Earlier I had posted on the contradictions present between John McCain’s statements about whether his staff intervened regarding his relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. I then updated the post in recognition that the Times piece, per Marc Ambinder, speaks of “associates” intervening with McCain himself, not staff or aides. The Washington Post, in an update to their previously posted piece, is reporting the following:
Members of the senator’s small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly, according to sources, warning him that his continued ties to a lobbyist who had business before the powerful commerce committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions.
Appearing before reporters this morning in Toledo, Ohio, McCain flatly denied receiving such warnings from his aides and said he had no knowledge that Weaver or anyone else on his staff had told Iseman to keep her distance.
The first line seems to connect advisers and associates in the same vein as the Times had previously reported the intervention. Neither are saying the people offering this information are staffers or aides. It is clear that at least two people very high up in the McCain universe have confirmed to both the Times and Post that they had a direct intervention with McCain over Iseman.
McCain’s denial, however, is circumscribed to aides and staff. In that sense, when it comes to the intervention by associates or advisers in his relationship with Vicki Iseman, John McCain is issuing a non-denial denial.
I think the press has an obligation to start highlight the intense (dare I say, Bill Clinton-esque?) parsing being committed by John McCain.
Hold Fast 
McCain also denied saying he didn’t know much about the economy until he saw himself on tape saying those words. I guess because you are getting old you are allowed to forget everything you’ve said or done.
LikeLike
Yet another case of a Republican saying do as I say, not as I do. And the one screaming the loudest about ethics reform is…..the one who is apparently the most ethics-challenged of the bunch.
Why am I not surprised.
The only thing I wish someone would explain is why the NYT thinks it has some obligation to sit on this kind of story and only print it at a time when it is likely to do the least amount of damage. I know, I know they are trying to prove they are not “librul”. Ha! As if the NYT ever was!!!!! Cheerleaders for Bush more likely.
I hope whoever the Democratic candidate is beats the socks off him, and I hope they or someone drags every bit of his womanizing, his Keating 5 scandal, his other ethics problems, and this latest episode along with all his “flip-flopping” out in front of the MSM and keeps repeating it ad nauseum the way they have done with the Dems for the last few election cycles.
Probably won’t happen – the Repubs always seem to get a free pass……..
LikeLike