Scratch Media Darling From The List

If you thought McCain's status as a media darling would help him in the Fall, think, again. McCain was able to get away with making broad pronouncements when the press was like a campaign aide to him. Not so much, now. How do you like the new scrutiny, St. John?

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

So, does this mean that every time Chris Matthews gets Hardball-slobber all over the front of McCain's shirt, you guys can still continue to declare "the lie-brul drive by fascist terror-loving media still hates Republicans"? I just want to be clear on where McCain stands.

8 years of undisclosed media adoration including everyone from Wolf Blitzer to John Stewart v. one story about lobbyist ties in the NYT - and the NYT story out-weighs it all.

What other media, beyond the NYT, has tried to smear John McCain?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/07/fox-news-labels-john-mccain-a-democrat/
http://www.newser.com/story/18993.html
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/02/01/ann_coulter_endorses_hillary_clinton_over_john_mccain.php

Oh yeah.

[BobInStamford]

Meanwhile, another troop-supporting member of the party of the LORD and Ronald Reagan is getting in big trouble:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080222/ap_on_go_co/congressman_indicted

At least he isn't gay! Things are looking up, patriots!!

[templar knight]

Yes, patriots, at least he isn't gay like Barack Obama. That's a relief. Thank God for minor miracles,

[kristopher]

Mr McCain, Were you LYING then OR are you LYING now? You can't have it both ways!!! Check out the NYT Sunday. Mccain's going to crap his pants!!!

[IslamoLlama]

"--Yes, patriots, at least he isn't gay like Barack Obama. That's a relief. Thank God for minor miracles,--"

A Gay, Communist, Islamic, anti-Semitic, foreigner. And he's the most popular man in America. Go figure.

[templar knight]

Lamellama, you need to either re-read Dan's story, or work on your comprehension skills, or perhaps both.

[seekeronos]

What a doozie of a general election season we are heading into...

...if it weren't for the fact that we have to choose between a Euro-socialist Harpy, a Crypto-Muslim Marxist, and a Fork-Tongued Backstabbing Philanderer, I'd be watching this with popcorn.

Unfortunately, one of these tools will be our next POTUS.

How perfectly depressing that the party machinery on both sides is dysfunctional and woefully ignorant.

[nom de guerre]

hmmm. liberal trolls weigh in with suspiciously handy hyperlinks all ready to go. just a mere coincidence they were just laying around, ready to be used at an instant's notice, i guess.

how very odd. see, MOST people on the net don't have hyperlinks all fired up and ready to go. in fact, experience tells us that the only ones who DO are either:

a) socially inept losers living vicariously through chatrooms/commentary

or

b) socially inept losers employed at minimum wage by the democrat party ("best job i ever had!!") to try & shout down dissent, in the classic democrat fashion.

which might it be?

[nom de guerre]

hmmm. liberal trolls weigh in with suspiciously handy hyperlinks all ready to go. just a mere coincidence they were just laying around, ready to be used at an instant's notice, i guess.

how very odd. see, MOST people on the net don't have hyperlinks all fired up and ready to go. in fact, experience tells us that the only ones who DO are either:

a) socially inept losers living vicariously through chatrooms/commentary

or

b) socially inept losers employed at minimum wage by the democrat party ("best job i ever had!!") to try & shout down dissent, in the classic democrat fashion.

which might it be?

[fart]

I farted. Can u smell it?

[Andrew Bryant]

I think I know why Keller thinks the readers didn't get it. To assume guilt because the NY Times insinuates wrong doing on the part of a politician is one thing. But to insinuate wrong doing on the part of a republican politician is another. You see, the presumption is that McCain is a republican, and to the Times, a conservative. And if you dig deep into the archives of their conventional wisdom, that makes McCain, by default, more guilty than others. Add a couple of unfounded accusations and a dash of rumor topped off with a hint of gossip and you have a guilty, corrupt politician. No need for evidence. He's a republican. Only democrats get the benefit of the doubt. Nope. Not even McCain is immune to this type of attack. Only one problem. Keller and the Times didn't count on McCain getting the treatment from his side as if he was one of them, as well as the expected reaction from republicans.