The New York Times has a rather shocking article regarding John McCain and a female lobbyist. The concerns about McCain are two fold:

1.)Did John McCain lobby on behalf of the lobbyist's client inappropriately?

2.)There are insinuations that McCain and the lobbyist were moer than "just friends.?

Questions for debate:

1.)What evidence is there that suggests McCain did or did not go to bat inappropriately for the woman's employer?

2.)Is McCain telling the truth about his personal life and relationship with this woman?

3.)Is this a "drive by" news article from the NYT? Should they be ashamed of themselves? Why or why not?

What evidence is there that suggests McCain did or did not go to bat inappropriately for the woman's employer?
The word of hand wringing political handlers, I guess. Odd that they came forward (anonymously of course) to naysay McCain.

Is McCain telling the truth about his personal life and relationship with this woman?
I don't know. More importantly, I don't care.

Amend that to I don't care any more/less than every other corruption case or inappropriate arrangements (i.e. campaign bribes) between lobbyists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Is this a "drive by" news article from the NYT? Should they be ashamed of themselves? Why or why not?
It's only worthy if any potential corruption could make Duke Cunningham blush in his cell. I heard today Democrats/liberals are way more comfortable living together, while Republicans/conservatives couples are overwhelmingly married. Who is the NYT writing this article for? Is it trying to shock some normative social shame into its readership through political outrage or somethin'?

1.)What evidence is there that suggests McCain did or did not go to bat inappropriately for the woman's employer?

This is what I've read from
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_...mccain_lobbyist


You be the judge.

2.)Is McCain telling the truth about his personal life and relationship with this woman?

Mostly, probably, meaning not totally. There's snow on the roof but still a fire in the hearth, apparently. At least he wasn't assuming a "wide stance" in Minnesota airport men's room.

3.)Is this a "drive by" news article from the NYT? Should they be ashamed of themselves? Why or why not?

The story was sat on a little too long to be accurately characterized as a "drive by" or "hit and run" news article. I see it as fortuitous for Mike Huckabee whose righteous supporters will see it as one more sign that McCain shouldn't be the nominee. But at that, this news report would have been far more damaging to McCain a few weeks ago. Some editor cut him some slack.

1.)Did John McCain lobby on behalf of the lobbyist's client inappropriately?

I could care less what John McCain, or anyone else did or wanted to do with his penis or whatever. We had enough of this damnable crap with Ken Starr's endless investigations.

The more important question is whether or not he moved things in the Senate in favor of this particular lobbyist.

I'm not sure we know enough to answer that, yet.

For now, I'm willing to give any benefit-of-the-doubt necessary to McCain, though I'll still be supporting Barack Obama.

Don't get me wrong. I really don't care if McCain was on the verge of scoring some extramarital pleasure or was just visibly attracted to this lobbyist--I still like that skirt-chaser Bill Clinton, but not for his bad behavior.

Whether he acted unethically due to the influence of this woman, I don't know. What exactly constitutes ethical behavior when acceding to the wishes of a lobbyist?

I will not be voting for McCain for a number of positions he's taking politically. So, there you go: those of us who won't be voting for Senator McCain still won't be voting for Senator McCain.

It was, however, smart of McCain's people to intervene lest there be another brouhaha about "dress stains."

Who cares? Is the NYT still in business?

I like the idea that McCain can still perform at his age... gives me hope!

The important thing here is that the NYT had this story sitting around when they ENDORSED McCain!

There are a lot of named sources who have refuted this bit of fluff for nearly a decade yet the NYT runs the story with two unnamed sources? They wonder why no one trusts them or buys their paper.

Feh. Let Jayson Blair be the EiC and be done with the farce.

Hey! Where'd all the Republicans go?

Nobody but Democrats, liberals and independents have posted in this thread so far. Why hasn't John McCain's base of support weighed in?

That was eight years ago, so even if he could "perform" then, how do you know he can now. That said, why is it anybody's damned business?

Are you so audacious that you would deny me the change of hope?

I don't care one way or the other BA.

As the saying goes in Texas, "this makes my ... wanna dip snuff."

A thought just occurred to me. As nasty as George W. Bush and Karl Rove were to McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary, I'm surprise they didn't throw this into the slime mix they prepared for him. If the allegations are true, perhaps the Bush people didn't know about them.

The fact is that I don't want the campaign to get bogged down in this reeking pile of feces.

Shame on the NYT for publishing it, and the intimations of an affair are particularly over-the-top for a supposed serious newspaper. Unsourced rumors, published as news. Given the time lag from relevance to publishing, and their own apparent decline in journalistic standards, I trust that they will be publishing the "Hillary has an affair with her aide" story sometime in 2015.

I listened to Bob Bennett debunk this pretty thoroughly this morning. There is no "there" there, which means the only explanation is a hit piece, I guess. There were numerous examples of McCain acting against the lobbyist's interests, but for some reason they didn't make the multi-thousand-word story. I guess they didn't fit the narrative.

Who specifically are you referring to? I don't know of many that have come out in support for McCain, if any at all. This thread from the beginning just seems to be a place for those that like to spin anything against the right. I can't speak on behalf of anyone else, but to me this seems to be a good place for those that want to sit around and blame the right for just about anything or to try to smear anyone with an R behind his name to congregate. In fact you simply posing the question shows intent on nothing really that constructive. You all can have all the fun you want.


Wouldn't this story fit more with the thread inventor started Commentator, editor, reporter, columnist, journalist, pundit, pundit vs journalist where is the line?

But isn't that always the case? When it looked like Kerry was winning, the Swift Boaters were there to put the kybosh to that. It isn't the issues, after all, that a candidate should be accepted or rejected for; it is the character issues of the past. And after all, isn't the past more important than a candidate's position on current issues?

Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

I assume you are responding to something I posted, but can't be sure. If so, I could almost see your point if I had taken any position defending attack ads. Which I have not. I could also almost see your point if this story was a campaign ad. Which it isn't. This article is supposed to be a journalist reporting something newsworthy that is factual. Not entirely sure it is. So, with that said, I stand by my position that nothing in this thread is set up for debate, only to instigate a back and forth along partisan lines with no substance eventually being closed due to not being on topic or the debate turning personal. Like I said, you all can have fun with it.

We're all over in the other thread bashing Obama...



The "Swift Boaters" had people that served with Kerry who were willing to come forward with their opinions of the man. This "story" has anonymous sources.

True or not, this happened 8 years ago. How come it didn't come out then? Or four years ago when McCain was the media darling? Or two months ago before McCain all but sewed up the nomination?

The former "newspaper of record" has jumped the shark with an unsourced non-story. It has also turned on the man that it endorsed just a short time ago. Dozens of conservative pundits predicted that the media would turn on McCain and they're all claiming that they're right and it has come to pass.

There is nothing here but allegations and innuendo. Give me some sources and I'll check into them.

Not all the people who served with Kerry chose to pile up on him with the so-called Swift Boaters. And you're right: it was a blatant, orchestrated effort of (Re)publican-leaning veterans with an ax to grind to impugn the integrity of a fellow veteran. Yes, there is a difference in that regard.

However, the principle remains: If you can't win on issues or policies, get down and dirty. Make the other guy look like a bastard or a libertine. Soil their character as best you can, anything to win.

After all, didn't the Bush (Re)publicans use a smear campaign against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000? Of course Karl Rove won't come forward and own up to it, but some higher-up in the Bush campaign organization felt it necessary to say that

1) John McCain was never "quite right" after his prisoner of war experience
2) John McCain had an illegitimate black child
3) Some allegation against McCain's wife

So, as I said, it hurts when the shoe is on the other foot.

This election is supposed to be about issues that affect the path our country takes for the next four years. What we decide will directly or indirectly affect every one of us, and the rest of the world. Why are we wasting our time not focusing on the issues?

Well, you have proven my point. This thread is set up for partisan bashing, not debating. You have only made the point that if the Republicans can do it, so can the Democrats. This proves my point.

*Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding*, you WIN the toaster, scubatim!

Except--if there's more to the story. We'll see. And wouldn't it be deliciously ironic to find that one of Huckabee's supporters, not a Democrat, was instrumental in this story coming to light?

Feel free to focus on 'the issues' by all means! As for (some of) the Swift Boat guys, at least they had the guts to put their names on their claims, something which can't be said for the sources in the Times story. If it were on-topic, I'd be tempted to ask you which of their ads were false - Christmas in Cambodia, throwing medals over the fence, or the one that quoted Kerry's own words regarding Genghis Khan, etc. But I would never do that, as I want to stay on topic.

Can I please ask about the provenance and meaning of "(Re)publicans" - I have never seen this before. Are you hinting that Republicans are really pub-owners, or warmed-over-publicans, or what? I try to stay out of the name calling as a rule.

If there were more to the story, why hide it from the story?

What point is made with the Huckabee supporter bringing anything to light? I don't follow.

Yeah, guts and MONEY! It was a good thing these Swift Boaters in particular were well-heeled enough (and could that be because they solicited contributions from people who weren't swift-boaters? Of course it was!)

(There were blatant abuses that took place in Vietnam during the war that the U.S. is still loathe to admit to. There have been documentaries on T.V. where survivors were interviewed about what one force, Delta Force, did to a village of non-combatants. I have seen slides of collections of ears taken from the Viet Cong dead that GI's still proudly keep. There was barbarity, not just on the part of the enemy, that was taking place in Vietnam. And speaking of guts (not real smart, but gutsy), John Kerry decided to speak to a Congressional sub-committee about it because he believed something needed to be said. And if he threw medals over a fence, only to retrieve them later, so freakin' what? They were his to do with as he pleased. It was a gesture.)

I will be glad to explain my use of the term (Re)publican. So many fellow posters who are of the GOP persuasion refer to things Democratic as the Democrat candidate or the Democrat debate or the Democrat plan. They would suggest to those of us who take umbrage at the misrepresentation of the name that it is petty--after all, it's just two letters.

In deference to those (Re)publicans whom I respect, and especially to those (Re)publicans who do not denigrate the name of the other party, I have decided to keep intact the name "Republican," but to place parentheses around two of the letters of the name as a gentle reminder that two letters do matter.

2.) Even the woman's company is saying she was a model employee and a valuable asset who would not do something so stupid. I really don't think so many people would be coming out to deny any inappropriate activity took place if it did.

3.) The National Enquirer wouldn't publish the article. They should be ashamed for picking it up, certainly.

NY Times' Washington Bureau chief Dean Banquet was the managing editor of the LA Times who sprung the groping story on Schwartzenegger just before the California gubernatorial election. His comment afterwards - That's one of the proudest moments for me as managing editor of the paper. It was a hell of a story. It was a great story."

Dean Baquet is the bureau chief, and does not have his name among the many in the byline (of a story that took place all over his Washington beat). I don't have time to find others, but his election-eve stories smearing republican candidates fit a pattern. I don't know about the other reporters, but Jim Rutenberg is pretty biased to the left as I recall.

on edit -
Re: guts and money - again, the "swift boat veterans" ran 3 ads, all of which were accurate. Kerry (I have the hat to this day!) had to retract his statement about spending Christmas in Cambodia due to one of them. You apparently see how honorable his testimony was, while some who served with him disagree. They ran ads. Kerry's testimony and your point(our soldiers in Vietnam often behaved like monsters) received more than a fair bit of coverage in movies, books, television and popular culture for 30 years, so I don't understand why the ad is so objectionable.

(re:)publicans - ok, then. whatever floats your boat. As I said, I try to stay away from that sort of thing.

You threw essentially the same line at me yesterday, so it seems l to be a stock answer.


But on to today's thread.

If you will look, I have taken McCain's position both times I have posted. I don't want to see people do to him what Kenneth Starr did to Bill Clinton. I don't want the race to devolve into what Rovian influences did to McCain in South Carolina or what those same sources, disguised as Swift Boat Veterans, did to John Kerry in 2004.

I'm currently watching Tucker on MSNBC.

Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain campaign advisor, is saying that the story had been killed twice by the New York Times, and that it was when the New Republic was going to run the story that the New York Times decided to run it. They didn't want to be scooped.


It just isn't your cause.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I don't think McCain did anything wrong.

I think this is going to be fodder for some Late Night Television programs. I can't wait to hear what Leno has to say about journalistic integrity and the bastion of truth The New York Times has continued to be. Typically, media outlets don't want to be scooped on true stories and not unfounded character assassination.

Whoops--I was quoted before the edit went through.

What was that you said about one-liners?

3.)Is this a "drive by" news article from the NYT? Should they be ashamed of themselves? Why or why not?

If by "drive by" you mean that people died on a sidewalk in front of a barber shop, they didn't. It's a small flap at the start of the general election that will be hopelessly buried beneath mountainous archives of gaffes, "moments," and sudden turns in the months to come. If the NYTimes wanted to attack McCain they would have sat on this until october, in between now and which, maybe they'd have more to run on.

The problem is not that the NY Times piece was accusatory, or an attack or what-have-you. Instead, it was one of the most muddled, over-lawyered, disjointed pieces of press I have ever read.

If you read the story again -- rather than take the accounts of it secondhand -- it basically says the following:

First... John McCain transformed his political career after the Keating 5 incident, turning himself into an anti-corruption, anti-lobbyist warrior.

Then... He got so wrapped up in the mantle of being an anti-lobbyist politician that he overlooked his questionably close relationship with a lobbyist.

So there;s two stories here:

Either John McCain had sexual relations with this women, in which case her profession is really besides the point.

Or his non-sexual, fraternal relationship with her was questionable on the grounds that she was a lobbyist.

That's all, that's the beef of the piece. IMO, it hardly even merits front page coverage, and it sure took them a lot of hedged, germanic clauses to make that case.

Buuuuut... let's acknowledge a few things:

McCain is a media darling. Here we have an "attack" piece that reads like a minor love ballad to the anti-lobbyist maverick.

Two, the backlash! Can you imagine another candidate who, after being implicated as an adulterer, would be able to turn the story around back onto the messenger who printed it.

Three, McCain did divorce his first wife a month before he married his second. So, we have here all the makings of a 'character problem,' which is a thinly-veiled political buzzword for "trite, stupid scandal."

Four, the NY Times should have settled on one angle for the piece. You can feel different news-writers/editors leading this piece in different direction.

Five, the idea that the NYTimes is out to sink McCain should be discredited. In this case, it was the editor who wanted to snuff the piece, and the reporters who wanted to pursue it. The paper, in this case, is largely incidental. This isn't an example of an editor sending a reporter out to find out some dirt on Rudolph Giuliani.... this is a great example of a reporter who hears som gossip, gets a lead, follows up on it, and spends the next few months trying to convince his editors he's got something biiiig.

Finally, this is the kind of piece McCain -- and Obama -- can look forward to seeing more of. When you set the bar high, you tempt journalists to point out your shortcomings. Look for more pieces that go: "[Obama/McCain] has made campaign finance reform a hallmark of his campaign but, oh wait... look at his [tax record, donor list, relations with a female lobbyist (or Chicago political fixer), etc.].

That's how it is.

Sure, if you take one sentence out of a whole post you can make anything into a one liner.

Nice try, but I don't think very many people are going to buy it.

BTW: Here's a link to my whole post, which you just chopped up with your cursor.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=238364

Edited to add:

Before accusing someone of starting threads for partisan bashing, you should look for the "Best Topic Creator" in last year's awards.

Best of 2006-2007 Awards

Baphomet's Advocate



Off topic



The editorial page and the investigative reporters are in different departments. Besides that, the other candidates weren't exactly star material.

Baphomet's Advocate:


In regards to the affair matter, you would perhaps be right. However, did he go to bat for the client of the lobbyist? Why did he write two letters to the FCC which earned him a rebuke from the FCC head? Would you have someone tell a judge or a committee to hear a matter about you to hurry it up?


Amlord:


The timing allegation can't be taken seriously. The Times investigation only began in November. Since that time, a series of meetings with McCain's attorney, Bob Bennett was held and questions were fielded. On top of that, three drafts of the report were created as thed editor and the reporters had a huge disagreement. He won in that they had to tamp down the affair stuff a bit, and were asked to focus more on the lobbyist item. If anything, they held on to it as demonstrated by the above facts and an e-mail released today from TNR:


Source.


Quite frankly, I'm bothered by the arguments that the article is "unsourced" according to critics. Anonymous doesn't mean unsourced. As a matter of fact, the editor had information corroborated by others before he ran with the report that the reporters came up with. Furthermore,

Source

Labeling the Times as "liberal" isn't good enough. If they were in the wrong, then they should be sued. The Times says they have the evidence to publish the piece, which puzzles me as to why a politician I heard on the radio would say it is "unsourced." He needs to get his facts right or McCain needs to file a tort. Not doing so will tell me that to some degree, the story has credence.




The first question is more than fair and questions 2 and 3 off-set each other. Responses will either be "yes-no" or "no-yes" according to a person's politics. If being "partisan" is to point out what two sources with corrobaration have stated to reporters, and if acting unduly to influence a regulatory decision is "partisan," then I would say that being "partisan" is a good thing. This is a debate board, not a hallowed ground where a given candidate or issue is given quarter. Use facts about sources or whether or not undue influence was used and run with it. Provide hyperlinks, not one-liner humorous anecdotes and appeals to "fairness."

I would hasten to add for those who are convinced that this was a Democratic plot of some sort:
How could it possibly benefit the Democrats?

Hillary Clinton is struggling to win the Texas primary and, quite frankly, needs to be on the airwaves right now.

Those who are supporting Barack Obama or are leaning that way probably wouldn't vote for John McCain and his hawkish policies anyway.

If there must be somebody to benefit from publishing this story, it would be someone who 1) does not want McCain to be the (Re)publican nominee and/or 2) somebody who will be remunerated for services rendered.

Please don't be too quick to blame it on the Democrats.

Three things jump out at me when I re-read this article.

First, the poor writing style. How many sentences began with "But...". Sloppy, especially for an article that was reviewed multiple times.

Next, the in-depth description of the Keating Five. The Keating Five incident is background, not pertinent to the story about an inappropriate relationship (or was it an unethical one?) with a lobbyist.

Third and probably the most curious: the continuous use of the words "Mr. McCain" in reference to Senator John McCain. Almost every reference is "Mr." and not the more proper "Senator McCain" or "the Senator".

Even when referencing the McCain campaign's response:


Curious.

I'm not sure it's so curious. I could see the writer wanting to say "Mr. McCain" instead of "Senator McCain" so that his presidential run isn't deemphasized.

Amlord, I can tell you don't read the times very much.





I agree. Like I said, this story was written with 3 reporters, at least 2 editors, and 10 different opinions about where this piece should go. It was disjointed, and lawyered to death, meaning meticulously phrased so as to not get sued.



I thought the Keating Five incident was the whole point of thestory. To me, this story was a bit of a bio, a story on how McCain was revived -- or was he?



It's standard AP style to give presidents, world leaders, and prime ministers the Mr. or Mrs. honorary. The Times extends that title to presidential hopefuls. Here's a quote from another story from today's times:



You're reading too much into this one, I think.

Indeed.




Perhaps you would be kind enough to read the Times guidelines for using anonymous sources, and explain why these are relevant then. If sources can't be named for a decades-old story, I'm sorry, but you don't have a story. And again, this is relevant in 2008 why exactly?

You should have been around the board when Mark Foley was putting the moves on male congressional pages, scubatim. We really had fun with that one.

Do you always go off on hissy fits when someone says something even slightly impolite about The Right? Does your knee jerk much? Don't suspect every topic regarding the possible follies and foibles of conservative Republicans as an excuse to bash them mercilessly.

When it comes to contributing, "nothing really that constructive" I'll have to settle for second best. You've got first place all to yourself, scubatim.

To the issue at hand, I don't care one little bit who John McCain may have shared pillow talk with eight years ago. If he was trading his influence in exchange for greasing the wheels for a lobbyist, that's another matter completely.

At present, all it seems is a bit of sloppy journalism by The New York Times. Maybe it's just another reason why newspapers are dying on the vine.

Disposing of the questions for debate first with all the words they warrant.....

1.)What evidence is there that suggests McCain did or did not go to bat inappropriately for the woman's employer?

None. McCain opposed at least 12 bills (according to Robert Bennet) that would have benefitted this woman's clients.



2.)Is McCain telling the truth about his personal life and relationship with this woman?

Yes


3.)Is this a "drive by" news article from the NYT? Should they be ashamed of themselves? Why or why not?



It's a pretty typical hit piece by this liberal fishwrap. Crappy journalism to say the least, and typical stupidity from the NYT.

But, it is useful I think in the grand scheme of things for McCain supporters, of which I am now one. Despite some of the hysterical rants from the left here and elsewhere about so-called "Republican Dirty tricks", the Democrats have that listed in their resume as an artform. McCain is going to get hammered in this election by the left. He will have to endure viscous personal attacks on him, his wife and his family. That's the way those "kind hearted" ole Democrats play the game, and St. Obama ain't no different than any of the others. This stupid article is just the pre-season, and tune-up for the McCain campaign going into the fall. I was interested to see how John McCain handled this and quite frankly, I was pretty impressed. It was a measured response born of the truth of the matter (see Bob Bennett's response on the Today Show). John McCain is a lot of things, old, white and male, and he's also tougher than hell. He proved that in his time as a POW. Anyone who thinks some sort of manufactured "scandal" by some liberal rag is going to phase him doesn't know John McCain very well.

So fire away folks, get in your jollies while you can. And.......

Just wait until our side opens up on Barack Obama.

Keeping the powder dry for now.

Sincerely,
Aquilla

The Times uses anonymous sources, they are just more careful as to how often they use them and set up a criteria where the information is checked.

Source.




Well, there is definitely a discrepancy betwen the "reformer" and the "reformer" who wrote two letters to a board inappropriately.



Howard Kurtz WaPo article.

Aquilla


Labels and political slander aside, what evidence is there that suggests they rushed the publication of this material? Did they not meet with Bennett and conference with him a number of times? Did they not re-write the story as the editor was awfully picky with the reporters? Once again, look at the quoted portion in my last post. They have these two guys and corroboration from other sources that check out. McCain's efforts on behalf of the company to speed up the process was ethical and legit?


Source.

For all of those who want to suggest the NYT is trying to do a hit job on McCain, please remember a few weeks ago that same "liberal fishwrap" endorsed the very same guy they're now accused of trying to kneecap.

I know John McCain very well. I know he represents the status quo. I know he represents another 100 years of occupation and slow death in Iraq. I know as the country slides into recession the thought of letting someone who says they don't know much about the economy should scare the hell out of voters.

I know John McCain is "old, White and male" and so are the people you see show up at his events. When Obama and Clinton hold rallies it looks like America. When McCain holds rallies it looks like cocktail hour at a private country club.

I know John McCain can't win without the help of the far-right wing hit squads, propaganda talk radio, 527 swift-boat groups and the same slimy, sleazy tactics straight out of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove polarizing playbook.

I know it's damn funny the same guy who whines about "vicious personal attacks" against John McCain can can barely contain his gleeful anticipation of "our side opening up on Barack Obama."

But then that's how Republicans win these days. Wrap yourself in the flag, try to scare the living hell out of the voters that the terrorists will kill them if they vote Democratic and don't be afraid to appeal to bigotry if that's what it takes. Since John McCain has a lifetime record of seven percent in voting for civil rights and voted against the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, he's well positioned to play the race card against Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

If the choice comes down between Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton versus John McCain, I like the chances of either the first woman or the first Black man raising their right hand to take the oath of office in January 2009.

If Americans are happy with the past eight years of Bush, McCain will be more of the same. Maybe he'll pick your boy, Slow-Walkin' Fred Thompson as his vice-president (if he can wake him up).

The choice has rarely been as stark as it will be this November. Oh yeah. Let's go. Let's take it to the stage.

It is not unusual at all for a member of Congress to inquire on a citizen/company's behalf into the workings of the bureaucracy and attempt to get them to move on something. I myself have had to contact my congressman, a Democrat who I never gave a dime of money to about some problems I was having with the Social Security Administration. His office contacted them and asked them to speed up the process and they did. They probably weren't thrilled about getting called out by a congressman to actually do their job, but oh well. Too bad, so sad and hardly unethical.

On to NT's talking points.......



I don't know Barack Obama. How much does he know about the economy? Has he claimed to be an economic expert, or has he talked about it at all, other than to raise taxes?



Oh please....



Like the folks that planted this story in the NYT?



There won't be any need to make personal attacks against Obama. The McCain campaign can beat him on his record, or lack of same alone. He's a big time tax and spend liberal. Check out his record. Never saw a tax he didn't like, or a tax cut he did.



The only one here playing the race card is you. Not unusual.

As is the rest of your trash talk. It's going to take more than pretty talk and Oprah to win this election. At some point, Obama's going to have to define himself on the actual issues and then the American people will see him for the classic 1970's liberal that he is. Some agent of change he is alright.......

Aquilla

How dare you try and inject truth and reasoning into the news media's reporting.

It's a rather bogus story because so much evidence has been coming out suggesting no hanky-panky occured. It's just good old-fashioned mud-slinging. There is no blue dress in this case.

OK then. Here is the "attribution" from the article.

I must have missed where they tersely stated their reasons for granting immunity to people who worked on a campaign 8 years ago. But I sure have an idea - These journalists are lazy, and they like juicy gossip, and they lack standards. The sad thing about the Times is that it goes all the way to the top. Their public editor is thrilled to be discussing this on the news all over the place, even as their stock continues to sink to all-time depths.

Perhaps you can tell me exactly how "they are just more careful as to how often they use them," and provide me some evidence that they have "set up a criteria where the information is checked."

People who actually went on the record said things like this -



More importantly, I think it was destined that the "Maverick" John McCain would have problems with someone named "Iseman." It was foretold in Top Gun.

1) It is all there in writing--he wrote a letter asking the FCC to expedite a ruling; not a ruling for or against the lobbyist's client, just a ruling of some kind. I have asked my Congressman to do the same thing. That is what constituents go to their Congressmen for--help.

2) Both McCain and the lobbyist deny any sexual relationship, and former McCain staffer Weaver, the source of the story, said today that the issue was not about a sexual relationship but about the appearance of an improper lobbying relationship. Weaver says he told the lady to quick acting as if she had some special pull with McCain when talking to her clients, as this could harm McCain's 2000 campaign.

3) This story makes the NYT looks like the DNC shill that it is....Now I know the NYT endorsed McC, but since the only other R's left in the race are Paul and Huck--both of whom the NYT would say are certifiably insane--I wouldn't let that endorsement get in the way of what the NYT was really doing here.

Congressman indicted in Ariz. land deal




and from ABC news 2nd McCain Official to Face Federal Charges


Yep Obama has Renzi and Clinton has...well She is a Clinton after all

Unfortunately for McCain his history is just full of questionable relationships with Lobbyists going back to the Keating 5.

Just goes to show experience doesn't mean much and Obama may be the smartest of them all by running for POTUS before he also is tempted by the plentiful easy money and gifts gains too much "experience" as well.

Wow. This is the most vacant piece of garbage that I have read from you NT. No facts, lots of misrepresentations, and a handful of lies.

You don't know McCain well, much less very well.

Trying to tie maverick John McCain to the status quo is going to be a tough putt my friend. Other than the fact that he falls into the category of Republican, I would love to know what you base this on.

100 years of occupation is going to be the "say it enough times and it becomes true line for this election" for McCain's enemies. John McCain's exact words were "maybe 100." He is saying that as long as US lives are not being lost, no is going to take serious issue with a US presence to keep Iraq stable. Has the 50+ years in Germany and South Korea caused an uproar? Do you think that we should have risked Communist expansion and pulled out after 10 years? Your line is intellectually dishonest.

Scare tactics on the economy and another misrepresentation of McCain. McCain did say the economy wasn't his strong suit. Compared to national security it isn't. And the record on predicting recessions is about 1 in 20.

"old, white guy" - we've gone over this and you know this is just poor form.

I know that you're rooting for your guy, but don't let your zeal toss any credibility that you have out the window man.

I'm with you, lets have this debate. Lets debate a small government budget hawk and where that will lead America vs a big government $840 billion in new spending promises to date already advocate and where that will lead America. Does America need the medicine that your guy is selling? Start it up man.

There's nothing wrong with using anonymous sources if the editors accept the criticism to get the story out first. That knife cuts both ways.

Choked up McCain supporters didn't have a problem, I'm sure, when the NYT published stories in support of Iraq's invasion using anonymous administration officials. They'll never come to Obama's defense for the Moonie-owned conservative magazine, Insight, using anonymous sources that started the whole "Obama is a Muslim" rumor or Fox News dutifully picking up the unsourced story and running with it.

Obama is #1 on Fox's very unbiased, totally non-poll pushing question: "Who do you think terrorist leader Usama bin Laden wants to win the presidential election?" (pdf, p. 11)

But it turned out that Obama did attend a madrassa when he was 6-years-old, you might protest. Okay, what's your problem with the NYT McCain story, then? Some of it may turn out to be true, and failing libel, that's "good" enough reason to publish the story using anonymous sources.

I wouldn't use anon sources unless I could collaborate what they say with someone willing to come forward and say yes, that anon source is right. However the NYT gets more flak for doing what hundreds of other dailys do, including McClatchy Washington Bureau, which I respect, because more people read the former. Ergo Aquilla's "typical stupidity" prognosis.

Call it envy.


Toodles.

This is a story where all the facts aren't yet known, but will be revelead with the passing of time. I'm personally keeping a score card and I have it down 1-0 WaPo after reading this morning's WaPo article proving a dissonance between McCain and the head of the lobbyist's employer over whether or not McCain met with him before writing the letters to the FCC. He says it didn't happen and the WaPo disagreed. Guess who the Paxson CEO said was right?, that's right-the WaPo.



So, is this unsubstantiated liberal slander and gossip?

Okay- riddle me this- I don't give a whoop if he was bumpin' uglies- so that is not part of this debate to me at all. I would like a McCain supporter to answer these, because, really, I haven't made up my mind on it- I always thought of him as a bit of a republican maverick, that occasionally is a bit too cozy with bad guys- such as the keating 5, and the new indictees as other posters have shown

1) Did McCain send some letters that earned him a rebuke? If yes- that is the keating 5 all over again- it doesn't show unethical behavior to me- it shows that he CONTINUES to show horrible judgement in regards to business special interests. Agreed?

2) Is he not happy with lobbyists- or is he cool with them? I mean, Renzi now, and, on top of that, the 'retreat" with all the lobbyists.

I have to say one thing watching the news reports tonight and watching the rallyes- NT is dead nuts on when he talks about the makeup of the campaign speech attendees.

first off- Obama has had the largest cross section of audience members, that numbered 30k at the last rally according to NBC, than I have ever seen in my lifetime.

While McCain's audiences are OVERWHELMINGLY white and middle aged. I was scanning the crowd as the shots during a McCain rally- yep, like it or not- McCain's followers looked like an all white country club gathering, with a token here or there.

Not that I think for ONE MINUTE that he is even REMOTELY racist- and in fact, GW smeared him for having a brown baby-

but his supporters ARE NOT a cross section of America, not from what I have seen.

Take heart- neither is Billary's!