it humurous when Reps mock Dems over the "undemocratic" nature of their primaries. Apparently, 50.01% of votes yielding 100% of delegates is not undemocratic to Reps.

Weaver95: Don't lie under oath. how hard is that to grasp?

Simple, really.

"Don't impeach over trivial shiat" is also easy to grasp.

Yes, it was trivial shiat.

Don't lie how hard is that to grasp?

fixed

Lionel Mandrake: Weaver95: Don't lie under oath. how hard is that to grasp?

Simple, really.

"Don't impeach over trivial shiat" is also easy to grasp.

Yes, it was trivial shiat.

The President lying under oath is not trivial. Want to impeach Bush? Get him under oath and ask him about FISA warrants. Hell, ask him the time of day. That should be enough.

Dear John,
Just don't get a yacht and name it Monkey Business
Gary

Why would they be outraged at a non-story? There is STILL no proof this happened.

Weaver95: Yes, it was trivial shiat.

The President lying under oath is not trivial. Want to impeach Bush? Get him under oath and ask him about FISA warrants. Hell, ask him the time of day. That should be enough.

This will never happen because (ironically) Clinton had more respect for the law and at least agreed to a deposition. Bush would claim executive privilege and avoid the question if you asked him the time of day.

Weaver95: The President lying under oath is not trivial. Want to impeach Bush? Get him under oath and ask him about FISA warrants. Hell, ask him the time of day. That should be enough.

Sorry, I have always, and will always consider it trivial. Neither is ever going to convince the other differently, so we'll leave it there.

I agree with the rest of your statement, however. But since Bush won't take oaths, speak on the record (or wiothout Cheney holdng his hand), he will never get into that sort of trouble.

"Honor and Integrity" FTW!

And I still don't really care. I'm not a McCain fan, but this whole thing is meaningless and trite.

Personally, I find this affair much more troubling:

DarkIdol: Even if any of this crap is true, does it matter at all?

Neither Obama nor the democrats are making an issue of this, because it is entirely irrelevant - why should the media be so damned rabid about unearthing gossip? This crap detracts from real debate and through no fault of his own, makes Obama look bad (to short-sighted observers anyhow). It would be nice if someone of Barack or Hilary's stature were to tell them to shut the hell up about it.

Giving favors to lobbyists doesn't matter to people? I agree on the affair, most don't care. But the lobbyists stories are just beginning and will continue until November.

Paedophile_Deluxe: US News and World Report had not found enough evidence of a McCain-Iseman relationship last year to publish it

FTFY. I'm not a big fan of McCain either, but this whole "affair" story is based on hearsay. The lobbyist ties are much more damning anyway.

Without the sex angle, this story would have been a single day. Now, people are looking into his lobbyist supporters.

perdu: Dear John,
Just don't get a yacht and name it Monkey Business
Gary

PS: Also, don't tease the press and dare them to catch you, either.
PPS: See above.
PPPS: Please refer to PS...I can't stress this enough.

Lionel Mandrake, you're going to have to answer to the Coca Cola Corperation

peachpicker:

Cmon man, you gotta use the new and improved



/not mine

Once again... all lobbyists influence government officials. It is their job to do so.

McCain is not anti-lobbyist, he has never had a bill to remove all lobbyists from Washington. His bill attempts to put caps on the influence lobbyists have.

Finding one case based on rumors and nothing else does not make McCain the most corrupt politician ever. The NYT and the anti-McCain supporters on fark are really really stretching this story thin.

Goodfella: Cmon man, you gotta use the new and improved

I have nothing against milk moustaches, but the original is mine, so I'm partial to it.

I'm also surprised McCain hasn't tried to blame the whole thing on Evil McCain:



Why is he protecting Evil McCain?!?!

And Goodfella, that is farking hilarious.

DarkIdol: Even if any of this crap is true, does it matter at all?

So let's recap: Obama is criticized for not wearing a lapel pin, but pointing out a link between John McCain and a lobbyist is dirty politics.

Do I have that right?

doyner: This will never happen because (ironically) Clinton had more respect for the law and at least agreed to a deposition. Bush would claim executive privilege and avoid the question if you asked him the time of day.

The only thing Clinton respected was his hyper-inflated sense of how smart he was, which led him to believe he could lie under oath and get away with it.

Hubris, baby. No matter how big you get, learn to respect the limits.