McCain and Eisman

[Woody]

This issue with McCain and Eisman should help McCain get more of the "Slick Willy" votes. They do appreciate this kind of activity. Of course tell that to Gary Hart.

[Ron Lambert]

Everyone has denied the story in the NY Times, which was glaringly lacking in sources for its allegations.

As for whether McCain's relation with the lobbyist caused him to give improper favor to her clients--all that has been produced so far are three letters McCain wrote on behalf of the lobbyist's clients urging that a vote be taken--which was way overdue. The letters all contain explicit statements that this was not to be taken as a recommendation how to vote, only that they vote. Fox News also displayed a dozen letters McCain wrote that recommended contrary to the interests of the lobbyist's various clients. The only McCain staffer who was named in the NY Times article, stated on Fox that all he did was tell the lobbyist to quit going around town telling everyone what great influence she had with McCain (lobbyists like to impress everyone with their influence). He did not tell her to stay away from McCain, nor did he tell McCain to stay away from her.

All these allegations about the lobbyist came out eight years ago, just a couple of days before major primaries in the South. There was not enough time for McCain to respond then, and this is probably why Bush won the Party's nomination instead of McCain. If there were any substance to the allegations eight years ago, there has been plenty of time for further evidence to come out. But no further evidence has emerged. So why should anyone imagine still that there might be some substance to the allegations? Here this comes out just as McCain has become a virtual lock to be the Republican nominee. So now he makes a juicier target for agencies like the NY Times. But nothing new was brought forward since what was alleged eight years ago.

And isn't it interesting that on January 25 the NY Times endorsed McCain as the Republican nominee? They have had this article on hand for almost three months. Why would they endorse someone if they thought he might be unfit?

The New York Times has been severely criticized all around the country. Virtually all of the hostile attention has been directed at the Times, not at McCain. Their journalistic standards are embarassing to journalists everywhere--making allegations based on innuendos from two unnamed sources, who look to many people like disgruntled former employees with an ax to grind, and it is nothing new since eight years ago.