It does not cease to amaze me when one is running for public office some one brings out smut such as they have with Republican John McCain.
Lobbyist in my opinion are opportunist who make it a point to show up at appropriate place and at the right time, because they have a need to push on their personal Agenda and for their advancment. If they were honest themselves, they would have disclosed this alleged "affair" long before his taking on the stong lead. Did they disclose any dirt when he ran they last time and lost? No, that is because he was not winning. Newspapers who in my opinion abuse their "right to Freedom of the Press", will print what they thing will catch the public attention.

What amazes me, whether Senator McCain did anything or not, it the way SOME on the left are reacting to the situation.

These are the same ones, that for eight years, told us that President Clinton's activities had nothing to do with his duties or performance as president. Now, suddenly, an official's private life matters. That seems very confusing for me, especially when one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination is the wife of the one that everyone said, "private life is private and has nothing to do with the office."

I certainly do not condone infidelity in a marriage, but, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." How can they have it both ways.

if you believe anything these people say running for office, you are definately a psychiatric case. you have been lied to all your life, by polititions who wouldn't give you the time of day, if the didn't need your vote to get elected. If you argue the point, why then do they make china,russians,japan,and all the other countries rich at your exspense?Nafta,free trade,north american alliance only benefit the wall street,ceo's and rich elite.

Jerry McDonald is 100% correct. It's also one thing the general public fail to understand is 99.9% of your political speeches are written by speech writers.

If you excludes the issue of the alleged affair between McCain and the lobbyist and the moral aspects, the real issue is whether McCain used his position to influence the FCC on behalf of his client, Paxon and abused the public trust.

The evidence that is not disputed, is that he wrote two letters to the FCC requesting that they expedite a ruling on behalf of his client and that he was not asking for favoritism but for a ruling that had been long delayed. That would appear to be innocuous, however, the response from the FCC to his letter, was harsh and criticized McCain for interference in the process. The question is WHY?

The concern is that McCain showed a similar pattern in the Keating Five when he also acted on behalf of his constituent and donor, Charles Keating, who later went to prison and whose savings and loan operations were terminated . McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee and received a slap on the wrist. However, the other Senators involved in the scandal, either resigned or left office at the end of the term.

The real issue is whether McCain, possibly as a result of his relationship with a lobbyist, tried to use his positon of influence improperly. And, in light of the criticism for his actions both now and in the Keating affair, should he be held to a higher standard of avoiding any appearance of impropriety,even if he did not technically violate any law as that is the image he is trying to project.

My assumption, which may be incorrect knowing that the New York Times has exhibited poor judgment in the past, is that the sources for this story are so weak that they must have other evidence to corroborate the story or it was improper for them to print the story. The New York Times did endorse McCain as the Republican nominee while knowing issues were out there.

Why they waited to publish the story is also important. Was it because the New Republic was preparing their own story? Did they do him a favor by not publishing closer to the election when it would have been more harmful? Did they have a weak story or did they wait until they had enough facts? At this point, there are a number of allegations without substance. This may change.

Good morning New York. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Everything is as it should be in the universe. As if there was ever any doubt about it, The New York Times once again has made it very plain for everyone to see they are a political apparatus of the Democratic Party masquerading as a newspaper.
Just a few weeks ago, while still sitting on this weak story for months The Times was trumpeting their endorsement of Senator John McCain to become President of the United States. Of course, as everyone knows, their endorsement was intended only to serve their political agenda to stick it to Rudy Giuliani and side track him from becoming President.
Now the other plank of their forward Republican attack has been put in place. They are not very masterful in their manipulations, but they have still done a suitable enough job to please Democrats and their desires, gin up some negatives to push around Republicans, and, oh yeah, sell a few newspapers too.
However, the timing of this smear appears very rushed coming as it does just weeks after their endorsement of Senator McCain. Why would The Times invite the obvious questions and criticisms of their objectivity, credibility and sourcing by so quickly publishing this smear piece so soon after anointing him to become President?
Clearly something has changed in The Times calculations of the Political Landscape vis a vis their Political Agenda to put this piece out now at this point in time. What has changed?
Could it be The Times now really believes the Clinton's when they vow they will bring their scorched earth political campaign all the way to the floor of the Democratic Party Convention in August?
Or could it be The Times believes Senator McCain's clear and convincing wins of all the Presidential state nomination contests is rapidly unifying the Republican Party behind him for President?
Or could it be that The Times believes Mitt Romney's and President George Bush, Senior's endorsements of John McCain for President are in fact very meaningful?
Or could it be The Times just simply believes Senator McCain when he vows,"As President I will veto any bill that contains earmarks?"
Or could it be The Times simply believes Senator McCain when he channels President Reagan and says, "Here's my strategy on the Iraq War, we win, they lose?
Or could it be The Times simply believes the electorate is starting to become more and more wise to the idea that as President, John McCain, regardless what they think about his willingness to cooperate and work with Democrats to find compromises, is the only effective person to stand in the way of complete Democratic Party rule and domination of the legislative and executive branches of government?
One thing is certain, The New York Times will continue to play politics first, sell newspapers second and report the news last. So drink your morning coffee and be at ease. Everything is as it should be in the universe.