alt.politics.usa.republican

"carlos" wrote in message
news:2f6544b0-b801-412b-b0bb-3915ee66cc55@...
> On Feb 22, 5:41 pm, "Sid9" wrote:
>> Read the article.
>>
>> They checked with
>> people who did not
>> want their names
>> disclosed.
>>
>> They are satisfied
>> that they confirmed
>> it from more than
>> one source.
>>
>> There are another
>> shoe(s) to be
>> dropped
>>
>> "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
>>
>> news:rvudnUtrTvux7yLanZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@...
>>
>> > In Lamont Cranston
>> > <...@>
>> > wrote:
>> > : Frank Pittel wrote:
>> > : > Who are these eye witnesses? dan rather had a authentic memo in
>> > 2004.
>>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm sure the facts will have no effect on the blockheaded right-
> wingers who reflexively defend anyone with an R after his name, no
> matter what, but the story, that McCain's aides intervened in his
> relationship with a female lobbyist, has been confirmed by a named
> source in a position to know what he is talking about.
>
> From the CNN website:
> Former McCain aide speaks out on Times report
> Posted: 10:30 AM ET
>
> (CNN) -- Former McCain political adviser John Weaver confirms to CNN
> that he did approach lobbyist Vicki Iseman about eight years ago,
> during McCain's first presidential run, and told her she was
> threatening to undermine the heart of McCain's campaign - that he is a
> reformer.
>
> Weaver says he arranged the meeting with Iseman -- first reported by
> the New York Times -- out of concern that she was "telling people
> around town" she was getting access to, and had influence with, McCain
> that Weaver says she did not have.
> >
> -----
>
> So, do the seemingly impossible, prove you've got some integrity and
> admit you were wrong.

Please do; I'd love to see you show some integrity.

From the article:

..."she was "telling people around town" she was getting access to, and had
influence with, McCain that Weaver says she did not have."

IOW, Weaver told her to quit lying having access (and influence to and with)
McCain that she didn't have.

So, if she (according to Weaver) didn't have any special access to McCain,
and didn't have any influence with McCain,
then...........logically..........McCain's not being accused of anything.
Further, Weaver goes on to say "...he never talked to or asked Iseman about
any romantic relationship with McCain because "there was no reason to.""

So, there's no corruption accusation here, and there's no immorality
accusation here. The net of the Times article is that they are accurately
reporting that absolutely nothing happened that is newsworthy or impactual
on his candidacy.

Am I missing something? Is this like "National Treasure", where there's like
something written in code on the back of this story that you need special
glasses to see? (After all, this supposedly happened eight years ago....)

Or are the people who hate the GOP so blind with emotion that they can't
read english words placed on paper?

JG