Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain: That's It for Comments on Female Lobbyist


Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) shakes hands with reporters after speaking at a town hall meeting in Indianapolis on Friday. (AP)

By Glenn Kessler
INDIANAPOLIS -- Sen. John McCain laid down the law today: He's not talking anymore about reports about his links to a female lobbyist.

"I don't have any comment on this issue," he told reporters this morning, even when asked about a White House attack on the New York Times, which first published an article about McCain's dealings with Vicki Iseman.

The White House appeared to pick up a theme advanced by McCain's campaign Thursday that the Times had a bias against GOP presidential candidates. "I think a lot of people here in this building, with experience in a couple campaigns, have grown accustomed to the fact that during the course of the campaign, seemingly on maybe a monthly basis leading up to the convention and maybe a weekly basis after that, the New York Times does try to drop a bombshell on the Republican nominee," said White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel in Washington.

But McCain said the issue was closed. "I had a press conference yesterday morning and I am moving on and am talking about the big issues" that concern the American people, he said, speaking after a one-hour town hall meeting. "I addressed the issue. I addressed every question that was addressed to me. And I do not intend to discuss it."

At the news conference Thursday in Toledo, Ohio, McCain denied any romantic involvement or doing any favors for Iseman and denied his staff had ever raised concerns with him about the relationship.

When a reporter noted that McCain's aides had launched the attack on the Times, McCain replied, "My campaign is not doing that anymore. The fact is I do not want to discuss it anymore."

During the town hall meeting, in the atrium of the headquarters of Emmis Communications, an owner of radio and television stations, one person tentatively asked whether rumors concerning McCain would affect his candidacy. McCain quickly pivoted away from the subject.

"No, I think the American people have the good sense to discriminate as far as information is concerned," he said, before launching into a discussion of campaign finance.

McCain also batted away questions about the large number of lobbyists working for him as senior aides. He said lobbying is a legitimate practice and the question is whether people "have violated the trust" of Americans. "I am proud of the record of many of my advisers," he said. "These people have honorable records."

The attendees at the town hall meeting were mostly workers at Emmis Communications or Easy Target, a software firm. Kennethe Vaughn, director of staffing for Emmis, said she was a registered Democrat but a longtime admirer of McCain because she liked the "way he expresses his opinions." She said the reports of McCain and Iseman "don't even bother me and I don't pay any attention to it. It's irrelevant."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 22, 2008; 12:42 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: After Officer's Death, Clinton Cancels Event
Next: Rep. Renzi, a McCain Co-Chair, Indicted

Comments

All this to'ing-and-fro'ing about which of the CFR candidates is less of a fool than the others. Look around yourselves - do you see ANYBODY talking sense? Is there ANYBODY saying anything that makes SENSE?

Only one....but of course, Ron Paul is "unelectable" (as the mainstream media has anointed him, and you all believe), so most of you intellectuals here wouldn't "waste your vote".

How ironic. Read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast, and weep for your future.

Posted by: mike | February 24, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I am far more concerned about the state of McCain's melanoma, which is seems to be a recurring, than I am about his women or his lobbyists. As a person who was diagnosed with a Stage 3 melanoma, I am wondering about his initial stage, and where he stands right now - healthwise. Melanoma is a deadly cancer, and as a citizen, I want to know more about the state of McCain's health. Can anyone shed light on this particular issue? Is it being "hushed up"? Is there a new mole above his right eyebrow?

Posted by: nifnaj | February 22, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

BTW, working to foil the CIA and torturing Americans are the tactics of the Enemy.

Not the Patriot.

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

bush declares you an enemy combatant and he can disappear you and torture you till you're insane.

Hillary will be able to, too.

Have fun!

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah -- joined the Maniac Latin Disciples street gang in Chicago and was arrested several times -- during his gang years, he maintained several aliases, such as José Rivera, José Alicea, José Hernandez, and José Ortiz. He was convicted of aggravated assault as a juvenile when a gang member he kicked in the head died. Was that "torture"?

After serving his last jail sentence, he converted to Islam and was subsequently arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, and then designated as an illegal enemy combatant. However, on January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida, jail to face criminal conspiracy charges. José Padilla was found guilty of all charges against him on August 16, 2007, by a federal jury, which found that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. On January 22, 2008, Padilla was sentenced by US District Court Judge Marcia Cooke to 17 years and four months (or 208 months) in prison.

A fine, upstanding guy you are defending there.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

What?! I would argue that high-powered Scooter Libby was actually "tortured" more through the humiliation of the charges and having to resign his West Wing office than some low-life gang banger Padilla -- I'd bet that Jose's gang initiation was worse than anything he suffered while in U.S. custody -- I guess it depends on what your definition of "torture" is. Besides, I thought that McCain was fighting against the Bush "torture" rules?!

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Scooter wasn't declared an enemy combatant and tortured until he snapped.

And McCain can't be trusted not to torture other Americans either.

Because he was tortured just like Jose Padilla.

See?

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

No more than he "broke" Scooter Libby who was tried and convicted in a court of law as well.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

bush sure broke American Torture Victim Jose Padilla, though.

You gotta at least give me that, JakeD.

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"In total, Renzi allegedly steered $422,000 in embezzled funds to his campaign between Dec. 2001 and March 2002, according to the indictment. Beardall allegedly assisted Renzi in covering up the embezzlement from state insurance regulators in Florida and Virginia."

But that's no problem, for you see, as they say, IOKIYAR.

It's OK If You're A Republican.

Suh-LEEEZE.

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Well, we disagree that Bush "broke" anything to start with ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Plus people who are tortured for long periods of time are probably not fit to sit around with their fingers on the button.

Just ask American Torture Victim Jose Padilla.

McCain might make a good VP but I seriously doubt that he has the level head needed to fix all this stuff bush broke.

He should at the very least submit to a psychological examination before you silly bushies go running off a cliff nominating another lunatic like bush.

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to Glenn Kessler: didn't you write the story just yesterday about how McCain arrived at the press conference EARLY and answered every question until there were NO MORE questions? How many bites at the apple do you want?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/21/mccain_reports_not_true_1.html#comments

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Well, again to be fair, the Keating Five mess was over 20 years ago and, supposedly, McCain learned his lesson.

Back to the topic:

Dan Schnur, McCain's communication director during his 2000 presidential bid, told CNN that he was involved in most high-level situations and that such a problem almost certainly would have "landed on my desk."

Schnur said that he was unaware of any "improper" relationship between the Senator and Iseman and that he had never heard of any meeting with staffers and McCain about such a concern.

Schnur, a professor of political science at the University of California-Berkeley, has no connection to the McCain camp now.

Schnur said he spoke on the record with a Times reporter in December and said he knew of no problems surrounding Iseman. He said he was surprised the paper gave no hint of his views.

Schnur acknowledged that he could not be 100 percent sure about the story, but he said he believes his close contact and access would have brought such a situation to his attention.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

You're right, JakeD, and after bush and his shell game with the legality of his crooked actions and his sleight-of-hand slimeball signing statements, and his destruction of the separation of powers, we're gonna need somebody of a higher ethos than just another Republican nested within the arms of dozens of lobbyists.

This dark cloud of shame over America won't be lifted by another sleazy crook.

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

To be fair, and back on topic, Sen. McCain WAS at least minimally involved in "betray[ing] the public trust" and "favor[ing]" Charles H. Keating, Jr. The investigation into that matter recommended censure for Sen. Cranston and criticized the other four (including McCain) for "questionable conduct". If McCain did anything questionable again with this lobbyist, he's got a big problem.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

While Bloomberg has stated that he will not run for President, there is some speculation that he would be a candidate for the Vice-Presidency. In a blog posting of June 21, 2007, The Politico's Ben Smith asked the question of whether a VP candidate can self-finance an entire presidential ticket. Many believe that Bloomberg would in fact be legally permitted to self-finance a campaign as the VP candidate.

Adding more fuel to the speculation that Bloomberg might consider a VP slot are a series of meetings he had in mid-August 2007 with former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat who had considered running as an Independent, and later with Barack Obama on November 30, 2007. Has McCain met with Bloomberg lately?

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The more I think on it, it seems clear that the press DOES have a leftist slant to it, probably because you have to have a pretty good education and level of culture to pass journalism school.

Posted by: johnnormansp | February 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I think he'd go with Romney before Huckabee. As for "Huckabee-type" I guess it depends WHO specifically -- if he went with Rick Warren or Mike Bloomberg, for instance, that might get interesting (I would LOVE to put California and/or New York in play ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody believe any propaganda the NYT regurgitates? They have a track record of this and in my opinion 0 credibility as their subscribers drop like flies.

Posted by: ekim53 | February 22, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, what's your opinion on the VP pick for McCain? Do you think he'd ever go for a Huckabee type, in order to bring the charleslawless's of the world into the fold?

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Congress spent a lot of money getting to the Adultery of Clinton.

Too bad they won't do the same thing regarding the lies, torture, and domestic spying of bush.

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for that sidenote -- too bad your No-Adulterer rule wasn't in place before the FIRST Clinton was elected ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Come to think of it, if McCain couldn't keep his solemn vows of marriage, why should we trust him with the White House after what bush has put us through?

It's time for change, America.

Not, "Prove it's illegal, it isn't if McCain does it."

CHANGE from that.

Not the bush status quo that has shamed our nation.

BTW, Rudy's a big-time adulterer too.

I wonder if he and McCain swapped lipsticks before.

Just a sidenote.

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else is interested, here's the story from last year where a spokesman McCain said that he would take up Obama on a proposal for an accord between the two major party nominees to rely just on public financing for the general election.

Such a pact would eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to $85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return any private donations that they had raised for that period.

Mr. Obama laid out his proposal last month to the Federal Election Commission, seeking an opinion on its legality. The commissioners formally approved it on Thursday.

The manager of Mr. McCain's campaign, Terry Nelson, said he welcomed the decision.

"Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same," Mr. Nelson said.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, "We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same."

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would "aggressively pursue an agreement" with whoever was his opponent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html

I think Obama personally committed to "good faith" negotiations on public financing after that as well (reneging just because he now realizes he may be able to raise more money than McCain is NOT a "good faith" reason in my book ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for the discussion as well. I will check out Georgia, North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, and New Mexico in detail later.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - thanks for the discussion. It's actually been interesting, which is kind of novel for these discussion boards. I disagree with your calculus, for the reasons I stated above, but we'll see. I don't see the Kerry/Gore situation of one state deciding everything playing out again in 2008, though.

Thanks!

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

This kind of arrogance is usually displayed only after the election.

Posted by: gdod25 | February 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

It's all really nice and everything that McCain has decided that this conversation is over, but has it been resolved?

The fact of the matter is that it does matter if he was spending the alleged amount of time with this woman, and if he was sleeping with her. This matters as much as any BS issue brought up in any presidential race.

John McCain saying it didn't happen, and that they are just friends holds as much clout as the New York Times article itself. Its word vs. word, and in this case, who has more to lose??

I'm not satisfied one way or the other, and i find this to be fairly important. I think the media should tell John McCain that the conversation is NOT over, and it should be looked at more closely.

Posted by: icehoused | February 22, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I was just sticking it to bsimon re: public financing. Take a look at the percentage of African-American votes for Kerry in 2004 -- even if Obama gets 100% of the African-American vote, that's not that much more -- I just don't see it happening yet, not in the South.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The false story in the NYT has persisted even after McCain's denial, yet the NYT has conveniently dropped the more serious problem with the Che Guevara flag hanging in Obama's Houston Compaign HQ. Why? Because Barack said that displaying the flag for public view was "inappropriate". (Gee, I wonder if Trent Lott could have got off that easy.) Please do not sell the snake oil that the NYT is (1) impartial or (2) honest.

Posted by: MARKM2 | February 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, your problem is that it is based on the assumption that the only people who will vote for Obama are the blacks. Where's that data coming from? Did you see that he's won white majorities in Virginia, MD, and Wisconsin? Plus, you're discounting the fact that even if the black population is a minority within a state, it's not the absolute numbers that matter, but the numbers that vote. If all of the black population in Georgia votes, for instance, and does so monolithically (which it won't, but let's assume it does), then they can sway a southern election even based on your faulty premise, because then they will make up a disproportionate share of the electorate. You would have to hope that ALL of the non-blacks in those states vote against Obama, which is just not going to happen. The Democratic party is much more diverse than the GOP, and includes many whites who will gladly vote for a black candidate. So even using your numbers and assumptions regarding monolithic voting patterns, you still lose some southern states just as long as some of the non-blacks vote for the Democratic candidate.

What's the connection with campaign financing? I'm not seeing it. The numbers Obama has seen that makes him want to reexamine his suggestion that he will abide by campaign finance rules if his opponent agrees to do the same are those reflecting his fundraising prowess. He almost raised more in January alone than McCain has his entire campaign, and without the assistance of a potentially illegally funded loan.

I would bet you that if McCain thought he could raise even a fraction of Obama's $32 million, he'd opt out, too.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to Bush II: The Final Fury.

Posted by: mwfree | February 22, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

McCain has an adultery problem, just ask his first wife.

Posted by: eroded47095 | February 22, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama has seen these percentages, too, which is why he is reneging on his pledge to "agressively pursue" an agreement on public financing with McCain.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Georgia 30.29% (2005 est.)
Florida 16.31%
Louisiana 33.47%
Alabama 26.70%

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

Mississippi is the closest you can get with 37.24% African-American -- good luck with that.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

alterego1:

YOU claimed that I suggested "bombing ourselves to fake a terrorist attack to get the win" after I simply brought up 9/11 -- that you for clarifying now -- I think mine was a logical question in response to your claim though.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I am. For instance, in South Carolina, there are less than 30% African-Americans -- are you familiar with percentages -- it takes 50% plus one to win the State ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

No, and I never said that. You said a terrorist attack would be the way to get your man elected, not me.

You might have a point about the black thing, but I think you're missing the general level of enthusaism for a Democratic administration that has pervaded the primaries. In Wisconsin, Obama got over three times as many votes as all of the Republicans together. He also got more than the GOP in South Carolina. That pattern has held true in most states, which tells me that Dems are highly motivated to come out and vote. Those who will not vote for Obama because he is black likely wouldn't be voting for him anyway, I would argue, so that if we can retain our level of enthusiasm in the states I mentioned, we don't need fear or a terrorist attack to get into the WH.

I don't see your connection to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, who are pretty off the wall, I agree.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Southern States still have a long ways to go before they elect a BLACK President."

Are you familiar with the demographics of Southern states?

Posted by: bsimon | February 22, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Yes, davidmwe, if everyone was voting on the Internets for George W. Bush again, I get it.

P.S. to alterego1: Southern States still have a long ways to go before they elect a BLACK President. I also never suggested we bomb ourselves -- do you honestly think 9/11 was a "fake" terrorist attack?

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

John McCain appears done before he even starts against either Dem, but almost certainly vs. Obama. Look at these figures, to name one area, where Obama would likely easily beat McCain:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48

JakeD- I think this nation has seen enough of president G.W. Bush and if he was running today they would likely not vote for him.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Well, serious ones for starters. So far, you've suggested (1) bombing ourselves to fake a terrorist attack to get the win; and(2) cheating. I'm looking for something more realistic.

Given the numbers we've seen, McCain trails Obama in both party votes as well as independents. Look at the primaries where independents could vote, and you see that, except in NH, the majority of independents went to Obama. Given that, plus the likely high turnout of Democrats at the polls, how does McCain win in November barring the illegalities or atrocities you've suggested (which, by the way, make you sound more desparate or mean-spirited than convincing).

As to your question regarding the states, it looks to me like Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, and, depending on the VP pick, perhaps some southwestern states that didn't go for Kerry are in play for Obama.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, in addition to my doomsday scenario, McCain could legitimately convince the majority of voters in every State that Bush won last time around to vote for him -- name me ONE State you think Obama will take that Kerry didn't? Maybe we can narrow it down that way.

Illegitimately, there's always Diebold, the Roberts Supreme Court, Obama's withdrawal from the race, etc. How many more possibilities do you need?

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Such as?

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

charleslawlesss:

There's no mathematical way for Huckabee to gain the GOP nomination (unless McCain withdraws from the race) -- unlike the Democratic "brokered" convention I am hoping for -- live with it. Even the Stephen Colbert "bump" wasn't enough to get over the hump.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Of course, I don't want another 9/11 on U.S. soil -- which is why I put "easiest" in quotes -- that would be a senseless and tragic reminder of the dangerous world we live in. It was the "easiest" answer to your question though. There are other ways McCain can win short of thousands of Americans dying.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain says hes going to fix ohios ecomony, Just a few weeks ago he said he wasnt an expert on the economy. Hes planning to give Amnesty to illeagals, does he think thats going to help the economy?
Vote no to amnesty Vote Mike Huckabee!!
Hes the only candidate left with a plan to deal with the illeagal immigration problem in this country! He has a nine step solution which includes secureing the border, punishing people who hire illeagals, and making illeagals get in line for citizenship no free ride! This will be good for the Economy. Dont vote till you know the facts. Go to mikehuckabee.com
this thing isnt over yet. stand up and take back this country. Dont sell out to your party. They are all just playing politics. Mike Huckabee has real answers.
mikehuckabee.com
McCain wants Amnesty for illeagals and a 100yr war, he reall really doesnt understand the economy!
Vote Huckabee March 4th mikehuckabee.com

Posted by: charleslawlesss | February 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Way to go, JakeD. I like the use of fear and insinuation to get the votes. That's how the current administration has been governing - through fear (vote for us or you'll die). And the current administration is a real bunch of winners that people really love.

Are you asking for another terrorist attack on the US in order to get your man in? That seems both cynical and morbid, and not a very good way to pursuade others to your side. Give me something else.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

That is what is worrying, another Gulf of Tonkin like incident, is all it would take... or would it? I would like to think that we are more awake now...

Posted by: davidmwe | February 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

alterego1:

The "easiest" way would be for another terror attack to remind people that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is not ready to become President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

rat-the - we may agree that McCain is a hero, but you're missing the fact that Bush has a 30% approval rating, in large part because of his folly in Iraq and the mess he's made of the economy. So I wonder how you get to a win for Bush-McCain, when McCain promises to be in Iraq for another 100 years, effecitvely promises to invade Iran, and admits he has no idea about the economy. Doesn't seem like good news for McCain.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you "rat-the" up to the McCain part. It just does not make sense to put another insider, in there. Quite frankly, the choices are not all that great. Only Ron Paul I take truly seriously at this point, yet the mainstreammedia has all but blockade him from the rest. Too bad, for we need some serious changes- SERIOUS.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 22, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Davidmwe-Consider that Bushie, who cannot Legislate Bills(That should have been Legislated, or that were-Such as HR 1940:Birthright Citizenship Act that is gathering dust on Ninny Peloser's Desk), or appropriate Funds(Needed for Employer Investigations by the FBI and ICE) and was ordered to deal with Saddam by Congress, has an Approval Rating over 30%.

Congress has an Approval of 11%! If it was not for Congressmen such as Ron Carter, Kay Bailey-Hutchison, and John Cornyn, they would have NO APPROVAL at all!

NOW, half of this Country wants to take two Dysfunctional Junior Senators, who have never accomplished squat in their Senate Posts, and make them the President/ Executive/ Commander in Chief?!!!:-O

The Media gets to take a Bow for the Job they have pulled!

Yeah, a Brilliant man like the Mittster, along with a Certified Hero, and Military Expert like McCain, SHOULD Win.

But, the Media is still a factor! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Sen McCain: "My campaign is not doing that anymore. The fact is I do not want to discuss it anymore."

Press: "Ok, we'll grant your wish. Do you care to comment on the indictment today of your campaign co-chair?"

Posted by: bsimon | February 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Election polls, main-stream, Internet or otherwise aside, do you really think "rat-the," that McCain/Romney (That would be interesting) could beat Obama/Xxxx with the state that we are in now as a nation?

Posted by: davidmwe | February 22, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

No, it is not illegal, but it is a bit strange:

"The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists:"
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/item.php?&itemid=487614

If one despises their profession so much, why have top lobbyists all around you?

Posted by: davidmwe | February 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

davidmwe-Nice try!

Thanks for the support about my wanting REAL Questions asked though! :-)

But, what the Polls do not take into account, is the final pairings, and what Supportive Staff and Cabinet Placings are in store in the Final selections.

Think of it as something like;

Do you want a Hamburger, or a "Chicken" Sandwich?

When the real choice to be made, is a Double Meat W/out "Cheese", No "Flakes" on the Roll, No "Vegetables", "All American" Prime Beef, Burger, with Sides of Brain Foods, and Pure Water, Vs-

A Wimpy "Chicken" Sandwich, with a "Fried" Patty, "Flakey" Crust, Side of raw Onions, and Lots of "Coke"! All assembled by a guy with Cigar odors on his hands!

LOL! McRomney will "Roast" O'Billary! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 22, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

If McCain did anything illegal, let me know (FYI: it is not illegal to hang around with -- or even inside -- lobbyists ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Good point "rat-the." Also, the bigger story on "lobbying" is what is an anti-lobbyist (McCain) doing hanging around with lobbyists? (His current campaign staff is filled with them.)

All smoke-screens to stay off the issues, hide the facts about who would win today:

Obama vs. McCain- Analysis:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48

Posted by: davidmwe | February 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Senator McCain, do you have any comments about the Banking De-Regulation Bill Clinton allowed in 1998, and it's effects on the current Mortgage Crises?

Senator McCain, do you feel Obasama is causing International Relations Problems by talking about invading an ally like Pakistan?

Senator McCain, do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should recieve any help, until they are RE-Regulated?

What about Sub-Prime Lending, Home Equity Loans that simply gut Equity while setting up second Mortgages-on a Shell with no Equity?

Any Ideas for how to get HEALTH CARE to un-insured People, and Not just Money to the Insurance Companies? ;~)

Inquiring little minds want to know! :-)

Posted by: rat-the | February 22, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company