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
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» OGreen Room
» Times Slimes Obamic ClimesLegal Insurrection
» Nation Mag Outs Secret U.S. Anti-Terror Program
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 Congress is fair game.
Women in the business and political world are a reality. In fact, if you choose to ignore them, you are setting yourself up for a claim of gender discrimination.
So now, unfounded rumor replaces facts as far as reporting standards. And they wonder why they are losing readers.
Should be “Jayson Blair”.
Sorry.
How old is McCain again? 71 or 73, have seen both out there.
RIC:
Where are you getting this idea that I’m pushing McCain (or any candidate) on you? Where are you getting this from? I’m basically saying that you, Rags, Ombre, etc. want to characterize those who are supporting McCain as “non-conservatives.”
I respectfully understand your position, but disagree with your methods. Why do you, Rags, Ombre, etc. get to criticize someone like me but yet none of us can “challenge” you? Debate is a two-way street and guess what, you’re driving down a one-way lane.
I get your feelings about McCain. However, I’m getting sick and tired of being told by “better” conservatives to stay on the conservative plantation or I’ll get my walking papers. You’re entitled to your opinion and so am I. I will vote based on the issues important to me as well as my family. Do you not understand how you come off sounding?
For most of the time I’ve been a member of this blog, I haven’t even spoken to you much (if at all). I don’t even think I addressed you directly (more Rags ’cause he’s my favorite purist). You’re the one who plunged in. However, I will challenge those “purists” who think they have the luxury of honor to keep them cozy and safe at night with their “principles.”
Aren’t you doing a little bit of “pushing” of your belief systems on the rest of us who may agree philsophically but disagree on methodology? All that you believe in I do too but that doesn’t mean I have to follow you off your cliff either.
I guess once it became apparent that there was no way in heck Huckster could get the nomination, the NYT and their MSM friends decided it was time to turn on McCain. I’m actually shocked it took this long to be honest. I guess it became apparent to his former “friends in the media” that they had to get the heat off of Michelle “For the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country” Obama. Well, this story is 8 years old so by whatever means necessary to take MO out of the spotlight, so be it. However, karma does have a way of rearing her ugly head-wasn’t McCain still married to his first wife when he met his second wife at an O-Club function at Pearl Harbor? Just throughing that out there but I may be wrong about that.
As for Bob Bennett, the one thing you can say for him is he is an excellent attorney and if I were in trouble and I could afford him, he’d be the guy I would want too.
I think a lot of us knew this would happen.
Not to be overly-conspiratorial, but there was something peculiar about the way Romney left the race, and the way Huckabee is remaining in the race, that don’t seem to make sense at face value.
I’m wondering if there’s something SO bad (or a culmination of small things)about McCain hanging out there that will come out that will make him look disgusting to voters that he’ll have to give up? (by this I mean whoever might vote for him, I already find his positions and his attitude repugnant).
Camp A=The NYT story is a pack of lies. Nothing they printed today…nothing they print tomorrow…CAN hold a grain of truth. I hate the NYT so much, I have suspended all rational thought.
Camp B=The NYT story bears further watching, as it is at least plausible, given what we KNOW about McCain.
Camp C=The NYT story is totally true, every word. I HATE McCain so much, I’ve suspended all rational thought.
Ragspierre= 1 vote for “C”
I also opine that the story rings true. Time will tell. Sources will be revealed…or not…
McCain can easily stop all this: take a lie detector test.
emjem, when have I critisized you, please point out specific facts dear. Stop making stuff up. You are pushing McCain with this guilt ridden but we will get socialists in, stuff. come on, we are not stupid, we get the fear mongoring. geez. I see why rags does not want to converse with you now. Adios.
emjem, critisized your support of McCain, I ment above, as you accused me of, I could care less who you support. You could vote for BO if you want, it is a free country.
opps…
make that “B”…
>>RECHECK<<
Yep. “B” for sure…
that was a Freudian camisole…
Hannibal:
Didn’t you know if we don’t do as Rags, Ombre, etc. suggest not only are we not “true” conservatives but we’re off the reservation? My Native American ancestors would laugh themselves silly if this wasn’t such a sad plight that both the GOP and the Conservative movement have put themselves into. Oh, did you know that Romney is a “true” conservative, too? Shocked the socks off of me, don’t you know?
I long for the times when we could just huddle by the campfire and make fun of the Clintons. Good times, good times. Man, where did the love go?
How convinient. Michelle Obama comes out and admits her hatred for this country and speaks the truth for the first time to the press and suddenly this story about McCain breaks as a way to distract from the truth about how the Obama’s really feel about being Americans.
In the words of the Church Lady…
“How conVEEEEEEEEEEEEEnient”
Look, I know I’m an “old guy”, with too good a memory, and WAY too concerned with those nasty “fact” thingies…
but do we KNOW McCain was adulterous?
TRUE OR FALSE
do we know that McCain’s entire political career nearly ended over his DEMONSTRATED taking money for special favors?
TRUE OR FALSE
do we know him to be one of the most arrogant, voters-can-kiss-my-ass members of the political calls?
TRUE OR FALSE
Last time I checked, neither Rags, Ombre nor any other conservative is forcing their view on anyone, simply strongly defending our stance to not vote for McCain, against the onslaugt of forceful postings that we are helping socialism by doing so, that we need to stick together with the GOP just ot defeat BO or Hill, etc., etc. Point to 1 single example where these people have said: do not vote for McCAin. So, who is being kicked off the reservation now? Conservatives are the ones outside the reservation of the GOP, come on now. Also, McCain admires Hillary Clinton, thinks she will make a good president, thinks she has integrity, etc., etc. what good old times of Clinton bashing? McCain never was part of any of that.
For all of you conservative-talk-show-host-bashers out here, Laura Ingraham is DEFENDING McCAin now on this story. Wow, she is just so bad that LAura, like Rush ad Sean, since they won’t get in line behind McCain. Thank God for peple like Laura, Rush, Sean and Mark Levin.
RIC:
I can see why your feelings are easily hurt. Actually, I tend not to converse with those so in love with their positions they have no room for disagreement. I can see that you’re following the same self-righteous train of counterproductiveness as Rags and friends.
And, dear, where do you get that I’m fear mongering? Proof, examples… the type that back up your empty arguments? Just asking- I really do mean no insult. I’m not pushing guilt on you, dear… I think it’s the other way around. I could care less who you vote for but if you wish to demonize those of us who disagree with you and your troupe, please do so.
Are you done putting me in my place now? I’m properly chastised… I was just thinking that it’s better to have a united conservative movement than a splintered one. My mistake- please carry on bashing all of us non-conformers. It’s ever so helpful when you then say you’re not doing it.
emjem: Re-read your posts from this thread AND the thread about Hill and MCain. Chastising you? You are joking me, when, how, why would I want to chastise you? I don’t chastise people when I try to win them over and furthermore, I am NOT trying to win you over because I don’t even know you or could care less how you vote. SERIOUSLY, you are not important to me. Your vote is yours, keep it that way. WOW. I have rarely heard such conjecture.
I just gave you permission to vote for McCain, OK, now go support him. Now, that last line would be a bashing, but if you think I really meant it, then I am sorry for you.
I think people are missing the point. The NY Times article helps McCain. It makes him look more virile. Infidelity has proven to be a non-issue (see Bill Clinton). But age is certainly an issue. So a little covorting with a female pushing for favors shows him to be your normal political male animal.
No matter how you feel about McCain’s politics, what the NY Times did was wrong and I hope that woman sues them.
For what?
3….2….1….CRAPTACULAR!!!
NY Slimes and Liberal MSM to Republicans:
SUCKAZZZ!
They won’t stop until Empress Hillary I, or more likely, B. Hussein Obama and Mrs. “America Sucks Until Now” Obama are in the WH.
I second that the story of Soros and The Reform Institute needs to be investigated. What is the difference between Hillary, Obama or McCain IF Soros is behind them all.
Ultimately, we the people are getting screwed.
I don’t know that blaming the failures of Johm McCain on others really works out well, MrS. Just as you can’t blame Clinton’s “zippergate” on those who critized him.
The fact is McCain is his own worst enemy; he attacks those whom he should befriend and befriends those whom he should attack. This NYT item is just a partial payback for what can only be described as his extreme naivete or his unbounded foolishness.
RIC:
Actually I’ve never asserted that you, Rags, Ombre, etc. are saying to not vote for McCain. If it were that simple you wouldn’t still be engaging me. What you and your troupe are doing is darker and more insidious. You’re actually saying that if a conservative votes for McCain in any way, that that person is no longer a conservative.
Example A: in the thread talking about McCain backing up Hilly, Rags suggested that I have to “live with my conscience” so to speak if I voted for McCain. What am I to gather from that suggestion?
Rags has also asserted to me (and to others) that if we vote for McCain we are not conservative. He bluntly told me that. Look it up in the McCain Loves Hilly thread and prove me wrong. Okay?
Does anybody else want to back me up here? Please…. if I’m going down in flames for voting for McCain, I’d rather it be a group roast, you know…
To understand why the Times would slime McCain, it is imoprtant to consider that most polling data gives McCain a reasonable chance of defeating Obama and Clinton. And that drives the Times batty. Recall that publisher Pinch Sulzberger (who is qualified only by being the latest generation of spoiled and pampered Sulzbergers) gave a graduation speech in which he said: “I apologize for what the United States has done”. And then consider that the Times refuses to call Ben Laden a terrorist and refers to dead terrorist Mughniyeh as “the famously elusive militant” and romantized Mughniyeh. This is the same newspaper that caled Al Queda terrorist Zubiyeh (who taped himself beheading Jeff Berg) as “the Jordanian fighter”. So why be surprised at the Times sliming McCain? Only a few weeks ago, proArab reporter Deborah Sontag wrote a five piece series on how US soldiers who come home from Iraq are homicidal maniacs. To the Times, Hillay Clinton is a conservative.
I challenge this person to bring that alleged quote to this thread.
Larraby,
Still wondering about that rifle you can’t silence…
I watched that video of McCain responding to this eruption of betrayal from his “friends” at the NYT.
I….(gasp)….I’m feeling faint! Oh lordy I’ve got the vapors! Get me a cot and some bottled water….STAT!
I really hope a person would have something better to do with their time than pouring over old comment threads on blogs, Rags. That’d be a counter-producive jump into a deep anal-retentive well.
That would be an unfortunate choice of phrase, very unpleasant image there.
Rags:
What, you can’t look it up? Isn’t that what you tell everyone to do who disagrees with you? You should know everything you say by heart, right?
Perhaps I’m confused with the implications you’ve made vs. your outright assertions. Should I list examples separately?
I challenge you to prove me wrong. You’ve basically asserted that I’m wrong… so look it up. I will do my research, Rags, how ’bout you?
I would say this is a teachable moment within both conservative camps but I don’t think there will be hugs and kisses at the end.
hahaha! Well the image wasn’t supposed to be inviting, so I guess it works, Brian!
Wow, who needs trolls?
The left just loves all this in-fighting. McCain will be the Republican nominee, like it or not.
In a room full of blind men, a one eyed man is king and in a field of socialists, McCain is a conservative.
Voting for a third party candidate or writing someone in will only serve the socialists. McCain is now my guy because he has to be. I know the country would be much, much worse with a Dem president. I will not talk trash about McCain and I will do everything in my power to see to it that Republicans take back Congress as well.
From the outside looking in, my theory is that the NYT held this spurious story until Senator Clinton was unlikely to be nominated. That way, the McCain campaign would not be able to counter by pointing to the (probably unfounded) rumor of a nonprofessional relationship between Ms. Clinton and her chief of staff, Huma Abedin. Moreover, there are no known scurrilous allegations about Obama which could produce a lewd giggle, so the McCain campaign cannot attack Obama with anything like that.
However, if one reads the story closely, the McCain staffers may have kept the lobbyist away from the senator because she may have been acting inappropriately while trying to advance her clients’ interests. This was an entirely appropriate thing for the senator’s staff to do. Even the anonymous staffers’ quotes do not support the NYT’s innuendo of dalliance. Hence, there really is probably nothing to the story.
The article also means that the NYT now has lower journalistic standards than the Enquirer. Next, the NYT will have McCain siring a three-legged, two-headed hermaphrodite by a space alien (an illegal one, of course).
chsw
Raise your hand if you were the one person in America who didn’t think the NYT was setting McCain up to dump on him.
I tried to train my dog to pee on the paper and he would take it and stuff it in the birdcage. (OK, I made that up – I want to teach at Columbia.)
RetFireman #117, yes, it is just a little too well timed isn’t it. One has to wonder how long NYT have been sitting on this little story, just waiting for the right moment to use it to take the heat off their holy ones – in this case Mrs ‘I hate America’ Obama. Smells pretty bad.
As I thought…another unfounded false allegation…
If you’re going to say it…be ready to back it up.
The NYT set him up….then knocked him down…..with lies???? Don’t know yet if there is anything to back it up……But turnabout is fair play if it is a lie…McCain had no trouble lying about Romney during the debates now did he??? You reap what you sow! No love lost for McCain and wouldn’t bet against this story judging by the size of his ego.
YOU REPUBLICAN FOOLS ASKED FOR HIM, NOW YOU’VE GOT HIM!
Between the establishment who has decided that “It’s McCain’s turn” to the pathetic sissy, immoral, unprincipled Republican voters who allowed the Democrat Media to determine the Republican Nominee, a gigantic MESS has been created.
NOT only is YOUR candidate a liar for saying he doesn’t give attention to lobbyists, he’s now been discovered that he commits adultery with them.
He’s so attracted to corrupt lobbyist money, he’s willing to take his penis out of his pants to get some of that money.
So not only is he a liar, and an undisciplined, immoral wretch, he’s an adulterer too! (Oh I forgot we already KNEW he is an adulterer).
Starting BEFORE the convention, the opening salvo of never-ending revelations of the REAL John McCain has been fired.
This man is a scum. I’ve told you before! He is a traitor! He is a tax and spend, Constitution-Defying liberal. Just as he threw his first wife to the dogs, he’s thrown Conservatives to them as well.
Now we have to look forward to a convention where – as a beleagured, injured, humiliated creep – John McCain will bask in the glory of his nomination.
Imagine all the excitement the tidal wave of McCain sleaze will generate… HE SURE IS THE MOST ELECTABLE! Yeah right!
You’ve got what you’ve asked for. And – after you pseudo conservatives finish wiping McCain’s poop off your face, maybe you’ll have the grace to confess that the Ol’ Doc Paint was right after all.
Sadly, only Johnny Mcs’ hand raises.
Dr Obnoxious – I didn’t vote for him, I’m not a fool.
Purple/Brian:
The historian in me likes to prove people wrong and back them up on occasion. Now the realist/pragmatist inside me thinks even if I do this, Rags will still “suggest” I’m a dirty conservative. The humorous side of me says that Rags still won’t believe me even if I performed a miracle of
Obama-like proportions.
What’s a girl to do? I’m damned in the eternal fire if I do and if I don’t. Does anybody have any holy water handy?
Typical Presidental politics; accuse your opponent of something slimy. This goes back to Adams-Jefferson, and got pretty bad with Quincy Adams-Jackson. I’m not surprised, especially if the election is in doubt. Best one was the democrats accusing Quincy Adams of importing Russian virgins for prostitution. If you want to know your skeletons in the closet, run for office.
McCain will be reduced to a pulp by mid-summer. The adultery stuff is going to only get worse.
The MSM is going to rake him for leaving his first wife. Not why he left— but how he left.
This was predicted months ago by the conservative core of the party who know that McCain is not electable….but who positioned himself by virtue of McCain-Feingold…the law that would have made it impossible for Ronald Reagan to get elected if he were alive and available to run.
I didn’t vote for McCain because he has a volcanic temper and he has a huge “Vet” skeleton in his closet that the CIA has declassified and made available to the Democratic Party.
We’re toast in 08. And if it is Obama…doubly so. Of course, it will come down to who he is going to choose as VP.
“I really hope a person would have something better to do with their time than pouring over old comment threads on blogs, Rags. That’d be a counter-producive jump into a deep anal-retentive well.”
I think such things would be a childish pusuit for anyone to go off on, Rags. My thinkin’ is that folks should get over themselves, to move away from personality-based nitpicking. To paraphrase a saying “Don’t walk towards the silliness”.
That’s not a dig against you or any other particular person, Rags. More like just words to the wise, “he that hath an ear”, y’know.
NYC & RF,
It is rather suspicious in regard to the timing of the article. I had posted something to the effect earlier in the thread.
The coverage I saw on this topic last night on Hannity & Colmes indicated that the NYT has been sitting on it since about December 2007 and were still sitting on it, until The New Republic forced their hand on it.
Emjem, I was not going to do this, but you forced my hand. I have reviewed some of your posts, but not all cause they are long, tiring. Here are some examples of your attacks on others: these are your quotes: I did not want to do this, but I have to now. I think you are smart and you have some good points about socialism creeping in, but you have attacked and called our anti-McCain votes in November petulent and meaningless, and asked me for proof.
these are quotes from your posts. my eyes are hurting now.
“Are you truly a Conservative or you one in name only? ”
“… It’s a matter of the enemy you know vs. the one you don’t.”
“I am a conservative but I am not naive like many in this country that think that principle is the only standard upon which to live one’s life.” thanks!
“Yeah, have fun with your empty voting gesture. Whatever. That’s your choice.”
“You think that not voting this election or not voting for McCain will help repair the GOP then I have this to say to you: you’re wrong. ”
“I can see now that many conservatives (perhaps even Michelle and ya know I love ya girl), can’t see past their own personal animus to look at the bigger picture. Perhaps, there’s really no bigger picture for you but there is for me. I might not get the conservative Republican candidate I wanted, but it’s better than just giving in to the Dems.”
“Lodge your empty, pointless protest votes. All you will do is compell the country further into the dark, cold night that will befall it when the Dems take over and leave us defenseless and more broke than we already are. ”
“Why don’t we all just give in, be petulant children, lodge a protest vote?”
Golly, Doc…
after reading your post…
grace isn’t exactly what came to mind first…
I’d have to say you were a vote for C from my post above…
Someone up-thread offered the thought in passing of perhaps McCain being off the ticket later on. I don’t think it would make much difference replacing a sullied candidate with a clean one. Stench might probably hang on no matter whom would carry forth.
I take your meaning and all, peep, but…
when someone makes a very factual…false…allegation about something I’ve said, I think they should have the gumption to back it up.
It’s always their option to simply not tell the falsehood to begin with…
emjem24
If you want holy water, better ask St Obama for some.
BTW — you (and Concerned Citizen ) are making too much sense for a lot of of the people appearing on this thread. I appreciate that.
A point comes when theory must give way to reality. Some people — I won’t name names (hey, the NYT can do that, why not me?) because I might be asked for “proof” — haven’t learned that. Sadly, all of us may share the consequences of their unwillingness to face the ever-louder music.
Romney’s campaign is only suspended and, feasibly could be looked at during the convention as the candidate to put forth. But, like you note, anyone else going forward would be sullied by the allegations against McCain and promoted as the second-string entering the game, because the starter was ejected from the game, probably.
I’m not sure what will happen from this point. But, I would suspect McCain will or, at least, should be calling the NYT to task on the credibility of the article, if it is not true. If all he does is step out and say, “It’s not true”, he is pretty much admitting defeat on the issue (IMHO).
purplepeep said:
I dunno. Really helped McGovern, didn’t it?
Rags:
Here’s one of your self-righteous quotes:
You are stating/implying (whatever term you prefer) that those who vote for McCain are, to hazard a guess, not going to live with their conscience.
This is kinda fun- let’s play the “Name That Rags Quote!” Can anybody come up with a great game show theme song?
Did anyone hear Bob Bennett on Laura Ingraham? He was trying to explain the Keeting 5 thing, saying McCain was going to a meeting with Keeting and had no idea what it was about. OK, McCain is either really stupid or lying. Come on. Also, wasn’t Bob Bennett Clinton’s lawyer? Why pick him?
I’m wondering what else the NYT is sitting on right now. There must be either more to this story, or a series of other stories, maybe both. It doesn’t really matter if it is true or not. Once it is out there, job well done soldier. Reload, FIRE!
I’m seeing an analogy in my mind. The Western Front, WWI. Artillery, The King of Battle. The NYT has simply fired a round to zero in the battery, and further salvos are all but guaranteed. My question is, is this all 88mm, or do they have a 420mm Big Bertha loaded and ready, once the target recon is complete?
Also, when does the whole battery unload in a sustained, landscape-withering barrage? (The whole battery means WaPo, LAT, BosGlobe, ect., ect.)
Two notes to anyone who gives a rat heinnie…
How is this a quote of me telling people they are not real conservatives if they vote McCain?
How is this quote of something I really DID say self-righteous…
ESPECIALLY in context of the preceding post, where I was being told my position was wrong because I was in the minority?
RIC,
I didn’t hear him on Laura’s show. But, I did hear him on Hannity & Colmes last night.
Bob Bennett, a self-prophesed Democrat (mentioned it several times last night) was involved with the Clintons. I suppose there could be two possible explanations for picking him as representation.
One, he is a Democrat defending a Republican (even if it is just in name only) from an attack by the left. What better than a Democrat to say this is out of line and I, as a Democrat, don’t believe it.
Or, two, McCain is a Washington insider traveling in the same circles as everyone else, Republican or Democrat, and they don’t care to share representation. Perhaps, he could feel like Bennett kept Clinton out of trouble fending off allegations of sexual misconduct and could do the same for him.
I’m not really sure which it might be at this point. But, Bennett admitted that he started working for McCain on this in December, when the rumors of a piece by the NYT first started swirling.
My guess is that once the media sees him dancing on this they’ll increase the volume and frequency of the tunes. I imagine this type of story won’t be an isolated instance, just the first salvo.
To continue my analogy, Field Marshal Von McCain has been handed the baton of command, and the right flank of his own forces, The Conservative Division, is near mutiny. So what does he do? He tries to recruit from the other trenches. This only causes defections and desertions. What’s a Field Marshal to do?
RIC:
Golly- you found all my babies. I actually asked for proof of what you see as others trying to intimidate you and your crew into voting for McCain. I simply have responded (in kind) with the consequences/observations of your folly. My, you do feel under pressure. I’m sorry the truth makes your eyes hurt.
Ummm- again what was your point? I forgot. Oh, yes to “challenge” me, put in my place, tell me I’m being mean when you’ve done the same in kind. Now, come on, if you’re pointing out bluntness, well, okay, I don’t use bad words, but I think conservatives are being silly. How is that insulting?
To wrap up, since you think I’m long-winded, smart, and all (back-handed compliment), I just pointed out the folly of your strategy. It’s yours, you can keep it, but that doesn’t mean I, or anybody else can’t point out what its significance is.
Thanks for bringing my babies to light. Bluntness is better than the guilt complex you and your crew are trying to weave. Love ya. Mean it.
Or both of the above. I heard him on Laura this morn, too. He seems as if he has McCains’ best interest in mind. But sometimes it’s hard to tell with lawyers.
All is quiet on the Western Front.
The adage speaks of keeping one’s friends close and their enemies closer, if I remember it correctly, peep.
Sometimes, its hard to tell where lawyers fall at any given time.
I have to agree, that this is probably just the beginning of the onslaught by the MSM for McCain. I’m not sure if it is the opening salvo or just a shot across the bow to let him know that they have gotten a fix on his position.
Either way, I think most of us knew that the NYT and other MSM would turn on him soon and were just waiting to see it happen.
#130 “Does anybody else want to back me up here? Please…. if I’m going down in flames for voting for McCain, I’d rather it be a group roast, you know”
Absolutely emjem24! Even when the quarterback is old and slow and plays ugly, you still have to play the game. You don’t get on the bus at halftime and go home, shouting “we’ll kick your butts next year”. No president has been perfect and rational people have to decide who has the least amount of imperfection. If I thought that the country would not be irreparably harmed by either of the two democrat bozos, I might just take a pass on this one. Sadly, I am positive that is not the case. But if you love your country, you have to do what you can with what you have to work with.
Well, I’ve got to scoot for the day, folks. It’s been some interesting reading and commenting today. Best to all!
Rags:
Actually this quote basically asserts that those who vote for McCain will have something to regret. We will have to live with our consciences and yours will be clean.
Did I miss anything?
Oh, yeah – everyone saw this coming from miles away. Except McCain, apparently.
It was less than a month ago the NYT endorsed him as their candidate. I guess the old adage is the working paradigm here; “We made you, we can break you.”.
When the Iranians or someone else come over here and ram a nuke up Ny’ers arses and then push the button they need’nt come whining to the rest of us, write the times with complaints if you can find it. I was born on the east coast but I live on the west coast thank heaven, hey, I blame the US Army. I generally never speak about this dark chapter of my infancy unless it is absolutely necessary. I hear a lot of cracks about out here but I can say for sure that I am damn glad I live here and not there. Take my word for it, the decedents of the Minutemen don’t live on the east coast these days, we have over the centuries moved elsewhere in the USA but we have not changed along the way. Eastcoastistan is a fitting name, the islamocommie rags that are the NY and LA times don’t sell out here they are good for lining bird cages or disposing of cat crap, that is all.
I was trying hard not to like McCain but it isn’t working out that way. I never thought I would say it but I like him and his wife Cindy. McCain is a generally decent guy who IMHO will make a better president than senator. I don’t agree with some of his decisions but many of our pols have been jobbed in the past. He wants to, is trying desperately to hold America together as the leftist/islamist alliance attempts to tear us apart. But what he needs to understand is that I don’t hate my country and her people so I will never be able to moderate with the NY time crowd. They are they enemy as surely as obl is, McCain must begin to understand that and I think we can help him along the way if we so desire.
To all you good and decent east coasters my sincere condolences but my advise is get out while you still can.
Obviously…
Constantly…and
With alarming regularity.
I just heard Uncle Bob Bennett invoking the South Carolina lie that McCain was smeared by the Bush campaign during their nomination battle.
That lie about being smeared was at least partially McCain’s own lie.
Maybe totally a lie of his own fabrication.
That REALLY makes me doubt anything else that Bennett said.
emjem, you trully are starting to act weird now, not even responding to me or what I have written. Are you sure you are reading my posts? Who was talking about intimidation?
Like I told you before, you vote for McCain and I won’t, what about that makes you think I feel intimidated by anyone? That is the beauty of this country, FREEDOM, I suggest you stick to your decision and I will stick to mine. If you can’t handle someone calling you out with your own words, then don’t challenge people. I did not challenge you, you challenged me, and I responded because you tend to accuse people of not doing their research. Well, I did mine. So deal with it. I have had enough of your unsupported assertions, even when I call you out with your own words, you still go on with non-facts and meaningless opinion about me, that just makes me LOL.
Rags:
Before I forget- I’m still waiting for you to give us a source that proves your whole John McCain is a Fabian Socialist theory. You haven’t supplied that yet have you? Since the study of history delves into relationships (people, movements, etc) that shouldn’t be too hard, should it?
I’m being serious here. If you’re demanding people back up what they say, then so should you. Also, since your’re so kind as to point out what I say, I will be sure to look for things that you say that don’t jive either. That’s for that equal exchange of ideas…
self-edit- thanks for that equal exchange of ideas…
RIC:
Actually you’ve been acting more strident and weird with everything you post. Hey, you decided to post every single thing I’ve posted about conservatives “sitting out the election.” I’m sorry if you think I’m inferring something from your posts that’s not there.
Anyhoo, weren’t you the one who said that people are pressuring you to vote for McCain? Aren’t you “challenging” people about why they are supporting him?
I’m actually not trying to be confrontational. I do not care who you vote for. We will agree to disagree.
#163 “I can stand to be alone. I can live with my conscience. I can chose self-respect.”
And then Rags asks ” How is this quote of something I really DID say self-righteous”…
How did you so eloquently put it to me, “Guilty dog barking…?”