McCain & Iseman – Just the facts

Filed in National by on February 21, 2008

The Washington Post leaves the sex angle out and sticks to known facts:

1) Iseman bragged about her close relationship and influence with McCain.

Three telecom lobbyists and a former McCain aide, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Iseman spoke up regularly at meetings of telecom lobbyists in Washington, extolling her connections to McCain and his office. She would regularly volunteer at those meetings to be the point person for the telecom industry in dealing with McCain’s office.

2) McCain’s staff was worried enough about that relationship to tell her to bug off:

John Weaver, who served as McCain’s closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year, said he met with Vicki Iseman at the Center Cafe in Union Station and urged her to stay away from McCain

3) McCain’s actions indicate that influence was real:

In the years that McCain chaired the commerce committee, Iseman lobbied for Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, the head of what used to be Paxson Communications, now Ion Media Networks, and was involved in a successful lobbying campaign to persuade McCain and other members of Congress to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson.

In late 1999, McCain wrote two letters to the FCC urging a vote on the sale to Paxson of a Pittsburgh television station. The sale had been highly contentious in Pittsburgh and involved a multipronged lobbying effort among the parties to the deal.

At the time he sent the first letter, McCain had flown on Paxson’s corporate jet four times to appear at campaign events and had received $20,000 in campaign donations from Paxson and its law firm. The second letter came on Dec. 10, a day after the company’s jet ferried him to a Florida fundraiser that was held aboard a yacht in West Palm Beach. (snip)

Iseman clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.

Bottom Line: Was there sex? Only McCain and Iseman know. But given these facts, does it even matter?

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    BTW – That sickening/angry feeling that McCain fans are having right now is probably very similar to the sickening/angry feeling I got when the media took down Howard Dean at the behest of Karl Rove.

    Not that these are analogous situations. I’m just saying that I think I know how you feel right now.

  2. Dana Garrett says:

    Well, you have to give it to McCain. He loves blonds.

    It turns out that McCain has admitted to having affairS. Yes, that’s in the plural.

    In fact, he married his present “pill” of a wife only 1 month after he divorced his 1st wife.

    He couldn’t resist her, he said, the former cheerleader. That she came from big AZ money I’m sure had nothing to do w/ it…or that her daddy invented a VP job for John in his brewski distribution company or that Cindy borrowed on her trust fund to finance John’s 1st congressional campaign.

    Then there is his statement that his marriage to the “pill” was based on a “tissue of lies.”

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html

    But, apparently, McCain is consistently saying about Ms. Iseman “I never had sex with that woman.”

    Matthew 7: 1-2 (LOL!)

  3. donviti says:

    FYI;

    Bob Bennet (i think is his name) is the lawyer representing McCain on this. He was on NBC and there defense

    There were several bills that McCain didn’t vote Yes on…

    There you have it

    because he didn’t vote YES on ALL of them he just CAN’T be guilty…

    He likes the blondes

  4. Brian says:

    This is the end of the GOP as we knew it. It is another example of how the rule of law is just becoming passe and who you know is more important than what you do. I feel like Voltaire and want to ask the GOP to “end the horror.” They are destroying their party from the inside with this stuff. But the Dems need to set a better standard, can we do that please?

  5. disbelief says:

    I will lead the way for setting a higher Democrat standard. I hereby promise to never, under any circumstances, sleep with Senator Blevins.

  6. jason330 says:

    Way to take one for the team!

  7. Sagacious Steve says:

    Sex or no sex, the real issue is that McCain has clearly lied about his intervening on behalf of corporate lobbyists. To wit, from the NYTimes story:

    “In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

    Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.”

    Unfortunately, that directly contradicts what he wrote in his autobiography “Worth the Fighting For”:

    “Learning from my unhappy experience [with the Keating Five], I have refrained from ever intervening in the regulatory decisions of the federal government if such intervention could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as done solely or primarily for the benefit of a major financial supporter of my campaigns.”

    Looks like the Straight Talk Express has blown more than a tire.

    In light of the prurient nature of this story, is it OK to say ‘blown’?

  8. Pandora says:

    The real problem for McCain is perception. HE set the bar when it came to lobbyists. HE painted them as evil, even though some work on his campaign.

    It’s like Bill Clinton lecturing on fidelity.

    Also, could this be the reason Huckabee is still in the race? Lord knows, he’s been hinting at this for a while.

  9. Rebecca says:

    Good catch Pandora, it was the first thing I thought of when I read the NYT piece last night. Huckabee has known about this. He’s hoping to become the national version of Mike Protack — last man standing.

  10. jason330 says:

    Oh wow! That is spot on.

  11. Dana Garrett says:

    Now, now, now. Let’s give J0hn boy some credit. After all, for an old geezer, the plumbing is still flowing freely.

    But one does wonder if we really should have John “Multiple Affairs” McCain chasing all the young lobbyist skirts visiting the White House…suggesting things like “Yea, sweetie, I’ll sign your bill into law if you can get your clients to give to my reelection campaign AND if you can come over here and give me a little SURGE.”

    Perhaps that’s why he’s always bragging, “The surge is working! The surge is still working!”

  12. nemski says:

    Pandora wrote, It’s like Bill Clinton lecturing on fidelity.

    Or Hillary lecturing on self-respect.

    Yeah, I know it is a cheap shot, but seriously, your husband gets several blow jobs at work, the nation knows about it, and you don’t kick his ass out on the curb.

  13. Dana Garrett says:

    Isn’t Castle McCain’s campaign chairperson in DE?

  14. Von Cracker says:

    Consider this:

    McCain made his Senatorial name on campaign and lobby reform after he was caught red-handed trying to influence legislation on behalf of the felonious Keating….maybe he hasn’t really changed at all since 1990. Maybe he just another Rethug living a lie…..deriding against what he truly in his heart and mind wants to be….

  15. Dana Garrett says:

    Shouldn’t we be hearing from Castle about whether he still supports McCain or not?

  16. nemski says:

    This cracks me up.

    His wife [Cindy] added that her husband [John McCain] always puts family and country first, and is “a man of great character.”

    Yeah, like when he was boofing Cindy while still married. Was that before or after McCain dating a stripper? I can’t keep his porking straight.

  17. Pandora says:

    My first thought when I read through the article was that it seemed rather vague. Now I’m wondering if the NYT is waiting to drop the other shoe?

    Seems like they’ve got more. Why else would they place this on the front page? A game of gotcha?

    In the end, someone’s gonna have some ‘splainin’ to do.

  18. Dorian Gray says:

    I think Pandora is onto something. I read the article on my commute into the office and was just wait and waiting for the pay-off. No dice. Perhaps there’s more to come this summer.

  19. jason330 says:

    Now it is a he said/they said” situation. (Except for the stubborn facts.)