# McCain affair story?



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

*McCain to the woodshed!*

I can't believe people think McCain, a married man, would be romatically linked with a younger woman - particularly one linked to a project he's working on. That's just so out of character! 

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3407188.ece


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Even if it is true (and I doubt it is, and even if it is I really don't care), I wonder who planted the story. Even though a lot of conservative Republicans do not like McCain, tyring to sink him now with something like this would be silly. The Dems, particularly those in Billary's camp, shouldn't judge when it comes to marital fidelity. Gasp! Could it be Obama? Worse yet, Paul???!!!

Seriously, I am almost sure there is nothing to this story. IF it were true, you'd think whoever wants to stop McCain's momentum would have (A) done it long before this or (B) waited until about two weeks before the general election.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I care if it's true because McCain makes an issue of character and judgement.

Apparently, the story was out before and he beat it down.

https://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm

I have said before I think the media wanted McCain to get the nomination then wanted to destroy him to elect the Democrat. I agree it's illogical to think a Republican would have waited. Romney refused to go there, which is odd because he is accused of running a negative campaign. I think it's clearly Dems or Dem-sympathetic media types.

I'm going to go with 80% chance it's true. Having worked around the GOP I have a low opinion of the party's willingness to look the other way in cases like this (until it hits the news, of course).

There is a specific case I'm aware of where they actually relo'd a guy, his wife and family to a new job while still doing his background check. During which it showed up he had already got his girlfriend an apartment in the new town. He later got caught embezling some funds and it came out in the investigation. Of course, they claimed there was no indication the guy was a bad risk.

It's fraud 101, the primary things you look for as predictors are vices, pressures, expensive divorces, etc.

Forgetting the moral implications it's just bad business to be in a partnership with people with those types of problems.


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Perhaps Huckabee planted the story. Hard road ahead for McCain.

Here is a pic of Iseman

https://www.alaskareport.com/news28/z49139_vicki_iseman.htm


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TheSaint said:


> Perhaps Huckabee planted the story. Hard road ahead for McCain.
> 
> Here is a pic of Iseman
> 
> https://www.alaskareport.com/news28/z49139_vicki_iseman.htm


Wow! She favors Mrs. McCain a bit.

I don't know how a spouse lets their husband/wife get in politics. That has to be the worst thing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I can't believe a forum member would post a link with a commercial pop up.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I don't know what to think about this, but last night the Times broke a story claiming that there is evidence of an inappropriate relationship between McCain and a young, female lobbyist:

"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."

The Post followed with its own story, apparently with at least one McCain aide going on the record:

"Aides to Sen. John McCain confronted a telecommunications lobbyist in late 1999 and asked her to distance herself from the senator during the presidential campaign he was about to launch, according to one of McCain's longest-serving political strategists.

John Weaver, who was McCain's closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year, said he met with Vicki Iseman at the Center Cafe at Union Station and urged her to stay away from McCain. Association with a lobbyist would undermine his image as an opponent of special interests, aides had concluded.

Members of the senator's small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly, according to sources, warning him that his continued ties to a lobbyist who had business before the powerful commerce committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions."

And finally, the McCain campaign has responded with what can most accurately be described as a non-denial denial:

"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."

Note that he denies doing "favors for special interests or lobbyists" but does not deny having a sexual affair with someone he isn't married to.

I suspect there will be more coverage of this story, even given the hands-off approach that the American media take toward McCain, so I'll be watching with some interest. Obviously, at first blush it appears to relate to private sexual behavior, which isn't what we're electing a president for. On the other hand, if true it would seem to undermine McCain's image for probity and principle, even if there were no benefits provided to this lobbyist and her clients.

What do you think?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

With the wild story going around about Obama, it looks like our politics have descended to a new low.

What the far right and the far left are willing to do to obtain power is obscene.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

True, but the McCain story seems a bit more plausible.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

One of the things brought up today is that the NYT endorsed McCain; after they had the story. That seems pretty obvious to me.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Now we know why Huckabee has stayed in the race.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> I can't believe a forum member would post a link with a commercial pop up.


So much for the image as a rugged survivalist/individualist!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AlanC said:


> Now we know why Huckabee has stayed in the race.


Ha! Yep, my second thought was "I wonder if that's why Romney fell in line so quickly, and if McCain would be pressured to give all his delegates to Romney."

I don't think Huck can win. I don't think he'd even make a second ballot (maybe he would have to technically).


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

:icon_headagainstwal OMG! This story is getting so blown out of proportion! After watching the McCain press conference this morning, listening to a few pundits (who are like dogs in heat over this!) and reading about in a couple spots, I am convinced this is nothing more than a hack job by the _New York Times_.

From what I understand, the _The Times_ rushed to publish this in fear _The_ _New Republic_ would scoop them. I can understand why _TNR_ would run this, but _The Times_?! This is proof that any journalistic integrity the newspaper once had has been thrown out the window. How can they, in good conscience, run a story based on innuendo from so many unnamed sources is beyond me. Shame on them if they were so easily lured in by an obviously "flimsy" planted story by, what seems to be, former embittered McCain staffers, the Dems or members of the GOP who are out to sink McCain.

I can understand why the Dems or former staffers might do it, but if some conservatives did it to "teach McCain a lesson," and it works, I hope they know they've just handed the White House over to Obama or Billary.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*I read the AP story this morning*

I don't know whether there was an affair or not. I read CNN's reporting, and their take seemed that it was more likely that there was not an affair. The AP also discussed the contents of the letter he supposedly wrote to the FCC on her behalf. He did not ask the FCC to decide on way or another, just to make a decision after dithering for two years. I certainly can understand the urge to kick a Federal regulator in the posterior in order to get them up and make them actually do their job.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I agree, but I am still troubled by the way McCain makes his denials. The statements that he has never done anything like that before is simply not true. It's what bothers me with his current immigration stance too. Admitting what you already got a pass for seems inconsequential to me. I don't see why he tries so hard to act like the past never happened. It's not very good 'strategery' IMHO.

I was responding to TMMKC, but I agree with agnash too. I think it is least likely he abused his role as a Senator and from what I have heard sounds exactly like the job he is paid to do.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Well this is it, we should save money and not have elections as there is now no Republican candidate. I guess without Mitt and now without McCain there really is only one thing to do and that is what Ann Coulter is doing, campaign for Hillary


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Howard Dean's analysis (not sympathetic to McCain, as one might guess):


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

This is one of those stories that conceivably could be planted by either side. For a man of 70+, it helps him to look a little more virile and dynamic not least in the face of, potentially, a younger opponent.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

This reminds me of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and Bill denied having sexual relations with her.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I see the Times is continuing the discussion, and defending itself, here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/media/21askthenewsroom.html


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Interestingly, the story seems to have not hurt McCain at all. According to Rasmussen's tracking poll, McCain has made up four points on Obama over the last few days. Obviously, polls don't tell everything, but if the NY Times was hoping for the bottom to fall out, it certainly did not. Also, over the last three days McCain and Obama's positives are both at 53% while Obama has a one point higher negative than McCain at 45%. Yesterday and the days before, Obama had a better positive-negative spread than did McCain.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

iammatt said:


> Interestingly, the story seems to have not hurt McCain at all. According to Rasmussen's tracking poll, McCain has made up four points on Obama over the last few days. Obviously, polls don't tell everything, but if the NY Times was hoping for the bottom to fall out, it certainly did not.


Gee, do you think maybe, just maybe, it's possible that the Times was trying to cover what it viewed as a legitimate news story, rather than trying to torpedo the candidate it endorsed in the Republican primary?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Gee, do you think maybe, just maybe, it's possible that the Times was trying to cover what it viewed as a legitimate news story, rather than trying to torpedo the candidate it endorsed in the Republican primary?


Honestly? No, I do not.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Typical paranoid delusions of the right wing. I guess you don't remember how much help the Times gave Bush in the 2000 campaign or the runup to the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Typical paranoid delusions of the right wing. I guess you don't remember how much help the Times gave Bush in the 2000 campaign or the runup to the invasion of Iraq.


Perhaps, but I would hardly consider myself part of the right wing. I don't see much difference between the NYT and other media outlets including Fox News and the WSJ. They all have an obvious point of view, and to deny that would be to turn a blind eye to reality.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Typical paranoid delusions of the right wing. I guess you don't remember how much help the Times gave Bush in the 2000 campaign or the runup to the invasion of Iraq.


Interesting that you view publishing news as "help[ing]."

I thought the public interest of the press was to inform? That was your primary point in your previous question wasn't it (re: probability of legitimate news story)?

So, now the NYT was just informing, but in 2000 they were "help[ing]."

Which is it?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Their pre-election coverage in 2000 wasn't just informing, it had a strong pro-Bush slant. It continued to give credence to utterly unsupportable myths about Gore, like repeating the lie that he claimed to have invented the Internet, that had the effect of bolstering the Republican talking point that he could be neiter believed nor trusted. You can say that they exercised terrible news judgment in doing this or you could say that it was because they actively favored Bush, but the fact remains that their publishing decisions objectively assisted Bush and hurt Gore.
Similarly, their pre-invasion reporting, not limited to Judy Miller's stenography, was excessively credulous of the Bush Administration's claims, and they have admitted as much.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Their pre-election coverage in 2000 wasn't just informing, it had a strong pro-Bush slant. It continued to give credence to utterly unsupportable myths about Gore, like repeating the lie that he claimed to have invented the Internet, that had the effect of bolstering the Republican talking point that he could be neiter believed nor trusted. You can say that they exercised terrible news judgment in doing this or you could say that it was because they actively favored Bush, but the fact remains that their publishing decisions objectively assisted Bush and hurt Gore.
> Similarly, their pre-invasion reporting, not limited to Judy Miller's stenography, was excessively credulous of the Bush Administration's claims, and they have admitted as much.


That's classic! LOL

#1) If they were helping Al Gore's opponent then, they are helping McCain's opponents now.
#2) If they were just legitimately informing then, they are just legitimately informing now.

It appears you would go with #1 if you were being consistent. That's legitimate. So would #2 be.

Saying they were helping Bush then, but are now just legitimately informing is simply not a respectable position to take IMHO.

Sorry, Jack. It's "Cake or Death?" not both.


----------



## skefferz (Jun 6, 2006)

If anyone would take the time to read the NYT's article, instead of listening to second-hand media outlets, one would know the main focus of the article is about McCain's past and present connections with lobbyists. Connections which have enabled him to fly on private corporate jets, fund his campaigns, and the usual questionable lobbyist stuff.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I can't believe people think McCain, a married man, would be romatically linked with a younger woman - particularly one linked to a project he's working on. That's just so out of character!
> 
> https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3407188.ece


jonny's wife aint too bad looking! I wonder her age?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's classic! LOL
> 
> #1) If they were helping Al Gore's opponent then, they are helping McCain's opponents now.
> #2) If they were just legitimately informing then, they are just legitimately informing now.
> ...


No, no. When it reports on Gore, it is VRWC. When it bags on McCain, it is discharging its responsibility to society. Get with the program


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*What should have Mac's response been????????*



Capt Ron said:


> jonny's wife aint ugly looking! I wonder her age?


Mac could have least have said something witty in response...
something like...

_Romantic affair with an attractive young female lobbiest? _
_I guess that means I have all the Democrat votes now!_


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> jonny's wife aint too bad looking! I wonder her age?


IIRC she is ~54; 17 years younger than him. She was ~25 when they hooked-up and he was married at the time.

Ms. Iseman favors Mrs. McCain more than a little IMHO. Which wouldn't be a dumb thing strategically if you were say a large telecom company looking to influence the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. 

She was a rodeo queen, cheerleader, and didn't exactly grow up poor.
https://tiodt.blogspot.com/2006/12/married-to-mob.html



> In 1953, Jim Hensley, then the General Manager for United Liquor, was once more charged for doing the same thing again. Marley paid for top notch legal representation though (future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.) Hensley still went to prison, but took the fall when the rest of the company was cleared. According to an article in American Mafia.com, Marley rewarded Hensley for his loyalty to the organization:
> 
> When Hensley strolled out of the joint, Marley bought his silence with a lucrative Phoenix-based Budweiser beer distributorship.
> 
> That distributorship and the rest of Marley's empire did very well over the decades for both Hensley and Marley, making both men multi-millionaires.


https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-02-17/news/haunted-by-spirits



> While John McCain enjoys a posh lifestyle, the only asset he reports as personally owning, in addition to his $136,700 Senate salary, is his Navy retirement pension, which totaled $49,668 in 1998. The senator and his wife agreed to keep sole and separate property when they signed an antenuptial agreement in 1980 prior to their marriage.
> 
> Senator McCain's personal wealth is tied completely to his wife.
> 
> ...





> As much as his quick tongue, heroic story and free positive press, it was his father-in-law's funds that helped first get McCain elected.
> 
> In 1982, John and Cindy McCain reported an income of $801,056. Of that, the only amount unrelated to Hensley was McCain's $31,038 Navy pension.
> 
> McCain lent $167,000 to his campaign -- a huge chunk of the $569,545 it took to get him elected that year. (Another major contributor that year was Charles H Keating, a former Navy fighter pilot who later ensnarled McCain in the biggest scandal of his political career.)





> McCain is reaping the benefits of his maverick act today, as scores of Democrats across the country are reregistering to vote for him in GOP primaries.
> 
> But there is one area where it is unlikely that John McCain will ever emerge as a champion of reform: alcohol.
> When he was elected to Congress, McCain swore he'd recuse himself on all votes related to the alcohol industry, given his father-in-law's and wife's business. A New Times analysis of McCain's voting record since 1983 reveals that he has in fact recused himself on the two dozen or so alcohol-related bills that required a voice vote on the floor of the House and then the Senate, while McCain has served in those respective bodies. The bills examined dealt specifically with alcohol: examples include legislation to toughen drunken-driving laws and lower alcohol excise taxes.
> ...





> Like the rest of the alcohol industry, Anheuser-Busch has interests that go beyond the alcohol votes McCain avoids. For example, McCain led the charge to normalize relations with Vietnam at the same time Anheuser-Busch was preparing to enter that market. (A deal the company had to co-own a factory eventually fell through because of copyright problems. A Czech beer called "Bud" is already sold in Vietnam.)
> 
> A recent lobbyist disclosure revealed Anheuser-Busch's many interests (along with alcohol, the company owns amusement parks): "The company lobbied on issues related to alcohol abuse and prevention, tobacco abuse prevention, advertising, labeling, and taxation. Anheuser-Busch also worked on endangered species issues, clean air act, recycling, product liability, national tobacco settlement, and transportation spending, as well as international trade including China's Most Favored Nation status and federal budget and deficit decisions."
> 
> Despite his claim, it's impossible for Senator John McCain to recuse himself completely from important issues facing his family's business.


Of course, he did it *all* for heroism, not for profit.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Capt Ron said:


> jonny's wife aint too bad looking! I wonder her age?





ksinc said:


> IIRC she is ~54; 17 years younger than him. She was ~25 when they hooked-up and he was married at the time.


If you think Cindy McCain looks good now, you should have seen her 15-years ago when I first met her. Wow, talk about an attractive lady. There was usually a competition between the male reporters at the TV station I worked for the opportunity to cover her events, not that anyone would have dreamed of trying anything with her.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Bradford said:


> If you think Cindy McCain looks good now, you should have seen her 15-years ago when I first met her. Wow, talk about an attractive lady. There was usually a competition between the male reporters at the TV station I worked for the opportunity to cover her events, not that anyone would have dreamed of trying anything with her.


I hear her Secret Service codename is 'Cougar'


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

I wouldn't be surprised if this story were rereleased in an effort to _help_ McCain. Just a few days ago, all the talk radio guys were trashing McCain, now they've leapt to his defense against this wicked assault on a Republican by the ever-liberal NYT.

What better way to try to win back the conservative base than to release a story so full of holes it'll gain no traction, but can be played up as an attack from the Left on "the presumptive Republican nominee"? What better way to prod Sean and Rush into circling the wagons?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*McCain*

Gentlemen

My feling about this, let it be. IMO, it is none of my business. I do not think he would do something like this. A lot behind this man, although not my favorite. He has the Navy Cross I believe, a lot of military behind him, a lot to represent.
Sad to see this crap come out

Nice day


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think she's trying to gain some publicity and make some money off of him.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> What better way to try to win back the conservative base than to release a story so full of holes it'll gain no traction, but can be played up as an attack from the Left on "the presumptive Republican nominee"? What better way to prod Sean and Rush into circling the wagons?


Well, he could try promoting conservative values and initiatives.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Well, he could try promoting conservative values and initiatives.


This _is_ Juan McCainiac we're talking about here...


----------



## rl1856 (Jun 7, 2005)

Well you could take the high road or the low road regarding the NYT role in the issue.

The high road would be that they fully investigated the issue and found it baseless.

The low road would be that they have had the story ready to print for quite some time, but decided to wait for the most opportune moment to print it. The New Republic forced their hand, making the self censorship of the NYT part of the story. 

Since I have a low opinion of the paper and the current publisher, I am inclined to believe the low road is the motivation for how this story played out.

Why would they sit on the story ? How much impact would it have on McCain's candidacy if the story broke sometime in Sept or Oct ?

Best,

Ross


----------

