A lesson for John McCain Update: McCain responds– “It’s not true;” Update: TNR reports on the “constipated” NYT
Scroll down for updates…
If you lie down with MSM dogs, you wake up with stories like this.
***
Allah’s got the latest involving the McCain camp’s claim that The New Republic pressured the NYTimes to run the story.
Dogs. Fleas. Karma.
***
Parting thought number one: Instead of dredging up old news, maybe the National Fishwrap of Record could have actually broken fresh ground and pursued the George Soros-open borders-Reform Institute angle. The Reform Institute is mentioned in the NYT article, but only in the context of rehashing past reports on the think tank collecting “hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee” and paying the salaries of key McCain aide Rick Davis.
Parting thought number two: Maybe McCain will really mean it now when he jokes about the “jerks from the media.”
***
2/21 9:37am Eastern. McCain holds a press conference this morning to respond to the NYT: “It’s not true.”
John McCain denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is “not true.”
“I’m very disappointed in the article. It’s not true,” the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood alongside him during a news conference called to address the matter.
McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.
The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to stay away from McCain.
Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about Iseman.
McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation.
Here’s more on the political advantages of going to war with the NYT.
Here’s the vid of McCain’s press conference. He seems unusually subdued:
More reax from conservatives here.
Update 2:15pm Eastern. TNR –not exactly in the best position to be wagging its finger at anyone else about poor jounalism, but I digress–runs its story behind the NYT’s thin, recycled story. My favorite paragraph:
Inside the Times newsroom, the Drudge item sent the McCain piece into hiding, making it both tightly guarded and “a topic of conversation,” as one staffer put it. “The fact that it ended up on Drudge pushed it into secrecy,” added another staffer. “The paper gets constipated on these things,” a veteran former Times staffer said, describing the editors’ deliberations over whether to run the piece.
I find it amusing that the paper had constipation–and then ended up with diarrhea all over its front page.
***
Allah’s got the best summation: “They got a tip in November, threw four reporters at it, couldn’t substantiate the affair with anything sturdier than hearsay, then dithered about whether to spike it or toss it out there. The compromise solution: Bury it at the end of a long rehash of McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five, to give it some heft by association.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Bob Bennett dumps on the Times’s hit piece on McCain
- The Underground Conservative | They gave him (political) life, they can take it away
- JammieWearingFool
- Don Surber » Blog Archive » Sex is private, 2008
- Editorial: The New York Times John McCain Story – Cheap Political Journalism « Wayward Fundamentalist Christian
- The McCain Mutiny » McCain Relationship Story: Latest Details
- Rhymes With Right
- NY Times Endorses McCain, Then Slanders Him « Out West
- Another Rovian Conspiracy Against McCain
- GOP 2008: Welch & Wilkinson talk McCain [Karl]
- Outside The Beltway | OTB
- Pirate's Cove
- Liberty Pundit
- Reformed Hippie
- This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » McCain’s MSM Honeymoon Ends
- The TIW Blog » Blog Archive » The Straight-D1CK Express! NY Times Turns on McCain
- This was predictable
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » NY Times Slimes McCain
- Michelle Malkin » Snort-worthy NYTimes quote of the day
- AmericanPapist
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » I will never vote for McCain, but this political smearing by the NYT is inexcusable
- Neocon News
- The McCain Affair « Axis of Right
- Oblogatory Anecdotes - New Jerk Times
- New Jerk Times | news
- how to play hte game
- hit job « the stories of our lives
Looks like Frank Rich is having his hissy fit du jour.
Disgusting. National Enquirer has more credibility today than the New York Slimes.
I was expecting and waiting for this. Just wait for all the other stories that this one only hinted at: Keeting 5, age, temper, leaving his first wife after she became a cripple (not necessarily cause of it), foul mouth, all the anti-conservative moves (feingold, gang of 14, on and on); what else am I missing? You won’t see one bad story about B.O. though. He is a demi-god, after all. What about his wife, the goddess. Idols to the godless.
Media darling no more. Like we all couldn’t see this coming from ten miles away.
First the prop him up and he’s the media darling.
Now it’s time to “take him down”.
Yep, the MSM helped the weak candidate win and then immediately turned on him…what a surprize….NOT!
The Times leaked initial word of this “scandal” in December yet endorsed McCain just before Super Tuesday, and only dropped this bomb with his nomination nearly in the bag. They have always played carrot and stick with him.
McCain ought to bar their reporters from his campaign, order his media folks to end all communications with them, and personally stop talking altogether to the Times, Bill Keller included.
They haven’t been reporting on the women passing out at McCain rallies, though. Of course, it’s because their O2 tanks run out before McC can get out his 50th “my friends,” utterance, but that’s beside the point.
Still wouldn’t stop the Old
GayGrey Lady from publishing stories. Who needs access to facts when you have “anonymous sources within the campaign”?Does this mean the NYT takes back its McCain endorsement?
Or, don’t they have egg (or fish) on their face for so recently endorsing someone worthy of a story like this?
I’m sure they won’t see it that way.
I hope those who have supported McCain learn a lesson from this.This is what happens when you let the MSM and pundits on tv pick your candidate for you by flashing national matchup polls every ten minutes telling you the only chance republicans have to win is McCain.McCain a man who is at odds with his base,has been in Washington for decades,doesn’t come off well on tv,doesn’t speak well on the stump or debate well for that matter.
We had a decent candidate before it was too late in Mitt Romney but the flock followed the media and the Ny Times and all the other big papers and nominated McCain.Mitt Romney had Kris Kobach for immigration issues on his team McCain has Juan Hernandez looks like that would have told someone something but I guess not.
McCain will lose in November of that you can be sure of and republicans will have no one to blame but themseleves.The media and the democrats got the candidate they wanted to run against no matter what the democratic pundits said on tv they wanted McCain.
They figured it’s a change election so maybe we can get the republicans to nominate a ancient inside the beltway senator like McCain.Now the media who adored him compared to Romney will chew him up and spit him out!
PTN 39, you are 100% correct. Also, if you recall, the DEMOCRAT pundits were the ones teling us that MCCain is the only one who can beat Hill or BO. I never understood republicans listening to what dems have to say. Well, I hope we don’t lose in Nov., but many people I know, including myself, do not have plans to support McCain at this time and don’t know if he will do anything to change many minds. I guess it is ALL up to him now, hte ball is in IS court.
The MSM is playing a game of political bowling - they set McCain up to knock him down.
They have dredged up matters from 20 years ago, reporting them in a manner that sounds like they happened last week.
This is only the beginning.
Dewey wins election!
Who won the pool? with the MSM attack today on McCain? ( i had next week)
Yeah, it didn’t take Claire Voiyant to see this one coming. They helped get the guy the nod so they could unload on a weak Republican.
I do disagree with one thing RealImmigrantChick said, however: whether or not you see any bad stories about Obama depends on how close Clinton is to him come convention time.
Remember: to the NYT and most other MSM, the Clintons are their gods. It won’t matter that Obama might be black, nor that he simply ran a better campaign. They will turn on him in a second if their chick has a shot.
Like Rush L. and Laura I. said, it was only a matter of time:
McCain played to the MSM when he took on that stupid and destructive “maverick” role, believing that he could make his big move with the MSM supporting and loving his penchant for screwing over the conservative base.
I thought the MSM would at least wait until the nomination was officially settled. I had that one wrong.
Now that he’s pretty well unofficially wrapped up the nomination, the MSM will trash him, shred him, draw him, quarter him and throw him under the nearest bus to ensure that the Democrat nominee (whichever it turns out to be) wins the election.
The Keating Five scandal is going to get rehashed, as is the newly-discovered “relationship” (ha! they’ve been saving this one) with the lobbyist, all his temper tantrums and expletive-laced outbursts, his divorce from his first wife to marry the rich heiress, and whatever else there is in his background - it is all going to be dragged out and hung up on the line for public viewing and digestion.
So, yes, Michelle, you pretty much hit it right on the head about what comes from sleeping with the wrong dogs. But I thought from the beginning that McCain was a terrible chioce for a candidate and I could not believe his sudden rise to prominence (helped in large part by his good friends in the MSM).
Pretty quickly Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Mitt Romney are going to look like good “electable” candidates, as America watches the MSM butcher McCain.
But it’s rather too late for us now, isn’t it.
What I’m hoping for is a Pres. McCain that listens to conservative advisers.
I fully realize that for the time being there’s no choice, McCain has to attract moderates and Democrats so he’s not going to act tough even if he wanted to.
I’m not happy but I don’t know what else to do.
A Truman style Democrat or a totalitarian Socialist, some choice.
However, there is a lot of time between now and the time the Dems figure out what they are doing in which he could clear the air on a lot of this stuff if he is smart.
Off topic. I see our Navy boys shot down the satellite which gives us another moment to be proud of our country Michelle Obama likely does not share with us.
Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain. Move along…nothing to see here.
I’ve maintained all along that McCain is Ted Kennedy in a different colored suit.
Same political insider, dishonest, business-as-usual garbage, power-hungry politics.
It’s why Obama is polling ahead of him and Hitlary: people are sick of status quo politicians, and are looking for something different: even if they don’t have a clue what “different” encompasses.
At the risk of being politically incorrect and tactless, our Republic would be a helluva lot better off if McCain were still in a bamboo cage somewhere in Viet Nam. At least he couldn’t take the best country in the world into Hell from there. Gutless, pandering, puke.
Talk about voter disenfranchisement. I honestly don’t care who wins the POTUS. They’re all abysmal.
Is it possible that a write-in could win this thing?
God, I hope so…
They only loved him because 1) Conservatives don’t and 2) They hated all the other candidates, except Ron Paul.
Now that he’s running against Obama (or Hillary, maybe), he’s back to being an Evil Republican(tm) that must be stopped at all costs.
I thought I’d puke when Bob Bennett, Democrat, and McCain lawyer for Keating 5, got on H&C and discussed with Sean about HOW can you ever “get your good name back” after one of these SMEAR JOBS - talking about the man who stands there on stage with the woman he committed adultery with on his first wife.
I bet THAT lady is puking right now.
I bet the MSM have doznes of these stories ready like they did for Gary Hart - and are waiting for him to form his own Bimbo Eruption Committee to work with his Truth Squad.
Well, the GOP went into THIS with eyes wide open, knowing the winning margin of the party was most vehemently opposed and screaming “Shades of Robert Dole” all the way.
They all knew what they were in for when they deliberately did it on purpose.
I am going to vote for Romney in the Texas Primary.
That the drain dream media turned on him (And they have not even gotten started yet) is not a surprise.
What is a surprise and should be a dramatic wake-up call for all of us is that due to the influence of the media and the apathy of a large portion of Americans
1) The media can play such an active role in politics
2) We have three pseudo-wannabe-socialist candidates running for office
3) We cannot get a real conservative to the election this cycle
4) Even if we did have a true conservative running against these pseudo-socialists, it would still be a close race.
Those are some scary thoughts to me at least.
It’s not a hit, IMHO. Get it out early and it’s over with. I do have to say the the NYT is a rag for doing so.
It ain’t as if he has CHANGED. Not for the BETTER, least ways. Or paid for past misdeeds.
OR, EARNED the forgiveness that goes with such a powerful promotion.
There are some proverbs about the things that are set in motion when a man of lesser character is promoted to positions above his capacity to weild the power with the graciousness and dignity and wisdom the new position requires.
Like these, for example:
Proverbs 30:21 For three [things] the earth is disquieted, and for four [which] it cannot bear:
Proverbs 30:22 For a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat;
Proverbs 30:23 For an odious [woman] when she is married; and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress.
It don’t work that way for a creature who isn’t wearing The Union Label, “Democrat”.
RINOS don’t get that pass - since they ain’t depending on the same Socialists for approval.
You can walk him right up to the November Elections, and keep on telling yourself how fine he looks, the whole long way.
weekend at bernies.
NYT: Why not print this story about McCain, Soros, and Feingold???
Read it all here.
Just got through reading Ann Coulter’s column regarding the parctical results of current campaign finance laws.
That would of course be McCain Feingold Thompson.
I will not vote for McCain.
Serves. Him. Right!
He thot he could get a bump from his MSM friends and instead, he’s going to die by 10 thousand papercuts between now & Nov.
He’s always welcome to put on the sackcloth and do the Prodigal Son bit for conservatives. However, he is dead wrong if he thinks he can get the WH w/o us. I’m sorta hoping he does stay the course. Between this and Obama preparing to jump the shark, this really opens the door for a 3rd party candidate and I don’t mean Mike Bloomberg.
Whoah Whoah Whoah!
Hold on a minute here…
“Bob Bennett was just on Fox and lambasted the NYT, saying he investigated McCain for the Senate Ethics Committee. He found him to be ethical.”
Who the heck does he think he’s kidding here? Has everyone forgotten who this guy is? Bob Bennett? Mr. “Paula Jones is Gold-Digging White Trailer Trash out to ‘get’ my poor innocent client President Clinton” lawyer? Who’s brilliant idea was it to take this ambulance chaser’s word on who is ethical and who isn’t???
Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. If it is true, I have no sympathy for McCain, in spite of the long-standing bias of the Times & similar publications. It seems like we are in the process of witnessing a 180 degree turn by talk-show hosts now — they are going through contortions thinking of reasons to support McCain; one major talk show commentator and guests basically spent the whole show giving backhanded support to McCain. If it is backhanded now, it will become fronthanded very soon. Other ‘conservatives’ are spending their time solely attacking Obama, and by implication supporting McCain. It will get much worse, but if we forget the years of McCain;s liberalism, we deserve to be played like fools by McCain, because that is what we are. I will not vote for him, and in spite of all the commentators and newly converted talk show hosts, millions of other people won’t either. Maye we will get someone better next time.
Is this why poster Rusty wants journelist immuned from the law. Rusty says that journelist should be above the law on reporting their ilk and op/ed.
Now we look at a Presidential campaign that has for the most part been run and edited by the MSM. Leaving out the people (us) in haveing a say on who we would like to have as our candidate.
I wonder if historians will label this as the election of the news , by the news, and for the news reporters.
Ombre Rose said:
I’m shocked, totally shocked!
Would that be the same Mitt Romney I backed and whose endorsement appears here?
Just asking.
We all knew this day would come. Anyone who has spent that much time in DC is probably tainted. And this is only the opening salvo.
The question is, “Do we really care?”
Let’s face it. There are only a few differences between the democrat candidates and McCain. So, does it really matter if the Liberal Dominated Media go after McCain now?
PTN 39 Thank You, Well said.. Perfect.
Sorry also post # 11
Many of us that live in AZ tried to wake the rest of the country up about McCain for the past year … but no one listened and got on board for the other candidates that were much more acceptable options for conservatives in general … well … you reap what you sow … the time has come to harvest McCain and move forward with what we have left …
The best we can hope for is that Hillary stays close enough to BO so that neither of them goes to the Dem-o-crap convention with enough delegates to win outright …
That will result in the Clintons calling in all their IOUs from the Super Delegates and getting the state delegates re-seated from MI and FL in Hill’s column thus effectively stealing the nomination and voiding the will of the voters on that side of the aisle …
This will cause (1) all the BO supporters to take a new look at how they were duped and (2) the minority voters to finally realize how they have been taken for a ride, taken for granted, and used as pawns for at least the last half century by the Dems …
Result … Hill vs. McCain … the unrest on the Dem side results in an massive Hill loss and we get rid of the Clintons … (finally … well … at least until they push Chelsea out there)
Ummm, no. If you have an (R) after your name, you get stories like this.
McCain must suspend his campaign immediately and have the nomination decided at the convention for the good of the country.
We’ll see how McNasty performs at his press conference this morning.
I really hate to say I toldja so…
But…
And this is ONLY the beginning, folks….
ONLY the beginning.
And, worst part….,
most of it will be true.
Oh, and for those of you who’ve been accusing those of us predicting a McCain landslide loss, saying we were “crystal ball gazers”….
THIS is ONE reason you don’t need no stinking crystal ball to see the HANDWRITING ON THE WALL!!!
I’ll be voting and caucusing for Barack Obama on March the 4th…doing the Texas Two-Step for the weakest of the Dimocrate nominees…
since the GOP has dialed-in a Dimocrate victory this election.
You all just fall into line, there…support your party’s nominee.
Oh, and stop all that complaining.
Who do you think you are, anyhow?
You’ve been told by your betters that McCain is a true conservative, and a straight-talking man we can alll be proud of…
That’s not a scandal.
THIS is a scandal.
The quadriennial mudslinging season has yet to really begin.
We’re just getting started.
Ummm, no…
If you did it, in character with your entire political history….,
you get stories like this.
The Keating Five was not a British pop group from the 60s…
And your point is…?
Everybody knew all along that as soon as the Republican nominee became apparent that the lib media would begin their attack.
And do you really believe for one moment that Romney would’ve somehow been immune to this fact of life?
I haven’t had the opportunity to vote in the primary “race” yet; but when the time comes I’ll vote for McCain for what it’s worth. And you know what? No, the media won’t have brainwashed or hypnotized me into it.
Lefties in their parochialism tend to believe that anyone who doesn’t do or think the way they do must either be a dupe or evil incarnate. How is it much if at all different to claim that somehow “the media” picked McCain when those who opposed him couldn’t stop him?
Some people are wandering perilously close to a “truther” mindset here.
Anyway, consider this NYT story to be the opening salvo in what will become a rolling barrage of “MSM” pot-shots at the Republican nominee, which will go to full power as soon as the donkey nominee is chosen. Those who hate McCain may savor the moment in knowing that he’s getting his just reward for playing up to the media, but don’t fool yourselves for an instant that any other Republican would somehow have been spared.
Those whose candidacy lives by the liberal media sword will die by it.
The party is over Mr. “Maverick” McCain. And for establishment republicans everywhere, not to exclude Michael Medved: how stupid could you have been?
President George H.W. Bush got stories like this…nothing’s new under the sun. Sorry, but this makes me want to circle the wagons, not look at the speck in someone else’s eye, that I may disagree with on some issues, when that speck is planted there gleefully by the likes of the NY Times & Crazy Keith Olbermann.
Lover, I love you, babe, but you are wrong here, IMNHO.
Kennedy, Kerry, …LOTS of the big guns in the Socialist Party are FIRMLY behind BO.
If the Clintons try the nonsense they’ve signaled they WANT to try, the powers in the Dimocrate party will step in to settle their hash.
You’ve got to remember, Dimocrates know how to march in lock-step. They practice it every day. NOBODY is going to threaten to break their power blocks and succeed.
The Clintons are very good at dirty politics, but they SURE aren’t the only players in that party who know the game, and Kennedy could still give them lessons. Then there are players like Soros…
king-makers, dude…
and he’s already signaled that Hillary is not leftist enough for his money…
(pun intended).
The worst part is the story is VERY LIKELY true.
It certainly is in character.
And that, friends on this thread, is what separates McCain from Romney…one of MANY things…and others the GOP SHOULD have nominated, instead of this switch-hitting, corrupt, and character-challenged geezer.
I am so glad the MSM has made all of our decisions for us this election cycle. After all we unwashed uneducated moronic plebian dogs couldn’t possible make an informed decision for ourselves. I am still waiting for my shot at venting my displeasure with the Idaho Republican Caucus in May. It is open to all that show up since a party affiliation block was not available when I registered to vote in my county. No one I know is very happy with the prospect of Senator McNasty as selected conservative candidate (typing that made me want to hurl) and the MSM flipping on him (as predicted) just makes it more apparent this guy has too many issues to be an effective POTUS. I am still sticking with my “none of the above” vote this election cycle for POTUS to concentrate on sending conservatives to the House and Senate. The only way we can mitigate any damage any of the POTUS choices being crammed down our throats will do is to retake the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government.
Mantra for NYT’s
“Shock and Blah”
I think the question that remains to be asked is:
If a dog lays with McCain, will the dog wake with flees?
The Republicans in DC betrayed the base and the result may be a Dem in the WH. Then, we will have a lot more dog/flee stories to contend with.
Perhaps…
but for sure the dog will wake up with lobbyist money and
old man smell…
this one has no legs. won’t even be an issue in a few weeks. seems it’s only riled us up.
romney, huckabee, fred, guiliani, tancredo lost to mccain because they were weaker candidates. they ran weaker campaigns. we need to face it. if there was a groundswell for tom tancredo it would have happened. there was no media conspiracy, no liberal conspiracy, no soros conspiracy. get over it, hold your nose and vote mccain.
if you don’t, you can enjoy your four years of ideological purity, but i believe you’re every bit the traitor as code pink.
Well, Rags. I suppose this is what separates Romney supporters like you from Romney supporters like me.
1. I don’t believe everything I read in the New York Times.
2. I’m living in the third quarter of this game. If fear you are still in the first quarter.
3. I don’t take my ball and go home just because I wasn’t picked first for the sandlot game.
4. The enemy for whom I’m saving my fire is Clint♂n/Oh!b♥m♥ not McCain.
While nobody is perfect…
that is a piece of perfect idiocy.
It’s February and our primary is 2 mos away. Will write in Romney.
Me neither. I also don’t knee-jerk to disbelief. You have some…according to my lights…good indicators that this story has truth to it. Not the least of which is the man’s PROVEN, KNOWN character for everything it alleges.
TRUE OR FALSE
I’m pretty good at puzzles, but you lost me there, pard. I’m in my fifties…been to the circus and seen the elephant…on any number of levels…
You are a wonderful human being. With absolutely no sense of proportion, if that is how you see this.
I see this nomination…or the history of the GOP for about the last decade…as a fundamental betrayal of the trust and support I’ve invested in these stinkers.
AGREE OR DISAGREE
Certainly your right. My enemy is ideas. There isn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between these people’s ideas and predictable actions in office (NOT what they say to get elected), and McCain would be the most effective of the three. I consider him the most dangerous to my ideals and values.
My right.
if we let Obama take this, why stop there? why not spray paint the local recruiting center or stop a troop supply train. while you’re at it spit on a wounded veteran. you’ll still have that smug satisfaction that you’re a “true conservative”
Listening now to McCain stumble his way through presser questions.
I’m remembering back to the debate with Romney when he ‘gloated’ about the NYT endorsing him.
Now…smearing the NYT over this “endorsement”.
They built him up, just to knock him down.
We already did.
I don’t know who will “win” in November. But I can look around me and see the signs, and draw conclusions on them.
But conservatives already lost.
And so has McCain, if I am any judge.
But…if I’m wrong…and McCain wins…
the conservative movement will be damaged more seriously than most of you here can seem to grasp.
This was predicted and predictable. The MSM loved McCain only as long as he was tweaking the noses of Republicans.
Talk about reaping what you have sown - this election cycle we all will suffer because all three possible Presidents, The Beast, The Empty Suit and The Cranky Old White Man are all bad for our Country and our Constitution.
We must work to elect real conservatives in the House and Senate. The best we can hope for is 4 years of gridlock. That is, if we can actually elect enough conservatives who have spines and the guts to fight back against socialism and bigger government.
I haven’t changed my values or beliefs in conservatism. The Republican Party as represented by GWB and now McNasty is not what I signed on for, and as an ideological concept it has pretty much left me.
I’m sure I’d get laughed out of any Republican gathering if I asked about ‘limited Federal government’, ‘lower taxes and spending’, and about government not being the solution but the problem, much less about obeying our Constitution.
I am wondering about this. At what point can the Republicans completely reject the results of the primaries. After all they are an independant institution. Lets say he gets convicted of some crime between now and the convention. Certainly the Republicans would still not be obligated to run a criminal. Seems to be at any point the party can change with good enough reason who its candidate is. And of course McCain could always resign.
I have to question the timing of the NYT hit piece. It’s interesting that when McCain pretty much has the Republican nomination in the bag, they decide to turn on him. It’s really ironic that the same paper who endorsed him is now tearing him down.
As to the meat of the allegations: when I read the article all I saw was innuendo and libelous accusations. If the lobbyist in question had been a man would there have been any fuss? If anything, this article proves that perhaps lobbyists are getting too cozy with our polticians.
What is even more interesting is this happened after McCain and Clinton started to raise questions about Obama. Heaven forbid if the Messiah himself fell off his pedestal. This NYT slander is what I’ve come to expect from this paper. No wonder their circulation has gone down and they’re firing their staff.
What’s the encore… Moveon.org recycling McCain’s bomb, bomb Iran parody? Can’t wait…..
And the general behind you may be so busy making deals with this enemy, that after the election only we are the losers.
Well, we could go buy each other a drink after we left…
I had seen this last night on Fox News and noted on another thread how quickly the MSM turned on The Maverick.
I suspect there is some hope that it will take eyes away from the not-so-proud Michelle Obama.
I had heard on Hannity & Colmes last night that The New Republic had pressured the NYT to run with it.
Do Foer and his cronies at TNR really have that kind of clout that they can pressure the “National Fishwrap of Record” to run a story or is that just a ruse to make it look like they didn’t really want to run it but their hand was force?
McCain is learning the hard way that he has no liberal friends. The New York Slimes and its minions are going to do anything to make sure BHO or Billary get to the W.H.
Does McCain think he needs the conservative base now?
How about talk radio and the loud people?
Ummmm…not when you have people who you sourced the info from, it isn’t innuendo.
A perfect defense for libel is that what you said is true.
Larry Craig ring any bells…??? (I know…there’s a very bad, sick pun in there somewhere)
CEEEE RRipes, lady, where have you been?!?!?
That’s the whole pretext for taking away free speech under Mc FREAKING Cain—
Feingold!
and the backstabbing begins….
I find it telling that so many people here are willing to eagerly buy into a story — from a blatantly biased paper — that is filled with unnamed sources, allegations, vague hints and the rest of the weasel-worded BS so common to MSM hit pieces.
If the Times had dissed Romney, the infant “conservative,” for manicuring his fingernails, all of you would have risen up in righteous wrath.
I’m also surprised that the NYT bothered. Why not report on the attributable comments of MM, Rash Limbaugh and the rest of the so-called conservative pundits who have done a more effective job of dynamiting McCain than the Times could do on its own?
How much “damage to the conservative movement” is done by the “movement” itself? When total ideological purity is demanded and, when not forthcoming, results in attacks of a viciousness even the Clinton machine can’t match, why would anyone seek the “support” of the rabid righties?
This is the ultimate folly of true believers. They are willing — eager — to hand the nation over to one of two Democrats, each of whom has skeletons in their closets that elevate McCain to choirboy status, out of simple spite.
To me, McCain was well down the list when it comes to an “ideal” candidate. But the same “conservative pundits” who are now so snarky about McCain torpedoed Tancredo, Hunter and, to some extent, Thompson because they weren’t sufficiently “visible” (or in Thompson’s case, “energetic”)or “electable.”
Remember that Obama was “unknown” until quite recently. But a considerable number of people in his party rallied behind him. They didn’t spend their energies trashing him.
Congratulations. You lovers of the “conservative movement” have virtually guaranteed its destruction. Once the Marxist/socialist state establishes itself, there will be no room for conservatism.
Not me, shooter. But, I didn’t miss it by too much. I was expecting it to be another couple of weeks.
NYT to conservative blogs: hey kid, here’s a couple knives, go play in traffic.
Blogosphere: Sure thing, honest reporters that we hate but secretly suck up to allatime, we’re dumb rednecks.
NYT: We thought so too.
John McCain: Who’s got my balls?
Obama: Change!!!
Clinton: Caccckklee!
Unca Willie: Hey John, wanna borrow some?
You conservatives willing to vote for McCain, know this. He hates you more than he hates the NYT.
jeez, if I only had a dollar every time we predicted the media would turn on their darling as soon as he had the nomination wrapped up…….
“So-called” conservatives? You mean like George Will or Rick Santorum? Those “so-called” conservatives?
You mean the “total ideological purity” of demanding that a Republican Presidential nominee has not…oh, say…TWICE flirted with being a DIMOCRATE in the last ten years? That kind of “total ideological purity”?
OK, Binky, put up or shut up.
Give us an example of an attack rivaling a Clintonian assault.
I can give you one by McCain…
but you first.
Why is anybody surprised that four reporters would try to slime John McCain? Remember we are talking about a relentlessly liberal newspaper that makes no separation between editorials and news. None. Just look at the Times MidEast reporting. Deborah Sontag, a far left wing reporter, was given the Times Israel beat. She referred to supporters of Israel as being “psychotic” and did so on the pages of the NY Times Magazine. Christopher Hedges, another far left antiIsrael activist, was also given the Israel beat. He accused Israel of taking Palestinian children to a sand dune where the Israelis put silencers on rifles and according to Hedges, the Israelis then killed the children “as if they were dogs”. One problem with Hedges reportage: You can’t use silencers on the rifles he said the Israelis used. Hedges gave a commencement address at a college and he was so antiAmerican that the students heckled him and booed him.
And only last week, the Times reporter refused to call the terrorist Mughniyeh anything other than “the famously elusive militant”. According to the Times murdering 241 sleeping US marines is not terrorism because that would be judgmental. Then the Times treated Mughniyeh like he was a Lebanese Austin Powers, an international man of mystery. So why be surprised that the Times Slimed McCain. The Times already had prepared for Romney and they had articles already ready about how Romeny lived like a king while supposedly laying off working class moms.
Thank goodness for the NYT. Some of you might have had to go another week or two before you could utter those pathetic words,”I told you so,I told you so”. The NYT is not fit to wrap fish in, but gee whiz, we’ll read it and give it credibility when it serves our purpose. Then there is #11 and #37 with the good old “let this be a lesson to you”. We could have had Mitt or Tom or Duncan or Fred or even “never was a war worth fighting” Ron. But no, you idiots had to exercise your constitutional freedoms, haul your ashes out of bed, and vote for McCain just like Wolfe Blitzer and David Broder told you to do as part of their vast media conspiracy.
I had my opportunity to vote and it was not for McCain but I don’t think the millions that did vote for him are stupid, dupes, or sheep. More voters chose him than the other guys. That’s the way our system works. Go ahead, teach those idiots a lesson. Vote the Green Party or the Libertarians or the Socialists or not at all. Write in Ronald Reagan or Abe Lincoln and then hunker down in your bunker and swallow the crap that will come out of Barack and Michelle or Bill and Hillary for the next eight years. Don’t kid yourselves, these people will not be ousted after one term. Crawl out in 2016 and if you are lucky there will still be some pieces to pick up.
If you truly believe that there is “no difference” between McCain, Clinton, or Obama then you haven’t looked hard enough. Keep whining, then live with a Code Pink parking space under the south portico, Soros in the Lincoln bedroom, and the reflecting pool as a designated “foot bath”. David Gregory will do the presidential briefings and Alcee Hastings will sit on the Supreme Court. But it will have been worth it to teach those stupes an object lesson.
Maybe you know what you’re talking about…
but I have to have you tell me what kind of rifles those are.
Mr.Scribbler, are you seriously, no serious, are you calling MCCain are conservative? You think he is the leader of the conservatives? I guess we will find that one out in November, won’t we. Some of us, what you call imatures, actually think getting rid of libs like MCCain will save conservatism. Conservatism comes from the word conserve, to maintain the same, conserve values, ideas and principles, NOT from the word PROGRESS, which McCAin is doing, pushing REPUBLICANS (not the same as conservatives so don’t mistake the 2, PPPLEASE) to PROGRESS. No thanks. As to your claim that MM and Rush, etc. savaged McCAin somehow, how are the FACTS about someone an attack. I don’t know if this story is true, but I do know that McCain left his first wife, after she became a CRIPPLE, to mary this younger rich woman. The reason may not be the cripling, but as a divorce attorney, I saw examples of that, and the man usually claimed some other reasons for the divorce, SURE. I think actions of a person, such as prior acts of infidelity/adultery, are quite telling as to future behavior. Also, the Washington Post has a NAMED source, one of McCain’s former people. McCain did not address that cahrge, ust clained he was UNAWARE of the conversation. That is a pathetic answer from soneone who wants to be President and who had time to prepare a response. He should have known all the facts about the issue before he went out there and opened his mouth. Come on, this is basic stuff. If I went to court and gave such a non-answer to a judge, my client will suffer for it. Now, let’s see what other stories will start coming out about this man. Let’s see how he handles himslelf; this press conference he gave sounds defensive, not very impressive, not a good start. But many of us warned about exactly this type of stuff.
Rags:
OH MY GOD you’re talking to me? I can’t believe it. Let me bow down before your “sainted greatness!” Has your grasp of history improved since the last time we conversed?
We all know how you feel about McCain. Stop trying to turn me into some naive devotee of his… but I love your typecasting, you should really work for Hollywood. I’ve always known McCain for the RINO that he will perpetually be… not the perfect conservative that you think he should be. If anything, your gleeful reception of this hit piece this morning is evidence enough of the sanctimony of “perfect conservatives.”
How are “annonymous sources” suddenly legitimate ones? How does this non-story have anything to do with Larry Craig? Slow down your thought train ’cause you’re going off the rails.
McCain was not the candidate I originally backed. Rudy and then Romney were. I voted for Rudy in the NY Primary, not McCain. Unfortunately, as another poster pointed out, there was no groundswell for candidates that conservatives backed. Cripes, honey, I guess there are some of us “conservatives” (that’s right I need to put that term in quotes since in your estimation I no longer am one) would like to get the WHOLE STORY instead of the latest gossip from oh, 8-9 years ago.
What’s truly appalling is your reaction and strategy for this election. Have fun caucusing for Obama… perhaps when some of the dimocrats rub off on you, McCain will be more acceptable to you. I like how you assert that my “betters” as you put have chosen a candidate for me as has the media. I did my best to vote for another candidate that was not McCain, it didnt’ work out.
No, no, your gleeful reaction was expected… and your strategy of magic eight ball forecasting hasn’t changed much. Don’t forget to kiss Obama’s feet for all of us… perhaps he’ll perform a miracle for you and Ombre and heal that rampant bitterness swelling up inside of you both.
As Rusty said yesterday, journalists need to be above the law. That would make all misinformation (anonymous leads) okay. Truth would be irrelevant.
Hannibal, our vote is still our own last time I checked. So we will vote as we decide. Do you think we are stupid for that? Frankly, I could care less what you or others think. I have never been peer pressured in my life and I am not about to start now. Again, if scare tactics really worked, John Kerry will be president now. So, MCcain will lose because the fear his supporters try to cause in conservatives (boooo it is BO, it is Hildabeast), simply, frankly is not a very good motivator. Give us ideas, actions on MCCain’s behalf, something to counter his history of liberalism. Enough of the scare tactics.
My feeling is that this is a bid to distract attention from the faltering Clinton campaign. The Times was holding this in reserve, either for a mid-summer release or for whenever Hillary called them to run the story.
Think about it. Have you seen stories about the Clinton campaign since this “story” broke?
And the ones that decided the elections in open primaries weren’t even Republicans.
But, hey, don’t let that bother you.
After all, the people have spoken, right?
Shut up…get in line…pull the lever…
I think I’ll just politely decline, commissar…
and I will crawl out in four, or eight, or sixteen years…
after fighting every way I can for my “rabid rightie” ideals.
Remember, folks…
we got the Reagan Revolution and the Contract With America on those ideals.
They got the first GOP majority in both houses in forever, and Republican Presidents in most elections since WWII…on those ideals and ideas.
But, hey, those are extreme views now…
the GOP doesn’t need its brains and backbone anymore.
We have Bipartisan Johnny. Our friend.
I think the truth has been considered a relative issue by the MSM for a long time, Soap. What you and I may consider “the truth” is not necessarily what the MSM sees as such.
Whooops…
sorry, weak moment.
But your post reminded me of why I have to wish you a very pleasant day now…
Bye, dear.
ragspierre (#78):
Perhaps I should have written “so-called pundits of conservatism.” I was referring to those named, as well as Levin, Hannity and talkers/bloggers of similar stripe who have used the Chinese Water Torture to erode what chance McCain had to win in November one drip at a time. Just read through MM’s John McCain entries….
You always demand proof; it’s your response to anything you don’t agree with. Why not hold the NYT to the same standard? In fact, if you want to go that route, why not offer proof for your comments?
RealImmigrantChick (#82): If you went to court and offered the NYT story as evidence, any decent judge would laugh you out of court. I understand you have issues with McCain; so do I, as I have never failed to mention.
I do not consider McCain a conservative. I still consider him a (relatively) safer choice for the future of the Nation than the Marxist/socialists of the left.
Both of you, like others who post here and elsewhere, are too deeply invested in your “hate-McCain” bag. It has blinded you to the dangers we face from the Democrat candidates.
Ragspierre, #87:
And this is different from all the Republicans who “crossed over” to vote for Hillary or Obama in what way?
Actually, that’s a lie. I seldom demand proof.
When I catch someone making an absolutely asinine assertion…like yours…I will challenge them on it.
You evaded the challenge, BTW. No put up…so you really should shut up, though I hardly expect that kind of honesty.
For which of my comments would you like some substantiation?
Oh, I forgot…you can’t play the game, since you forfeited.
MR.Scribbles, if I went to court, I would have the facts there and infidelity, last time I knew, still counts in an equitable division state like NY (not a community property state) and in divroce cases, declarations from people, such as McCain’s former advisor, and others will suffice. I will also bring him and this lady to testify, can we repeat a Bill Clinton moment?
As to hating MCCain, Are you a mind reader? Do you know me? No, I don’t hate the guy, I don’t personally know him. I hate what he stands for, I hate what he has done to our country and to conservatives, I hate his foul mouth, I hate his stance against the Wisconsin right to life group, I hate his stance for terrorists’ rights, I hate his stance against water boarding evil terrorist scum, I hate his stance to kill free speech and thus allow more lobbyists, like his good friend here, I hate his stance for amnesty, I hate his stance for embrionic stem cell research, I hate his stance for trial lawyers in the so called patients bill of rights, I hate his stance on destroying our ecnomy for this absurd idea that we need to interfere with the climate and stop the planet from warming, I hate his stance on refusing to cut taxes 2 times (his votes I look at, not his words now, actions, facts), I hate his adultery and abandonment of his first wife, and on and on and on. Thatis what I hate. I could care less about the man himself. Now, knowing what I ahte about his actions, should I still vote for a man who stands for so much I am opposed to? Should I sell out? Maybe some will, but I cannnot. Not until the man proves me wrong or repents for his deeds (I used that word because repent does not only mean to use words to say you regret actiosn, but it means taking steps to change direction away from those prior bad actions).
Mr. Scribbler:
Very well put. Unfortunately, the conservative movement is so intransigent it will run off any who dare quibble with their precepts.
It’s like arguing with my in-laws (who are very conservative Catholics). Every time my husband tries to talk to them about the election it’s “Romney still has a shot” or “McCain isn’t conservative enough.” As far as I knew, Romney has been dabbling with the dark side for a very long time. He’s only recently and conveniently “discovered” his conservatism.
A movement is only as good as the people who participate in it. Disagreement is good but when fellow conservatives bash each other (uh, Rags, uh Ombre) what’s the point? Unlike my in-laws (in their 80’s) my parents (in their 60’s and 70’s) voted for McCain.
No one like you Rags, or Ombre will admit that the country is pretty moderate right now. Regular folks in the middle are turned off by both party extremes (and the do nothing politicans who “embody” them). There will be people out there who think that conservatives have a screw loose. How do we convince people this is not the case, that conservatism embodies the very ideals this country was founded on, if you go off saying that there are only certain purists who embody these core beliefs and anybody else who votes for a certain candidate who does not, can go kiss your butt. How do you counteract the seductive message of the liberal socialists on the Dem side? Not everybody is going to want to hear, “self-reliance is for your own good.” There will be those who want the government to take care of them, so how do you counteract that? How?
How do you explain this? I still haven’t gotten a suitable answer from either you, Ombre, or any other conservative purist on this blog.
Perhaps you’d like to point me to one of those primaries where Republicans decided the Dimocrate winner…?
Or the Dimocrate that is running as a bi-partisan, hands-across-the-aisle centrist…?
Comawwwn…belly up…
Rags:
WHOOPS! I’m just following your own creed, dear. Challenging you on your weak grasp of history and what the actual composition of a “true” conservative is. You may want to consult with Sausage since he seems to think that questionable, historical hyperlinks really charaterize the attributes of the Republican Party and/or conservative movement. You do want to be “challenged,” right? Or can only said challenges only ever come from you?
emjem24, if the country is sooo moderate, then leave us conservative folks alone already, stop pushing McCain on us. Enough already. Most of the conservatives here state the FACTS about this guy. If you plan to vote for him, GOOD FOR YOU!!!! But don’t imply or tell us we are bad or dumb or idiots or will ruin America if we don’t vote for this man. What is this? Communism? No thanks, I left a communist country and I will not let people who claim to be conservatives force me to vote one way or the other.
i make my decisions based on facts and principle, I am still free here. So, let us be, we will live with our decision, and you live with your decision.
McCant: Sure, why don’t you ask Hill to retrive them from her purse.
#87 “And the ones that decided the elections in open primaries weren’t even Republicans”.
Hey, pay attention everyone, Ragspierre here will tell you what a real Republican is and they didn’t vote for McCain! Probably if we asked “pretty please” he will tell us what a real conservative is also. Some of us dolts thought we were conservative Republicans but Rags knows we are all frauds. And listen sport, take that “commissar” crap and shove it back in the orifice you pulled it out of.
The Jayson Blair Times, introduces the “Purity Test” remember Bill Clinton had to take this test
The NYT risky printing behavior, they have now introduced the practice of a (Purity Test) and as they say comparrisons will follow a tit for tat. The Right will introduce similar Purity Tests in whatever form, for Hillary Clinton and Obama. Hats off to the Leftys at the NYT. McCain could come out looking better then before, his wife certainly looks up to the first lady role. Results in all the comparison shopping for a canidate - McCain actually benefits from this weak predictable attack. There is also the added bonus now, the conservative base may rally around John McCain, something he was having trouble getting them to do, rally around him.
The only upside for the Dems is this took over the newscycle so Michelle Obama can stop explaining her dissapointment in a country that gave her every advantage a person could get in the free world. Oh and Hillary Clinton’s loosing streak story, not getting as much play either…The MSM is so easily manipulated.
Jayson Blair Times, All the gossip, rumors and inuendo no one else would print!
if anyone thought mccain would remain the media darling once he was the nominee-apparent deserves a good smackin’. this is what they will do to him now, non-stop. it will be even worse if obama is the democrat nominee.
No such stuuuuu pid thing.
I will tell you that the results from open primaries show considerable voting by independents and Dimocrates, who strongly favored McCain.
Nope. If you have to ask…
Guilty dog barking…?
Remember the TOS. I’d simply hate to see you leave.
I carefully put the “commissar” statement after a hypothetical Shut up…get in line…pull the lever.
But, hey, it does seem to have struck a nerve…
Does anyone think that the New York Slimes was not going to pour madeup bs on any GOP candidate.
If Romney would have won the nod, I am sure they had a bucket of slime ready to pour on him as well.
And those that believe that McCain was “the weaker GOP candidate” are wearing blinders.
As a conflicted conservative who doesn’t want to ’stay out’ and allow either Obama or Hillary to take control of this nation and our lives, I have to say that this might just give conservatives the motivation to support McCain. After being reassured that the NYT is a political newspaper and certainly no longer ‘the paper of record’, I am so angry at this nonsense that I feel compelled to totally support McCain. I do not agree with his stand on immigration and hopefully if conservatives come to the table they can influence a decision by McCain when he is President.
There is nothing more frightening to me than the US electing someone like Obama who brings NOTHING to the table but rhetoric - - to be defined after he takes office.
This artice in the NYT seems strangely timely for Obama’s wife and her outrageous opinions on the US.
While I am certainly no cheerleader for McCain, the NYT piece is lacking in any measure of journalistic integrity. I doubt even the National Enquirer would publish such a story with no solid evidence or smoking gun (or dress).
You would think that after the jayson Blaie incident, the Times would be a little more careful of printing a page 1 hit piece that is notihing more than sewing circle gossip and rumor.
A woman, doing her job, was spending a lot of time with US senator, doing his job. Her job was to lobby for her clients, and her clients just happened to be those under McCain’s area of responsibility.
There were no lurid e-mails, no witnesses seeing them playing tonsil hockey, no details about sharing a room and no personal articles covered with DNA.
All you have is people who are not willing to go on the record (those anonymous rock throwers) suspecting something of more than a professional nature because a woman was spending time with a man.
WOW. So much for empowering women in the business world. If a man spent the same amount of time with McCain, there would be no issue (unless they accused him of being a homosexual). If this is the level of “fact” that qualifies for a page 1 story, every CEO in the US as well as every other member of Con