What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

orion12 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:23:49 GMT

The New York Times must be very unprofessional to write such an article if it did not have facts. If what they did was just lousy journalism, then I would like to see them pay for it. The "evidence" so far suggests that McCain was close to Iseman. But that is not enough to mess up his bid for the presidency. I personally feel that if he had an affair with the lady, that is between himself and his wife. But if he used his influence to make her benefit then that may raise some questions about his credibility. But a question we should ask is this; Is there anyone in politics who is free of using their influence to benefit others..?

I think that the harm is done. They have hurt him a bit. But who knows he may come back stronger. I am now also concerned for Obama. Is there someone who will come up with a similar story? Anything is possible...

I fee sorry for them.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

clikdawg — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:07:30 GMT

Not a good year to be connected with anything at all that smacks of "business as usual" -- even for "straight-talking maverick" John McCain ...

Current personalities aside, I find it interesting that the nation underwent, almost exactly a century ago, a similar revulsion of feeling against corporate political influence, ethics (or lack thereof), and stupendous indifference to the well-being of the United States as a whole. This was the era of the so-called "muckrakers"; the hey-day of the Reformers; and the rise of Teddy Roosevelt -- the man who insisted, even as they reviled him, that he was only trying to save corporate capitalists from the consequences of their own wretched excesses. And quite a show it was. Thousands were swept from office on this tide, absolutely dumbstruck that yesterday’s business-as-usual -- that which “everybody’s doing, and has always done” -- had become, almost overnight, a political hanging offense.

Too bad for them, and for their contemporary counterparts. If it is true that local and national politics inevitably seek the most comfortable version humanly available of pigs feeding at the trough, it is also true that there is an equally inevitable periodic attempt by a long-suffering public to just slaughter all those hogs, so to speak, at one fell swoop ... and that somebody is gonna be holding the bag when when that day comes due.

That’s just the United States of America, for you -- damnedest place I ever heard of ... and the best ...

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

johnjacobs99 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:24:15 GMT

Four comments:

1. Romney brought up the comment that McCain's campaign had ties to lobbyists. Now we see that he really has CLOSE ties. His straight talk express should have been called smooth talk express. His wife Cindy denies that McCain would ever have an affair, however, SHE is a one of those affairs. McCain dated Cindy while he was married to his first wife who supported him through his ordeal in Vietnam. His first wife is the REAL hero.

2. McCain ran last minute smear campaigns agains Romney in Florida and before Super Tuesday. You can't trust the media and you certainly can't trust politicians.

3. Rush warned the people that once McCain became the nominee, the media would turn on him. The mainstream media wanted McCain because they knew they couldn't dig up any dirt on Romney.

4. Don't get your information form New York Times (I mean New York Gossip)

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

DynaBMan — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:33:45 GMT

I believe your story really strikes at the bigger picture of all this. For years, John McCain has been touting his credentials as a fighter against special interests. Now, it seems, he has been guilty of the same thing. The New York Times article is more about this and less about the possibility of a romantic relationship with Ms. Iseman. That's where the real problem lies.

Larry

<a href="http://myviewmytake.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/the-real-john-mccain-story/">The real John McCain story</a>

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

redinabluestate — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:04:29 GMT

Oh where oh where has Maria Dee gone? Oh where, oh where can she beeeeeeeeee?

Well, I must admit, the hit pieces started a little earlier than I expected. I thought they would have waited until McCain had officially locked up the nomination. But I suppose it's less than likely that another nominee would emerge from the convention, so it is safe to start the attacks on McCain...especially if it draws attention from the emptiness of Jim Jones' (oops...I meant Barack Obama's) rhetoric.

Now where will the NEXT skeleton come from??

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

chw26 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:54:17 GMT

Hold on, this article says that he made some odd moves which looked like favors...but then we have McCain saying that he never made decisions that went the lobyist's way. If this were true (McCain is crooked), it would be easy to prove - show where he is lying, show where he voted the lobyist's way. If you're not going to write an article detailing how he voted in favor of the lobyist, then quit doing exactly what the NY Times did. Without evidence - voting evidence - it seems you just have it out for McCain and are trying to de-rail him by planting suspicion.

As for the staffers trying to separate McCain from Iseman, that doesn't necessarily prove guild. Does providing an alibi when charged with murder denote guilt? Of course not, all he is doing is trying to distance himself from someone who he used to be close to. If you can prove he voted in favor of Iseman, then this distancing is not an "alibi" but damage control - if there is not voting record to incriminate, then lay the heck off.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

chw26 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:11:28 GMT

Seems I missed the most important part of the article - seems to be that he voted in favor of the lobbyist. Doesn't matter if they were the best choice (not saying they were), as soon as you take money from them, you've been bought.

I don't really like Romney, but now I wish he were ahead.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

redinabluestate — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:05 GMT

I will bask for a moment in SITYS glory...the talk show hosts had it right about Romney v. McCain, but the majority of Republican voters chose to shoot themselves in the foot.

Too late to fix that now. Expect more of this media assault, but unless you want the Socialist empty suit to win, all those from the center to the extreme right need to show up and vote for McCain, regardless of our lack of enthusiasm!!

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

crazytrain47 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:49:35 GMT

First of all, the really story behind this story is the appearance of favors for lobbyists - not the extramarital affairs that we've discovered cross all sections of government. I do find it quite commical though, how some of our right-wing friends decide to "pick and chose" when and where family values are of importance. Bill Clinton - hang him. Guiliani - can't win because he's had 3 wives. Romney - a mormon with morman-esque values. Apparently once a candidate is selected as the heir apparent, it no longer matters what they've done in their past and it becomes an "us against them" case against the liberals. If you're for "family values" then why shouldn't his past affairs (oh and by the way, his current wife is one of those affairs) have some impact on the type of person behind the cadidate?

This article has 2 seperate issues at work - bending over for lobbyists and personal values. The Rush's of the world want to sweep it under the rug. What would Rush be saying if this was directed to Obama or Clinton?? Exactly.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

John Loves Peace — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:52:46 GMT

The guy is a hypocrite pure and simple. He shouldn't portay himself as a reformist if he's not going to apply those standdards to himself. This makes him look really bad.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

stuckmiddle — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:12:26 GMT

With the McCain story, once again we see what a sleazy news reporting agency the New York Times has turned into. Reporting based on hearsay? Might as well start reporting news from the office Water Cooler.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

katterwall — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:28:53 GMT

This is to chw26, where have you been Romney isn't in the race anymore. Instead we see Huckabee hoping for a miracle that will never happen, and we get McCain as our wonderful example of broken Washington for the Republican nominee. I wish Mitt hadn't quit the race. Unfortunately us true conservatives have to back McCain. No wonder the Democrats have momentum going into the Presidential Race.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

dportner — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:35:00 GMT

I would like to present one simple question regarding the media giants and major news networks. How do they decide that a story has enough merit, proof, or other substantiation to deliver? For example this McCain story is getting alot of press, yet we havent heard much about stories such as those reported in other papers reagrding the other candidates. For example, see this story(URL below) and I certainly havent heard a word on it. Is it because of fear of walking on racial eggshells?

http://www.nysun.com/article/71421

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

redinabluestate — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:32:16 GMT

Don't be too upset katterwall...had Mitt stayed in the race, he'd still be hopelessly behind at this point and YOU KNOW the Times, Post etal wouldn't have dusted off that story yet. That was timed to hit only when McCain was certain to get the nod.

Apparently not enough Republicans appreciate the venomous impact the old media still has over the whole process. How could Romney compete with all the free press McCain was enjoying up to this week? Mitt spends money on paid ads, so he gets noticed, and naturally, it backfires on him.

Will we remember this in 2012?? Will we have the chance to??

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

Leslie Sz — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:08:28 GMT

If I have not mistaken something, only these can be considered as true facts in this story:

- Vicki Iseman had spent more time around McCain, what is normal for a professional relationship.

- She thought, she did have influence on McCain. She was sure enough to speak about it.

- Some people close to McCain were worried enough about Iseman to take all, but one of the possible actions to keep her away.

My questions:

- Is it realistic that McCain did not realize that such an attractive lady, who is hard to overlook, was too much around?

- Is it anything of realistic not asking McCain if it was ok with him to take such actions beforehand?

- Is it realistic, that after the people in charge in his campaign had taken some serious actions to keep Iseman away from McCain, they would not warn him too?

The answer for me this far is NO.

But maybe I am missing something. So suppose it is in fact true, that McCain knew nothing about it.

-Why was he left out?

The only thing I can think of is that they were afraid McCain would not listen. But maybe I am still missing something, really would not want to miss anything of importance.

If there are other possible realistic explanations, I am open to suggestions.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

Aaron4one — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:31:35 GMT

The author is implying that McCain is wrong because he's not living up to his own standards. Where are those standards anyway? I don't see them posted anywhere. Due to the lack of hard substance in this article I wonder what the author's standards are, or even the Times. If we are suppose to elect only those whom live up to the standards they set for themselves then we might as well start voting for fictional characters.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

Leslie Sz — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:40:15 GMT

In case it is not clear what my problem is: McCain said, he knew nothing about it. We will probably never know if anything improper have happened, but McCain supposed being left out of the story raises the questions I have posted before. And for me the answer, that it is just not realistic, so he is lying. But if it is not, then it leads back to the improper relationship.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

keeperoftheflame — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:45:55 GMT

McCain = angry old man with few ethics and no morals

who cheated on and abandoned his first wife-- who was loyal to him during the war-- when she needed him most.

I loathe McCain and all he stands for...selfish,, unabashedly self-promoting, greedy republicans everywhere..

So does my friend the former Republican WWDay III, Viet Nam vet, who, as we speak, is probably making good on his promise to build a website to trash John McCain's campaign every way he can when/if he gets the nod despite his character.

I've always felt that McCain consistently used his POW status as barter.

That McCain continues to "trade" on his wartime experience disgusts me. I've frequently heard that he was a traitor, gave in during his imprisonment for special treatment, but I've never cared enough to research it..

When I look at him, I believe that could easily be true. It's in his eyes that he's a fraud.

What he truly is is written clearly in his pasty, self-indulgent face,those cold, self-centered, compassion-less eyes.

I remember seeing him when I was a young woman, getting off the plane in his highly publicized "POW McCain returns" scene.

Surprising myself, I recoiled from his image even then. I just didn't LIKE him, somehow, the ..well for want of another way to describe it, his aura was just WRONG somehow. Couldn't even feel SORRY for him, and was shocked by that.

I just knew that even my dead brother would not have liked him. And my brother liked almost everyone.

My brother, a Green Beret officer (the hard way--OCS) died in 'Nam.

. It never ceases to amaze me that people were actually planning to vote for him. It's as if this self-declared anti-Democrat group has decided to stick their collective heads in the sand and, well, try and cause even further destruction and damnation for America by attempting to get this fraud elected NO MATTER WHAT. No matter his agenda. No matter his lack of anything even vaguely resembling a saving grace.Just to try and get a Republican elected.

When you are REPUBLICAN supporting the "party" first and AMERICAN second, you've got a problem..

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

Susan Blackstock — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:05:23 GMT

keeperoftheflame = obviously trying to sell the democrat line (sigh) (too obviously) ...

... and I have to just add ... I believe it is wrong and unpatriotic for anyone to attack a POW and his service to our country ...

ok, back to the article ... thank you for the article, and for your questions, and opinions.

seems to me there are a lot of questions left unanswered.

I would like to read Isenman's and McCain's comments on the whole thing. This is the first account I've ever read of this matter.

Thanks again for allowing me to comment.

Peace.

re: What We Actually Know About McCain and Iseman

keeperoftheflame — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:49:07 GMT

No, Susan, I am not trying to promote democrats or sell anything. I responded to McCain on a gut level. I had no party affiliation at the time. I was an independent.

I am trying to promote our democracy under honorable leadership.

HONORABLE leadership.

As far as being "patriotic"...I made my sacrifice for America when my brother was returned in a box. When my father served in WWII and was shot down over France. He was fortunate and made it back, however, else I would not be here to type :)

Just because someone was a POW does not mean he was patriotic. One post I read recently was by an Iraq War veteran, a Marine, and his take was that a POW was captured because he did not follow SOP and follow the evasive tactics that were drilled into every soldier.

I don't know the particulars of McCain's capture. Only he and those immediately involved know.

The news scandal of his time was that he spilled his guts when captured to get medical treatment. I remember the news reporting quite vividly. His behavior was considered to have "shamed" America for years afterward, until the PR patch-job was put into place.

McCain was elevated to prisoner "trusty", used as propaganda during the during the Viet Nam war because Daddy was a high ranking admiral. As stated above, he sang like a canary when he suffered a broken arm and was originally taken prisoner. He had, according to his govt records, about 20 hours ACTUAL flying combat experience. He was "awarded" 26 medals, about 1.3 medals per hour of "service'. During his early piloting, he took out some power lines along the Iberian Peninsula, and later admitted to "daredevil clowning" (his own words). That "hotdog" streak is still there. He thinks he's "exceptional". He flew a couple of other planes that crashed. Offical records said he "flamed out" . or a missile was accidentally fired by someone 'unknown"..etc. it appeared his record was "air brushed" and has never been made public.

But he was considered generally as a screw up, his military record "troublesome" and he had no future in the Navy when he resigned, with no chance of promotion when he exited the Navy.

(Google interviews with his groomsmen at his second marriage to the heiress).

Nobody's perfect. But put all the pieces of his life together: questionable personal judgments, erratic military performance, faithless husband, Senator who down the line supported almost every policy of arguably the most incompetent and destructive President in our history,

Then step back and, ignoring both name and party, take a GOOD look at this man.

THAT would be the patriotic thing to do.