२० फेब्रुवारी, २००८
"Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself..."
The NYT prints a big, bad story about John McCain.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८३ टिप्पण्या:
I can't get to the link, is it about Lindsey Graham?
Olbermann is salivating over the story.
He and the lady both deny anything happened...and it was eight years ago...and McCain is now 300 years old...zzzzzz....
Trooper York has the funniest line of the day. Perfect.
As hit pieces go, I give this one a C-. You'd think they could come up with something better than "it kind of looked like McCain did something dishonest 8 years ago".
Come on, guys. The man's a politician. There are real skeletons in that closet somewhere.
Ben (The Tiger) said...
Olbermann is salivating over the story.
Sir,
Olbermann does not salivate. He foams at the mouth like a rabid dog on steroids.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that the New York Times was trying to give their friend John McCain a hand with consolidating his base by publishing an unsourced story with whiskers on it.
Want to get the righties on-side -- pick a fight with the New York Times.
NYT is sitting on the real meat of the scandal; to be released next week.
It has to do with a witness to the whole shebang. Guy by the name of Van Winkle. His pals call him Rip.
Well, if you are into Machiaveli, you could also go with NYT sat on this story, endorsed McCain, got moderates to back him when he was down, waited until he had apparent lock on nomination, then released story. Not that they want to do anything but publish the news of course. Net result: get moderate as opposition, then reduce his chance of winning; either way - things move left.
But, if that's the best they've got . . .
Has the Times really been this nakedly partisan all along? Or have they just recently decided to drop all pretense?
As long as she contributes less than $2000 I don't see the problem.
They have more than just this.
Also, Drudge posted this in December.
Oh how sweet it is.
They're both denying the affair, but boy is she a dead ringer for a young Cindy McCain. Just sayin'.
yawn. Bill Clinton kinda lowered the bar for this sort of thing, didn't he? After all...even if it's true, it's "just sex" and "we're electing a president, not a pope!"
Oh, wait. I forgot. That only applies to Democrats.
As a republican I don't care about affairs that republicans have but if democrats have affairs I am furious.
patm -
Yeah Clinton sure got away with it.
I am surprised he can still get it up.
Things McCain probably did not say : You'd better put some ice on that.
Others salivating about this story are probably Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
But as they sing in West Side Story, "Play it Cool, Man".
What'd the Dems say re: WJC's pecadillos? "It is a private matter between consenting adults", I believe was the operative wording.
The NYT may have forgotten the precedent. Or it isn't an equal opportunity precedent...
Oooooh! Show tunes on American Idol night. Cool.
So...McCain was getting some on the sly when he was 63?
He deserves a(nother) medal, I'd say. Should play well with the 50+ male demographic.
Oh Trooper I was all excited but then I turned to it and it was the fish only singing.
I wanted to hear one of the guys sing from Chorus Line:
Who I am anyway?
Am I my resume?
God I need this job.
Yea Mccain was 63 and the lobbyist was 32-we all should hope for that opportunity at that age.
I hereby waive all royalties on the name "Levitragate" but you must credit me.
The non-denial denial.
"there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."
For that story, read 'The Keating 5 Affair' in the Times' archives!
I'm sorry -- this latest couldn't happen to a more deserving unprincipled scumbag.
BTW -- anybody else sense the hand of Huckabee manager Ed Rollins in all this? A dirty trickster from way back....
The NYT may have forgotten the precedent.
This is the same argument patm made, and it's absolutely bonkers. Why is the wingnut brain incapable of grasping that the Monica Lewinsky affair was a HUGE deal that was aggressively reported by the NYT as well as everybody else? In what universe did the "consenting adults" view dominate the public discourse?
If it's true, precedent argues for making a huge deal out of it, and not doing so would show a huge double standard in Republicans' favor.
Titus you should check it out next week when the guys sing. At least six of them play on your team. Your prespective would be very interesting. Who is fierce? Who is a pouser? Who is the favortie of the boys in the band?
Just hope that the single father with the Damien kid in the audience is eliminated. He scares the crap out of me.
"A dirty trickster from way back...."
Is it a dirty trick?
Sure looks like it to me. But it being teased or leaked on Drudge would have the scent of a campaign.
It being in the Times has the scent of it being the Times editorial staff.
There are 6 mos in American Idol this season?
Wow, how exciting.
Wouldn't it be something if the American Idol was a mo.
Wow, my people have really gone far in this country.
It becomes clear now:
Apparently TNR got wind of the story and was going to publish a story about how the New York Times spiked a story about a candidate they liked.
So the Times published.
Well, there are two ways to look at this.
Either these things are irrelevant, in which case all the Clinton (Bill) bashers should shut up.
Or they're not. In which case McCain should drop out.
I favor the first option.
Now, if only the NYT's top advisers could save the NYT from itself.
There's Mike Huckabee's Miracle!
The NYT may have forgotten the precedent.
The New York Times might have forgotten that they endorsed him.
Obviously voters should follow their lead, right?
wasn't enough to convince them...
And who did he have sex with?
Keating? That's the name that's most bantied about in the article...
"Either these things are irrelevant, in which case all the Clinton (Bill) bashers should shut up."
While "perjury" and "adultery" contain some of the same letters, they really aren't the same thing.
Well Crismo, I guess we just need to put McCain under oath, then.
An impeachment proceeding would do that. But the Democats are above such nonsense. That's a Republican ploy.
And an unpopular one at that.
A ridiculous, petty story.
But how could the McCain camp say this, "It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign."? Lowered its standards? Not possible.
DADvocate said...
A ridiculous, petty story.
To which the McCain people issued a non-denial denial.
Why is that, I wonder?
Well Crismo, I guess we just need to put McCain under oath, then.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear that McCain has raped or sexually harassed any women, and it is therefore unlikely that he will find himself in court defending against a sexual harassment suit. So his opportunities to lie under oath will probably be limited.
An impeachment proceeding would do that.
And what are you suggesting he be impeached for?
"Well Crismo, I guess we just need to put McCain under oath, then.
An impeachment proceeding would do that. But the Democats are above such nonsense. That's a Republican ploy.
And an unpopular one at that."
You want to impeach a Senator? Says a lot about your familiarity (or, more properly, lack thereof) with the concept of impeachment. Which would explain why you apparently favor "impeaching" people (Bush?) when there is no legal justification for doing so.
To which the McCain people issued a non-denial denial.
So steve *is* fstop. I was pretty sure that was the case.
Although I suppose there's an outside chance that two separate trolls misread the NYT article in the exact same way, then opted to use the exact same phrase in describing their misreading of it.
(hint: there's no actual accusation of wrongdoing in the Times story for McCain to "deny")
the Monica Lewinsky affair was a HUGE deal that was aggressively reported by the NYT
Only because Drudge forced their hand.
Once it was out, there was all this self-flagellation about whether they were doing the right thing by covering it wall-to-wall. (They weren't, but we don't get any introspection like that with this President. Anything they can do to take him down is righteous.)
Does anyone else recall a flood of nature/science type programs around the time of Mme. L that were all about how alpha males were essentially required to cheat as a biological imperative?
There was just a remarkable confluence of material on the subject, way more than the current fascination with killing the President. You couldn't go a week without some new special on human sexuality that justified infidelity.
WTF? I thought steve simels left this intellectual trainwreck of a blog.
Must be a different steve simels.
Not the famous pop music critic.
Wow! Smear Campaign
I watched an interview with an attroney by the name of Bennet, who investigated this whole affair for Congress when it broke, along with the Keating Five. He stated that John McCain was not only innocent, but was the most honest and truthful man he ever has known.
Mr. Bennet is an unabashed Democrat. He basically threw water on the whole story. According to him, it was a total non-issue then, as it should be now.
Now, let us revisit Whitewater, a real ethical, though not criminal, scandal that the Clintons made money on and got away with.
Mitt Romney is pacing through his house muttering "why me, why now, why me."
No one cares about McCain playing slap and tickle with another blonde, but if they were they were discussing telecom policy during foreplay.
That's a bad thing.
Mitt Romney is pacing through his house muttering "why me, why now, why me."
No one cares about McCain playing slap and tickle with another blonde, but if they were they were discussing telecom policy during foreplay.
That's a bad thing.
A lover's quarrel.
McCain lovers and Rockefeller Republicans, this is your fight,you got your wish -the NYT's favorite Republican - I'm sitting this one out.
To which the McCain people issued a non-denial denial.
So steve *is* fstop. I was pretty sure that was the case.
Although I suppose there's an outside chance that two separate trolls misread the NYT article in the exact same way, then opted to use the exact same phrase in describing their misreading of it.
Or he's megan mcardle subbing at instapundit:
"Update: The McCain campaign is apparently responding. It's a pretty wan non-denial denial, but I hear there's more substantive rebuttal to come. ...
posted at 10:24 PM by Megan McArdle"
It's a common enough phrase for a weasel word response.
G. Guest: Well Crismo, I guess we just need to put McCain under oath, then. An impeachment proceeding would do that. But the Democats are above such nonsense. That's a Republican ploy.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by such stupidity anymore. Clinton was testifying in a sexual discrimination case - he had a legal obligation to tell the truth regarding any other sexual relationships with subordinate employess. Paula Jones had a legal right to any evidence that established a history of predatory sexual behavior in the workplace.
Lying under oath and obstructing justice in a sexual harassment != having an affair.
Hey, Drudge just reported that McCain got a chubby the first time he met Betsy Ross. Does that count on the scandel meter or do we have to keep looking. I think he once got a reach around from Abigail Adams but we have to watch the HBO show to be sure.
McCain should take it as a blessing that the Times is accusing him of having affair... 1. affairs are for the young, and McCain needs more youth and 2) McCain will get more votes from being hated by the Times then he will lose from his youthful (age 63) affair.
I can't wait to hear about Obama and ......
I heard a few: Barackreaucracy - describes the greatly expanded socialist federal government that will be created under an Obama adminstration; and Obamanation...hmmm I wonder what that means
Charlie: What's 'accountable'? Is that like people eating people?
(Unfaithful 2002)
My view is that the timing is good, probably too good, for this story. This is the type of October Surprise that we could expect from the Clintons, and it is getting out early enough that come November it going to be really old news.
I wouldn't be surprised that a bit more McCain dirty laundry gets out in the next couple of months, so it too can be old by the time October comes around.
It's a common enough phrase for a weasel word response.
It was a reasonable response to a weaselly article. The NYT carefully avoided actually accusing McCain of improper behavior or of having an affair with the woman in question. Why? Simple: because they haven't got anything support the accusation.
But if the McCain campaign came right out and said "Senator McCain did not have sex with that woman", suddenly the NYT has a story. "McCain Denies Affair with Female Lobbyist" -- presto, a whispering campaign is magically transformed into a front-page story, all without the pesky need for reporters to find any actual evidence of wrongdoing. They're free to run articles about "the controversy" and how McCain has "denied the (conveniently nameless) accusations" for as long as they like.
If, on the other hand, McCain dismisses the article without responding to specific allegations nobody had the balls to actually make -- well, what have they got to write about? "McCain criticizes newspaper"?
From Bloom County:
Milo: Senator Bedfellow, we need your comment on a story we're running tomorrow.
Senator: What's the headline?
Milo: "Senator Bedfellow buried Jimmy Hoffa in duck pond."
Senator: What? I never did any such thing!
Milo: Fine, "Bedfellow denies pond is where he buried Hoffa."
Senator: I don't know where Hoffa is!
Milo: "I lost the body, says Senator Bedfellow..."
Hw ahould take the Hillary Clinotn approach. Cackle. "oh, come on, now. that was investigated years ago. We should be talking about universal pre-natal pre-school."
You couldn't go a week without some new special on human sexuality that justified infidelity.
And cable television kept cycling The American President. As if Clinton were just a lonely widower searching for a soulmate...
..which gave us this priceless gem from the mind of Hollywood:
President Andrew Shepard: "You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns."
Really Mr, President? You're going to go door to door and do what exactly? Will you be bringing Janet Reno and her CS gas and M1 tanks along with you?
And I'll never forget how my rhetoric professor, a feminist, responded after Clinton waved his finger at us on national television: "Is the President's private sex life any of our bussiness?" she asked the class. Ironically, just before she went over the Strawman fallacy....
If this is the best they got, McCain is gonna sail through. On the other hand, I wonder what goodies will be revealed about the new Mesiah?
He's awfully young, charismatic and handsome to not have had a few "close relationships" over the years. Has he bonded with anyone?
This is going to be fun to watch.
I'll bet you that Hillary is secretly wishing it was Bill in that story. God knows she needs a bit more sympathy........NOW MORE THAN EVER!
The appearance of impropriety?
Isn't there a book about that?
I'm trying to understand this: the NYT endorsed John McCain, apparently knowing this alleged skeleton in his closet. And having endorsed McCain, they release the story NOW? He has the nomination secured. If this story had one scintilla of substance they would have waited until the Thursday before the general election to publish it.
This story is a steaming pile of fecal matter and provides continuing evidence that the NYT is descending in well deserved obscurity.
might i suggest that you all take a larger view of this?
yes drudge ran with this a few months ago but that is drudge and no one gives him much credibility.
now the times comes out with it but without a goodly amount of specifics. but as the right wing on here is always happy to point out re: bill clinton - "once - always"...so what the times did was toss out a sufficient number of bread crumbs for the blogosphere and the investigative types to track down in detail. actually there are no secrets anymore and if there is something here it will come out and if there is more out there it will come out as well. and of course, if not, not.
my honest opinion is that the guy is wound up tighter than a 10 day clock.
if there is something here it will come out
Apparently, that will require reporters, serious investigation, actual findings, and an editor. Hmmmm, I wonder where we can find one?
Well, until then, we'll have to be satisfied with rumors and innuendo by the NYTimes.
Senator McCain was once seen vacillating on the Senate floor!
Four New York Times reporters found out that eight years ago McCain may or may not have been overly personally close to a lobbyist to the point of causing dismay among his media handlers. They then disclosed that 20 years ago McCain was involved in a scandal that everyone knows about. They then disclose that McCain raises money for his political campaigns and that lobbyists hang around politicians.
I guess the Times doesn't have Guiliani to kick around any more.
Pogo: it is rumored that McCain was observed matriculating at the Naval Academy in the presence of 3000 other midshipment. (As an historical reference, this line of attack came out of the 1952 Florida senate race involving George Smathers and Claude Pepper.)
Indeed. And he has even been caught masticating in public restaurants.
Hdhouse said:
"might i suggest that you all take a larger view of this? "
Sure hdhouse - keep wishing the NYT and the MSM are oh so clever and smart. Those days are gone buddy. You can find 50 commenters on this blog alone who are smarter and better informed than your average NYT/ MSM reporter (aka stenographer).
Pogo:
I remember well the first time I masticated in public. How about you?
Yes. And although I still find it a secret thrill, when I am found out to be a masticator, I am filled with shame, even more so when discovered in flagrante deglutition.
I remember when I was in grammar school and I wanted Mary Ann Moginili to watch me masticate at lunch time, but she said she was a thespian and didn’t need to watch me act out to gain approval. What a letdown
I posted the comment below on Ann's "Intapundit" post today, but then realized that here is where all the real McCain-bashing is going on, so ...
This seems like small potatoes compared to the story that while a POW in Vietnam McCain was so helpful to the Vietnamese that he was set up with an apartment in town replete with hookers. See http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3068/2/
Then you have the old story about why Ross Perot distrusts and dislikes the guy profoundly. See http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827
Seems like John McCain might have more in common with John Kerry than he'd care to admit.
This kind of baggage and basis for feelings of profound guilt do seem to offer some psychological explanation for McCain's apparent fetish with "integrity" and the appearance of integrity.
Jeez I never realized this blog was so full of other masticaters!
Makes me question if I should stick around. Will have to chew on this awhile.
Hey the masticating is no big deal. But I first matriculated when I was in grammar school. What a mess. Very embarrassing. And the dry cleaning bills.
Trooper:
Dry cleaning bills ? Don't you know you should leave those things for Linda Tripp or the grand jury!
I know, I know, but in Catholic school you had to have a completely clean uniform down to the blazer and the bow tie. Otherwise you got slapped upside your head by Brother Diocletian the dean of discipline.
Yea Mccain was 63 and the lobbyist was 32-we all should hope for that opportunity at that age.
You hope. I'm simply planning on it. In fact, it looks like I'm booked through 67.
while a POW in Vietnam McCain was so helpful to the Vietnamese that he was set up with an apartment in town replete with hookers.
Don't forget the story that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. I mean, so long as we're talking about bullshit stories that conflict with all the available evidence and testimony, why stop with hookers? :)
Is it a bullshit story that conflicts with all the available evidence and testimony? Admittedly, I'm not a McCain scholar. I just read the story to which I provided the URL. I'm not really invested in this, but can you direct me to the evidence and testimony which demonstrates that the story is bullshit?
I'm not really invested in this, but can you direct me to the evidence and testimony which demonstrates that the story is bullshit?
Yes, I can.
Will I bother to? Of course not. I don't feed the trolls.
Revenant,
You are truly full of crap sometimes. I'm not a troll, ass, by any standard definition of the word. You assume I brought up what seemed to me an interesting story because I'm an Obama or Hillary supporter? Do I uncritically believe the story's claim that the CIA has records that a former translator working for the Soviets in Vietnam says could be very embarrassing to McCain is necessarily true? No, of course not. But I think that your claim to be aware of evidence and testimony that contradicts the story's claim is utter bullshit.
Ooo, look at me, I'm Revenant, I'm a "regular Althouse commenter." I look down my badly-in-need-of-a-Kleenex-nose at irregular commenters making irregular comments.
Ass.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा