Skip to content
Categories:

McCain relationship with lobbyist rocks presidential campaign

Post date:
Author:

A few months ago, just a few days before Christmas, Drudge reported that the New York Times was poised to publish a “high-impact report” involving John McCain and “key telecom legislation.” There were very few details, but McCain had reportedly already hired an attorney to deal with the controversy, while the senator and his campaign “pleaded” with the NYT not to run with the story.

And then … nothing. The story (and the rumors) went away, and the political world moved on. That is, until today, when the NYT ran this front-page blockbuster on McCain and his relationship with a younger telecom lobbyist who seemed to spend quite a bit of time around the Arizona senator.

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity. […]

[I]n 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”

According to the article, McCain aides were ultimately instructed to keep Iseman away from the senator at public events. Even more seriously, two former McCain associates reportedly confronted McCain about the issue, and both said McCain “acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.”

We’ve all heard jokes about McCain being in bed with lobbyists, but few ever suggested the mockery was literal.

Now, reading through the Times’ very lengthy article, one notices that it feels at least a little thin. The evidence is hardly overwhelming, and the article is padded with extraneous details. As Josh Marshall put it:

[I]t seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it’s had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on ‘behaving inappropriately’ but then, doesn’t it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn’t know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I’ve learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.

Fair enough. But one also gets the sense that this NYT piece is the opening salvo.

As for McCain’s campaign, the response to the revelations was also a little thin.

“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

You’ll notice, of course, that there aren’t any firm denials in the statement at all.

A few other angles to keep in mind:

* It’s not just about adultery: “In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson … Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman.”

* It wouldn’t be the first instance of adultery: “McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, ‘aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.’ McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money.”

It’s a story with all kinds of potential. We’ll know more soon.

Comments

  • DGustof

    says:

    Well, you know Republicans. The party of family values except when they actually have to practice “family values”. Do as I say not as I do.

  • L Boom

    says:

    But was there abortion or gay sex and /or marriage involved? Pretty sure that’s all that qualifies as family values for Republicans nowadays.

  • memekiller

    says:

    McCain did say he wanted to take the MONEY out of politics.

    I think it’s a major issue that Mr. Campaign Finance was pushing legislation of a lobbyist whose relationship, he admitted to aides, was inappropriate. It also made me realize — when did McCain become a crusader for campaign reform? Wasn’t it all just an effort to reform his image after the Keating 5? So how earnest has he really been about it?

    The othe issue is, what on Earth do the GOP have on our paper of record to make the paper of record so terrified about publishing such a story? A Democrat has a controversy over the fact that there is absolutely no doubt he fought in Vietnam. Yet, the NYTs burried the story, lawyered up, did everything they could not to print a blockbuster story — and then gets accused of being out to get McCain.

  • orange is not the answer

    says:

    Pity that this came out before the nomination is done & dusted … what price Huckabee now?

  • orange is not the answer

    says:

    oh, and

    never done favors for special interests or lobbyists

    *cough* Keating 5 *cough*

    (can’t repeat it often enough, the media seem to have total amnesia on the subject)

  • entheo

    says:

    the irony, of course, is that these old school politicians are running on the ‘fact’ that they’re fully vetted. guess it just goes to show that the more ‘experienced’ a politician is, the more vetting will be required.

  • JRS Jr

    says:

    One wonders how you would handle such a “at least a little thin” story about a Dem, CB?

    Remember, a couple years back the NYT put as much “effort” into the Duke Lacrosse rape case and it too seemed like it was “a story with all kinds of potential” yet based on little fact. We all know how that little gem turned out.

    NYT editors, if there are more facts to report, let’s please see them… but the loose nature and the catalyst for printing the story as reported by the Politico should cause pause among smart and educated readers — except you, CB:

    From Politico:
    “As part of their pushback, McCain’s campaign issued the detailed response they sent to the paper in December when the story was being prepared. McCain campaign officials said the paper did not sufficiently include these explanations in their story.

    According to Black, the Times only went with the story now because The New Republic was set to run a piece next Monday about internal dissensions at the paper over whether to run the long-held article.

    After the TNR reporter, Gabriel Sherman, began making phone calls to the Times and others outside the paper, they decided to publish, Black alleged.”

  • Timpanist

    says:

    “Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics…….

    And just exactly who are the experts in this realm?? The Democrats?

    Right. Paging Bill O’Baloney>

  • dalloway

    says:

    I wonder if the other shoe to drop is financial, ie. how much money Iseman steered McCain’s way, particularly in the 2000 campaign. Could that be why McCain dropped out so fast after South Carolina — because he knew Karl Rove had the goods on him? And perhaps this offers a clue, too, about why McCain’s nose has been so far up Bush’s butt in this campaign season. If McCain doesn’t do exactly what Rove and Company want, ie. run for a third Bush term to cement his “legacy,” they’ll leak all the oppo ammo they had from 2000 and that will run the Straight Talk Express right off the rails. Just a theory…

  • TR

    says:

    the loose nature and the catalyst for printing the story as reported by the Politico should cause pause among smart and educated readers

    Yes, but smart and educated readers don’t read the Politico because it’s a right-wing shill.

  • Danp

    says:

    I had to laugh watching Joe Scarborough say that the “media” would rather talk about spurious scandals than FISA and other issues of import. First, while he has toned down his show a bit since the Matthews scandal, it sure seemed like it was modeled after Howard Stern – far more salacious bear baiting than substantive discussion. But second, the NYT story is 59 paragraphs long (not counting McCain’s response). Only six of these come close to being about a romantic relationship. And of these half are denials. That said, the Washington Post reports that Iseman, only 40 yrs old, was hired as a secretary but rose to partner in a very short period. If my math is correct she would have only been 31 (1999) when McCain’s aides confronted her.

  • Deborah

    says:

    Remember, a couple years back the NYT put as much “effort” into the Duke Lacrosse rape case and it too seemed like it was “a story with all kinds of potential” yet based on little fact. We all know how that little gem turned out.

    Yeah, it ended up with all the rich kids’ daddies getting them off. Everyone involved blamed the victim, the girl’s stripper friend was paid off to turn against her, some key pieces of evidence got “missing” as though they never existed and “boys will be boys” carried the day.

    I still believe the girl.

    Never underestimate the power of white people with money and spin.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    Sex for favors.
    Old powerful senator.
    Pretty young blond girl.

    This is made for television. Deal me in.

  • Ed Stephan

    says:

    This is a wonderful story. It reminds everyone of McCain’s most embarrassing (so far) political moment, the Keating Five affair. Which in turn brings up the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s. particularly the Silverado scandal, one of many in the checkered business career of Neil Bush, fourth son of Barbara and George Herbert Walker Bush. Tthe obvious lobbying hanky-panky involved here brings up the whole sorry history of the Bush Crime Family.

    But wait, there’s more. The story also brings back to mind Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky (among others) and all that that entailed. My, Oh my.

    Delicious! Simply delicious!

  • Danp

    says:

    dalloway (9): “…how much money Iseman steered McCain’s way, particularly in the 2000 campaign.”

    According to Wash Post: Paxson Communications, one of Iseman’s clients provided a jet four times for campaign events in 2000. They also contributed $20,000 to his campaign. Later the article says, “Iseman clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the FEC.”

  • TR

    says:

    TR, I guess I can then say the same for the left-wing sh!t printed in the NYT?

    Sure, if you think the paper that led the call for Clinton’s impeachment, that endorsed Rudy Guiliani for re-election in ’98, that sat on this McCain story until he wrapped up the nomination just because he asked them, and that recently decided to hire Bill Kristol is “left-wing,” then that’s certainly your right.

  • SteveIL

    says:

    I love watching moonbats defending this smear job of McCain by the Old York Slimes bringing up “new” “news” about McCain’s alleged ethical lapses that have been public knowledge for a decade. Then, they display a level of “journalism” seen in Us magazine, the E! network, and The National Enquirer trying to sex up a non-scandal of McCain having talked to a pretty lobbyist. And which truth-sayers do the Slimes reference for all this “news”? Ah, yes: the ever-reliable…”anonymous sources”. How much does anyone want to bet that these are the same ever-reliable “anonymous sources” used by Jason Leopold to report on the indictment of Karl Rove that never happened?

    * It wouldn’t be the first instance of adultery: “McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, ‘aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.’ McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money.” At least McCain was man enough to have admitted it, unlike the moonbats favorite President…you know…the guy who lied to a grand jury to cover up his own affairs. And I notice the Slimes formerly favorite New York Senator never did apologize to those who spoke the truth about her “husband”. As was said aptly somewhere else, “pot, meet kettle“.

    It’s a story with all kinds of potential. We’ll know more soon. Only for those foolish enough to think so.

  • TR

    says:

    Ignorance at it’s best!

    No, ignorance at its best is calling someone ignorant and making a grammatical error in the process.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    “It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign.”

    Against a Republican at any rate. What happened to the good old days, when a BJ in the Oval Office could be spun to the point John McCain could score political points by voting for articles of impeachment?

    Anyway, there’s no point being surprised that the Maverick who was against torture until Bush told him he wasn’t, is also the Maverick who was for lobbying reform until he decided he wasn’t really. Maybe we should admire him for being a hypocrite without prompting from above.

    BTW, whether or not this is more than financial favours footsie is really irrelevant. If Iseman were a 300 lb guy covered in warts, McCain still needs to ‘splain why he was so palsy with a lobbyist.

  • memekiller

    says:

    Unlike the controversy over the unquestioned fact Kerry was in Vietnam, passing this story was like constepation. Only the stiff shot of prune juice from word TNR would publish details of the cover-up was able to remove the blockage, in its much softer, watered-down form. Which means endless speculation from the chattering class over whether the NYT’s was out to “get” McCain.

    What does the GOP have on these guys? How do we get the file?

  • Mark D

    says:

    The first person who can tell me what the holy hell the Duke lacrosse case has to do with this or anything other than the Duke lacrosse case, I’d love to hear it.

    If it’s about the media convicting someone, I hope you stretched out first, because you’re going to injure yourself reaching that far.

    The NYT sat on this story for a few months instead of breaking it when it could have completely and utterly ruined his campaign (i.e. pre Super-Tuesday). McCain pleaded with them to kill the story, which they did for a while before apparently scrubbing the crap out of the piece and running it today.

    To think the NYT didn’t think long and hard about this and is just trying to ruin the guy they endorsed, is just … well … the facts aren’t there to support that.

    Just like the facts aren’t there yet to prove McCain did anything other than cheat on his wife (again).

    We’ll see if it turns into anything more than that, but as of right now it seems the Times did a lot of work trying to blunt the blow of the story. It’s hardly a hit piece.

  • Ed Stephan

    says:

    I just realized that I failed to lace my comments above (#16) with a lofty and meaningful quote from someone significant. Sorry for the omission. I’ll remedy that here.

    As Hedda Hopper said in one of my all-time favorite movies, The Women (1939), “Oh, good. Dirt!”

  • Tamalak

    says:

    This may be something and it may not, but I’ve learned to hold my tongue and my judgement on “scandals” based on the kind of circumstance and innuendo the NYT is using here.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    1999? So we have yet another Republican who was disgusted by Bill Clinton’s behavior despite the fact that he may have been doing the same thing in private.

  • TR

    says:

    To think the NYT didn’t think long and hard about this and is just trying to ruin the guy they endorsed, is just … well … the facts aren’t there to support that.

    Heh. I forgot they’d endorsed McCain.

    And yes, the facts aren’t all in yet and today’s story is thin. I tend to see this as Josh Marshall did, that they felt the need to plant a flag on the story, but had most of the meat lawyered out until they could triple-check it.

    But I don’t think either part of this story is beyond the realm of possibilities. After all, McCain is a man who (1) cheated on his first wife, the one who waited for him while he was a POW, so he could marry Cindy the rich 25-year-old, and (2) was up to his neck with the Keating Five scandal.

    For my money, I couldn’t care less about the affair part of this. McCain’s never been a moralizer on family values (hard to, with his past I guess) but he has been one on political purity, and that’s the damning part here.

    And on that point, I can’t believe he just said, paraphrasing here, “I have never done anything to violate the public trust.” Charlie Keating might have something to say on that.

  • Jim

    says:

    This just goes to show everyone that the cozy relationship Obama had with Mr Resco is far from over. You can bet that the NYT, WP and LAT are working overtime to get to the bottom of things including the campaign donations and real estate dealings. So from now until the election this campaign will not be about issues that we care about. Its sad that this is what it has come to but that is our political system and Obama nor McCain will change that. By November voter apithy will be as it has been in previous elections, forget about all those new voters coming out and being engaged. The defenders will step up and the spin will fly.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    I love watching moonbats defending … “pot, meet kettle“.

    So basically, your side is always the good guys no matter how many nits you have to pick to excuse their behavior, and the other side is always the evil enemy, regardless of how similar their worst behavior is to the worst behavior of your guys. Your logical skills are a wonder to behold.

  • Danp

    says:

    27. On February 21st, 2008 at 9:22 am, TR said:
    TR (27): “For my money, I couldn’t care less about the affair part of this.”

    In terms of ranking scandals, I would certainly agree that public corruption is higher. That said, this idea that morals are only important if you claim to be a moral leader, or rhetoric only matters if your reputation is based on ability to inspire, bothers me. There are certain standards that should apply to everyone.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    This just goes to show everyone that the cozy relationship Obama had with Mr Resco is far from over.

    The family who sold the Obamas the house swear that was the best offer they got. I think that puts an end to the real estate dealing (singular), which as far as I have heard was the only thing Obama was supposed to have gotten out of this supposed relationship. Lots of people make campaign donations to a politician, almost a million of them to Obama just in the current campaign. Unless evidence turns up suggesting the family who sold them the house are lying I think that does make it over.

  • Mark D

    says:

    This just goes to show everyone that the cozy relationship Obama had with Mr Resco [sic] is far from over.

    Yeah, I thought about that also, Jim.

    To be honest, I’d like to see Obama come clean. And if he doesn’t, or if there’s actually something wrong there, then … well … shit.

    I hear Amsterdam sucks this time of year, but the summers are great …

    😉

  • TR

    says:

    That said, this idea that morals are only important if you claim to be a moral leader, or rhetoric only matters if your reputation is based on ability to inspire, bothers me. There are certain standards that should apply to everyone.

    Well, I can see that argument, even if I don’t accept it. To me, a president is a professional hired to do a job competently, first and foremost. I don’t care if my surgeon cheated on his wife, or if my plumber had an affair, as long as they do their job well.

  • Jim

    says:

    #31

    Mr & Mrs Resco bought the lot from the same owner otherwise they would not have sold and then sold it to the Obamas for less than they paid for it. This is how I read the story in the Chicago papers.

  • Jim

    says:

    #31

    Besides that when did the news ever care if there were facts to back up their stories. Unnamed sources are used everyday in the news. This story started at about 6:30 last nite and thats all thats been on MSNBC since then with all the talking heads. Who cares if its true.

    This could be a plot to keep Obama off the TV hour after hour who knows.

  • Bruce Gorton

    says:

    That is kind of surprising.

    A Republican getting caught out in a sex scandal involving a female is pretty rare.

  • doubtful

    says:

    Mr & Mrs Resco bought the lot from the same owner otherwise they would not have sold and then sold it to the Obamas for less than they paid for it. This is how I read the story in the Chicago papers. -Concern Troll

    This story is not supported by the people who actually sold the properties.

    Oh, and for the sake of all of our collective sanity, it is Rezko. With a k.

  • doubtful

    says:

    I’d like to add how amusing it is to see those who support candidates with no morals try to chastise the morals of others. -Regular Troll

    Why, did Larry Craig’s supporters release a statement?

  • memekiller

    says:

    this idea that morals are only important if you claim to be a moral leader, or rhetoric only matters if your reputation is based on ability to inspire, bothers me. There are certain standards that should apply to everyone.

    I think anyone should be condemned for selling your political power for sex, regardless of whether or not you have made a name for youself as a crusader for campaign finance reform.

  • 2Manchu

    says:

    “I’d like to add how amusing it is to see those who support candidates with no morals try to chastise the morals of others.”
    – SteveIL

    Frist off, please explain what you consider to be “morals”.

    Secondly, if I am assuming you mean Clinton and Obama, please list how both of them lack those particular “morals”.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Trust me, this story is real for two reasons: John McCain is a Naval Aviator of his generation, and John McCain is a politician of his generation.

    First: McCain is a member of a fraternity – Naval Aviators – that have the biggest egos on the planet (which comes with mastery of one of the hardest jobs in the world – putting an airplane on a heaving deck in darkness without breaking anything), who are convinced they are God’s gift to women in a greater way than rock stars (and given all the groupies one used to find in the bars outside Naval Air Stations, a fact that could be easily proven). The only rule these guys ever had was Don’t Get Caught In Public. These are the guys who got caught out in the Tail Hook scandal. For those too young to know about this, I suggest you google it.

    Second, pretty girl lobbyists like this one are expected to sleep with the candidate. The difference between this one and the lobbyist bimbos I knew in Sacramento is she probably gets paid better. Combine this with a guy from McCain’s background….

    With a guy like McCain, the only question is how many hundred times he’s done this since he got his Wings of Gold.

    I mean, where do you think these guys learn their Republican Family Values???

    For those who don’t know how this works, I suggest you go rent “The Seduction of Joe Tynan” from Netflix. Stars Alan Alda as a “Kennedyesque” Senator but he could have been anybody. The only difference between when that movie was made and nowadays is different clothing fashions.

  • T-Rex

    says:

    Never mind the lobbyist — what’s this about Cindy McCain’s being both beautiful AND rich? I knew she was a trophy wife, but didn’t know the prize included cash. Now, will we be hearing the same snark this time around that we did about John Kerry’s second wife being an heiress, even though both of them were single at the time when they became romantically involved? You’d think that marrying a rich widow whose money could help your political career was an un-American act, although George Washington certainly didn’t think so when he married way, WAY up the social ladder with Martha. Now, it would appear that both Washington and Kerry behaved themselves a great deal better than McCain, who was shopping for the rich second wife while still legally married to the first one. Well, I think Cindy is about to get the inevitable homewrecker’s comeuppance, and I wish her and him all the bad luck in the world.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Danp (#11) says: That said, the Washington Post reports that Iseman, only 40 yrs old, was hired as a secretary but rose to partner in a very short period. If my math is correct she would have only been 31 (1999) when McCain’s aides confronted her.

    Exactly my point about the nature of certain female “lobbyists.”

  • petorado

    says:

    Judging by the outrage of McCain supporters and blogs on the right, you’d think the NYT story was saying McCain illegitimately fathered a black child or something. But it’s OK for the right to smear their own candidate, as they did in 2000 when Rove and Co. spread rumors that McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black and fathered by McCain though an affair with a black prostitute. Or innuendo that McCain was gay, his wife was a drug addict and that McCain was a Manchurian candidate set up during his stay at the Hanoi Hilton.

    There’s no swiftboating of McCain the left could even come close to doing, if it even had the desire to do so, that the right hasn’t already done to the man.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    As Matt Yglesias points out at his blog:

    Meanwhile, there’s all this stuff Salter doesn’t deny (because, again, it’s true) about McCain’s questionable ethics. He wrote “letters to government regulators on behalf of the [Iseman’s] client,” he “often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support,” he resigned as head of a non-profit when “news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor,” his Senate office and his campaign are run by corporate lobbyists, etc.

    Which merely makes McCain a hypocrite, and we all know “Hypocrite” is another terms for “Republican.”

    Let Senator Straight Shoote4r keep dealing with the question “When did you stop beating your wife, Senator?”

    Maybe the MSM will even bring up the events of 1979 again. Anything that demoralizes the Right is fine with me.

  • Jimmy The Saint

    says:

    Anybody see a picture of the lobbyist? She kinda looks like a younger version of his wife. Remember, the rich, young one he dumped his first wife to marry. Don’t be surprised if this guy turns out to be a DOG.

  • SP

    says:

    #37. “That is kind of surprising.

    A Republican getting caught out in a sex scandal involving a female is pretty rare.”

    I thought the same thing! I fully expected it to be an under-aged male!

  • libra

    says:

    Remember “I didn’t have sex with that woman”? I expect to hear some of that now too. And I’ll believe it just as much.

  • T-Rex

    says:

    Libra, don’t hold your breath. McCain is too intelligent to issue a flat denial. Instead, he’ll try to change the subject and make it all about journalistic integrity, which is exactly what he did, as a matter of fact.

  • SteveIL

    says:

    2Manchu said, Frist off, please explain what you consider to be “morals”. Anything that isn’t part of the belief system of leftists (pro-tyranny, anti-America, nanny-statism, anti-capitalist, justifying the death of innocents by the millions in the name of somebody’s “rights”…shall I go on?). This is the platform of the Democratic Party. Hell, leftists can’t even call themselves by the right appellation; hiding behind words like “liberal” and “progressive”. And some don’t even like being called that.

  • TuiMel

    says:

    This story – like the Dubya /TX Air National Guard story – could become more about the media than about the actual truth. I wonder if the timing may actually help (i.e., immunize) the Mav unless more evidence is forthcoming. I actually think McCain’s apparent gaming of the public campaign finance system (December 2007 Bank Loan) is more illustrative of his particular brand of situational ethics. The question for me is: Will this story make exploration of his “creative” loan agreement more or less tantalizing to the MFCMSM (McCain Fan Club Main Stream Media). The same people who think Joe Lieberman is a “principaled guy” think the same of McCain. The Maverick / Man of Integrity meme is strong among those whose news sources include some form of television news and not much else. I hope this story helps expose McCain for what he is: a politician who never met a principal he could not discard.

  • 2Manchu

    says:

    Anything that isn’t part of the belief system of leftists (pro-tyranny, anti-America, nanny-statism, anti-capitalist, justifying the death of innocents by the millions in the name of somebody’s “rights”…shall I go on?).

    -SteveIL

    Pro-tyranny? In what capacity? How many tyrants do the current Deomcratic candidates openly support?

    Anti-American? What actions have the candidates taken that are considered anti-American?

    Nanny-statism? You mean programs that help Americans? How is that immoral?

    And what legislative action, or comments have the candidates taken that would be considered anti-capitalism? Is it tax increases?
    Well then, Reagan and Bush I would have to be included in the anti-capitalist ranks, because they both signed legislation that dramatically increased tax levels.

    “..justifying the death of innocents by the millions in the name of somebody’s “rights”

    Ironically, had those “millions” been born, you would have had a dramatic increase in the size of the nanny-state to support them. Would you be in favor of that?

  • Mark D

    says:

    Ironically, had those “millions” been born, you would have had a dramatic increase in the size of the nanny-state to support them. Would you be in favor of that?

    Well, 2Manchu, I think we all know SteveILL’s opinion on that — like the typical GOP troll, he supports a “culture of life” from conception to birth. After that, not so much.

    And, of course, it doesn’t apply to brown people in other parts of the world. We just bomb the shit out of them, thus preventing any nanny state issues.

  • T-Rex

    says:

    SteveIL: I believe it’s Bush and his true believers who have been justifying the “death of innocents by the millions in the name of somebody’s ‘rights.'” The innocents are the Iraqi civilians whom we have bombed, shot, and left vulnerable to a brutal civil-religious war after we tore their existing government apart in the name of “democracy” without any realistic idea about what would happen next.

    Oh. But I see — they were already born? So, their lives are no longer sacred? Okay, got it.

  • Ask any professor of socio-economics

    says:

    Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Money does not grow on trees. When too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. But the rich will never let go of their incredible greed. They just keep getting richer and richer and richer. At the same time, they have the nerve to throw back a few tax deductable crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’.. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. THE PROBLEM IS GETTING WORSE. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. But the rich will never stop. They will never settle for a reasonable share of ANYTHING. They will do whatever it takes to get even richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY.. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. A total collapse of the US economy. Probably within a decade. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. So don’t fall for all of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductable contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, then the middle class would have had a much better bottom line over recent years. There never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTABLE PR CRAP. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Please copy and help spread the word. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

  • SteveIL

    says:

    2Manchu, I was a bit harsh. You had asked earlier: Frist off, please explain what you consider to be “morals”. And my answer is, anything that isn’t part of the belief system of the likes of Sean Penn, Code Pinko, or the City of Berkeley. You know…the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

    Pro-tyranny? In what capacity? How many tyrants do the current Deomcratic candidates openly support? Smartly, the Presidential candidates haven’t said boo. But it’s early. Most Dems have loved Castro. However, I always love mentioning that idiot Delahunt who pimps for Chavez.

    Nanny-statism? You mean programs that help Americans? How is that immoral? How do they help? All they are going to do is make more poor people and put America in real economic trouble. Socialism creates more poor people. That is immoral.

    And what legislative action, or comments have the candidates taken that would be considered anti-capitalism? Is it tax increases? Of course. Well then, Reagan and Bush I would have to be included in the anti-capitalist ranks, because they both signed legislation that dramatically increased tax levels. The first Bush signed a tax increase, and he got booted out of office. Reagan and this President Bush never raised taxes; in fact, both lowered the tax rates. Spending did increase (way too high for my liking), but revenues into the treasury did too. Nice try on that one.

    Ironically, had those “millions” been born, you would have had a dramatic increase in the size of the nanny-state to support them. Would you be in favor of that? Uh-huh. Nobody really knows how many illegal aliens are in this country who already have increased the size of the current nanny-state to support them. It is just possible that there would have been enough unaborted children do the jobs that are now being done by illegals, and not need all the provisions of the nanny-state being sucked away.

    T-Rex, millions of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by Bush in this war? You know, your going to have to get your tyrannical butchers right. It was Saddam Hussein who killed millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, you know the guy that had the government that we “tore apart”? Or is it that you didn’t think Saddam killing millions was so bad because he created “stability”? In case you hadn’t noticed, that “brutal civil-religious war” that really never got started isn’t occurring, and Iraq is more stable now than it has been. Hell, even the Old York Slimes mentions that once in a blue moon. Or are do they become Bush supporters when that happens? Or is it that you only believe the Slimes when they try to pass off innuendo as “news”?

    By the way, you can stop using those discredited Lancet numbers anytime. Using a false argument doesn’t wash.

  • 2Manchu

    says:

    “And my answer is, anything that isn’t part of the belief system of the likes of Sean Penn, Code Pinko, or the City of Berkeley. You know…the mainstream of the Democratic Party.”

    What have either two of the Democratic candidates (the original point of my questioning) said or done that is in line with any of those groups? You are taking a few groups with extreme views and declaring it the official party line of the Democrats.

    “Smartly, the Presidential candidates haven’t said boo. But it’s early. Most Dems have loved Castro. However, I always love mentioning that idiot Delahunt who pimps for Chavez. ”

    Which Democrat has said they loved Castro? And again, you mention one person and claim that it is the official party line.

    “How do they help? All they are going to do is make more poor people and put America in real economic trouble. Socialism creates more poor people. That is immoral.”

    How exactly do social programs make more poor people? And how does it put America in real economic trouble?

    “The first Bush signed a tax increase, and he got booted out of office.”

    He got booted out of office because of the recession at the time, and his rather cavalier attitude towards the dire conditions it caused. And, of course, Ross Perot took away votes from Bush, or at least that is one of the conservative excuses I have heard.

    “Reagan and this President Bush never raised taxes; in fact, both lowered the tax rates. ”

    Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, signed by Ronald Reagan, which constituted a larger share of GDP than the 1993 tax increase.

    Social Security Reform Act of 1983, signed by Reagan, increased payroll taxes.

    Tax Reform Act of 1986, signed by Reagan, increased income taxes on the bottom rate, removed many deductions, and eliminated a large number of tax shelters.

    “Spending did increase (way too high for my liking), but revenues into the treasury did too.”

    Unfortunately, revenue increases haven’t even put a dent into the level of national debt that has been accumulated over the past seven years.

    “Uh-huh. Nobody really knows how many illegal aliens are in this country who already have increased the size of the current nanny-state to support them. It is just possible that there would have been enough unaborted children do the jobs that are now being done by illegals, and not need all the provisions of the nanny-state being sucked away.”

    Well, companies who hire illegals do so because it’s cheaper for them, and they can’t find American citizens who are willing to do a lot of the work for minimum wage. This is a practice that went on when abortion was illegal, and still goes on even when abortion is legal.

    And so it is very unlikely that illegal immigrants would have been replaced by “unaborted children”, meaning more stress on that nanny-state you so detest.

    “It was Saddam Hussein who killed millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, you know the guy that had the government that we ‘tore apart’? Or is it that you didn’t think Saddam killing millions was so bad because he created ‘stability’?”

    So in the great scheme of things, how do we determine which ruthless dictator gets replaced, and who gets to stay in power?
    Why remove Saddam, but keep the government of Sudan in place?

    Why keep sanctions on Cuba (who never attacked the US), but lift them for Libya (who in the past has attacked American forces, launched terrorist attacks that has killed Americans, brutalized his own people, and invaded its neighbors), just because they turned over their rather pitiful WMD program?

    Where do we draw the line on who stays in power, and who goes?

    “In case you hadn’t noticed, that ‘brutal civil-religious war’ that really never got started isn’t occurring, and Iraq is more stable now than it has been.”

    Well, when you have one side (the Sunnis) fighting the other side (the Shias), what is that called? I guess we’ll just call it “sectarian violence”, which sounds a bit less uncomfortable.

    As for the reduction in violence, there’s several angles:

    1) Sadr is keeping the reigns tight on the Mahdi Army, probably the best force in Iraq after the coalition forces.

    2) the ethnic cleansing that has segregated much of the country along a Sunni-shia divided is for the most part over.

    3) the bribing of former Sunni insurgent groups by the US.

  • Jerry

    says:

    Have we all lost sight of the REAL issue here? It is the intimate relationship with a lobbyist and the apparently aggregious violation of corporate influence on public policy. Who cares about the sex and family values? With a proposed FY 2009 Federal Budget at $3+ trillion – 25% of which is committed to the defense (generated by the military industrial complex) – It’s time to address the threat that Eisenhower warned about 50 years ago.

  • Doesn't matter.

    says:

    About the 1% club ‘tax revenue’ defense. ITS A SHAM. If the middle and lower classes had a greater share of the pie, they could easily cover a greater share of the federal tax revenue. They are held down in many ways because of greed. Wages remain stagnant for millions because the executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, and entrepreneurs, are paid millions. They over-sell, over-charge, under-pay, outsource, cut jobs, and benefits to increase their bottom line. As their profits rise, so do the stock values. Which means more money for the upper class who own a giant share of the market. My problem really isn’t with the upper class in general. But as more United States wealth rises to the top, the middle and lower classes inevitably suffer. This reduces the potential tax reveue drawn from those brackets. At the same time, it wreaks havok on middle and lower class communities and increases the need for financial aid. Not to mention the spike in crime because of it. There is a dominoe effect to consider. So when people forgive the rich for all of the above and then praise them for paying a greater share of the FEDERAL income taxes, its like nails on a chalk board. If these filthy pigs want to be over-paid, then they should be over-taxed as well. Remember: They STILL own 1/2 of all United States wealth EVEN AFTER taxes, charity, and PR CRAP. A similar rule applies worldwide. There is nothing anyone can say to justify that. Anyway, there is usually a higher state and local burden on the middle class. They get little or nothing without a local tax increase. Otherwise, the red inks flows like a waterfall. Service cuts and lay-offs follow. Again, because of the OBSCENE distribution of bottom line wealth in this country. I can not accept any theory that our economy would suffer in any way with a more reasonable distribution of wealth. Afterall, it was more reasonable 30 years ago. Before Reaganomics came along. Before GREED became such an epidemic. Before we had an army of over-paid executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, investors, entrepreneurs, developers, and sold-out politicians to kiss their asses. As a nation, we were in much better shape. Lower crime rate, more widespread prosperity, stable job market, free and clear assets, lower deficit, ect. Bottom line: Top heavy economies always destabilize and eventually collapse. Middle heavy economies remain stable and propsperous indefinately. WITHOUT LOANS FROM CHINA.