Seattle editor on NYT McCain story: “That’s pretty thin beer”
The editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a piece explaining why his paper didn’t run the NYTimes’ paper-thin, recycled hash on John McCain’s alleged affair with a lobbyist:
I chose not to run the New York Times story on John McCain in Thursday’s P-I, even though it was available to us on the New York Times News Service. I thought I’d take a shot at explaining why.
To me, the story had serious flaws. It did not convincingly make the case that McCain either had an affair with a lobbyist, or was improperly influenced by her. It used a raft of unnamed sources to assert that members of McCain’s campaign staff — not this campaign but his campaign eight years ago — were concerned about the amount of time McCain was spending with the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. They were worried about the appearance of a close bond between the two of them.
Then it went even further back, re-establishing the difficulties McCain had with his close association to savings-and-loan criminal Charles Keating. It didn’t get back to the thing that (of course) the rest of the media immediately pounced on — McCain, Iseman and the nature of their relationship — until very deep in the story. And when the story did get back there, it didn’t do so with anything approaching convincing material.
A very good editor I happen to work for, P-I Editor and Publisher Roger Oglesby, said today that the story read like a candidate profile to him, not an investigative story, and I think that’s true. A candidate profile based on a lot of old anecdotes…
…Admitting that Keller was in a better position to vet the sourcing and facts than I am as, basically, a reader, let’s assume that every source is solid and every fact attributed in the story to an anonymous source is true. You’re still dealing with a possible appearance of impropriety, eight years ago, that is certainly unproven and probably unprovable.
Where is the solid evidence of this lobbyist improperly influencing (or bedding) McCain? I didn’t see it in the half-dozen times I read the story. In paragraphs fifty-eight through sixty-one of the sixty-five-paragraph story, the Times points out two matters in which McCain took actions favorable to the lobbyist’s clients — that were also clearly consistent with his previously stated positions.That’s pretty thin beer.
The reactions in the P-I comment section are interesting, too. A sample:
Posted by Kristen at 2/21/08 6:31 p.m.
While I have my reservations on when the NYTimes decided to break the story, I do find it funny that you are claiming the high road on the subject, even though you posted McCain’s response and your running Horsey’s cartoon on the subject.
***
Posted by whidbeywise at 2/21/08 6:49 p.m.
Since you mentioned Clinton and McGreevey as “admitted” philanderers, you should probably bring up McCains philandering. He cheated on his first wife and dumped her for his current wife. This doesn’t matter to me, but when you are the presumptive nominee of the “family values” and “sanctity of marriage” party, you should probably be squeeky clean. McCain is definitely not. Why is McCain so cozy with lobbyists? Just more of the same old stuff.
***
Posted by snesich at 2/21/08 7:50 p.m.
I think that too many people are making this “McCain vs. The New York Times” and that’s silly. But I can see why McCain’s camp wants people to see it that way.
I’m concerned with whether or not these allegations are true. I could care less if McCain had sex with a woman other than his wife. But I am troubled by the possibility that McCain was compromised by his personal relationship with this lobbyist.
Did McCain have an affair with this lobbyist? Who knows? Who cares? Did McCain use his position as a senator to benefit this lobbyist and her corporate clients? That’s the important question and it’s one that isn’t settled yet.
Most of McCain’s knee-jerk defenders seem to be outraged that this story was ever published. None of them seem to even acknowledge the possibility that McCain’s integrity and honesty may be a real issue. What will they do if these allegations are eventually proven?
***
Posted by unregistered user at 2/21/08 8:29 p.m.
“It did not convincingly make the case that McCain either had an affair with a lobbyist, or was improperly influenced by her.” Which was not the point of the story, so it probably only received a surface reading for consideration.
McCain’s poor judgement is the issue of the story. He did not listen to his staff’s advice about lobbyist. In politics, the appearance of a problematic issue is something some are clearly more sensitive to than others. McCain brushed off the concerns of others that this could look bad. It does. It may not be worse, but it passes this test : he does not listen to good advice. The reminders of the Keating Five are better done now than later as well. Just as Hillary Clinton’s past faux pas will always be just a google away, here is an event some may have forgotten that again underline the problem of McCain’s Judgement and Reasoning. He seems naive in both situations - each a decade apart. So he didn’t improve with age.
***
Posted by unregistered user at 2/21/08 11:00 p.m.
The real story today is the opinion from the head of the Federal Elections Commission — a Republican, no less — that McCain’s campaign might not be able to (legally) withdraw from the public financing system until the Republican Convention. McCain may try to ignore it, but he might risk criminal prosecution and fines if he exceeds the spending limits. This is a front page article for the Washington Post on Friday.
I agree with that last comment. Here’s the story the commenter is referring to in the WaPo this morning.
Savor the possibility of McCain being hoisted by his own campaign finance petard.
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
- Captain's Quarters
- PAXALLES
- A Small Corner of Sanity Blog
- What's In a Name? [Dan Collins]
- FEC Warns McCain on Campaign Spending : BigMouthFrog
- BizzyBlog » A McCain Coincidence? NYT Stock Nosedived Thursday and Friday
- feeds.Kingerick.com » Blog Archive » A McCain Coincidence? NYT Stock Nosedived Thursday and Friday
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain
TigerHawk
» Markets, Obama, goose, ganderPower Line
» An appeal not to appealJustOneMinute
» James (Not Earl) Jones As National Security AdviserBelmont Club
» 2025Patterico
» New York Times: Secretary of State ClintonRiehl World View
» Observations: Hank Paulson On A PlaneWeekly Standard
» A Run on Guns, Just in Time for the HolidaysStop The ACLU
» Hillary Clinton Will Say Yes to Secretary of State Job
Minor word-usage quibble: it should be “hoist by his own petard”, not “hoisted”.
Political affiliations make more than strange bedfellows. It makes everything out of sorts. The Seattle P-I not echoing a hit piece on a Republican? Wow!
Beam me up, Scotty!
I agree, AC. I was just as shocked to see that the Seattle PI would not choose to run it and cites that the NYT story “did not convincingly make the case.” I haven’t really known that to be a consistent requirement for them in the past. But, then again, that is just my humble opinion.
But, I do find it hilariously ironic that McCain may get bitten in the a** by a beast of his own making with the campaign financing.
I thought it was funny how some of those commenters to the editor’s position thought nothing of any possible McCain infidelity to his wife, then claimed to be only concerned about infidelity to his position as Senator.
Are there still people in this world so ignorant of human nature that they think any person that cheats on his spouse is going to be completely honest and upstanding otherwise?
Will there never come a time when we realize that an unfaithful spouse is also an unfaithful representative or president?
Poetic justice perhaps on the part of his being found guilty of violating an unconstitutional law he helped to create.
As for politicians being influenced by lobbyists? Politicians (IMHO) are bought, sold and traded by big-dollar PACs, Lobbyists and SIGs like so many futures or commodities on a daily basis. While I do not think it is right, legal or ethical … since it is currently readily accepted as “the norm” why is it even an issue, much less news?
Because it resonates with a good portion of the voting populace. We think it is wrong and they (politicians) think telling us they believe it is wrong too and that they are going to change (there’s that word again) it will make us swoon (and faint, if Obama is saying it).
Is this the new saving grace for the SPI? Are they now willing to clean up their act and not run biased stories or their columnists take cheap shots at Conservatives/Republicans? Will pigs fly? I have 3 pugs so I can try to put some wings on them and see if gravity is their friend but PETA would quibble about “safety issues.”
The comments are more interesting. When someone’s not agasped at a possible infidelity but they are if it may be an “inappropriate” relationship with a lobbyist, where’s the distinction? Perhaps, Dems and the commenter propagandists would like to take over the “family values” moniker since they seem do “righteous indignation” very well. /sigh/
Now, does anybody want to see a flying pug?
#4 On February 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 am, SHoward said:
“I thought it was funny how some of those commenters to the editor’s position thought nothing of any possible McCain infidelity to his wife, then claimed to be only concerned about infidelity to his position as Senator.
Are there still people in this world so ignorant of human nature that they think any person that cheats on his spouse is going to be completely honest and upstanding otherwise?
Will there never come a time when we realize that an unfaithful spouse is also an unfaithful representative or president?”
Well said.
Ross Perot was ridiculed for saying the same thing about Clinton and his apparently addictive tom-catting back in the 90s, something like, “If his own wife can’t trust him, how can we?”
Which, of course, was dismissed by the media, with garbage like (paraphrasing) “compartmentalization”, “It’s competence, not character that’s important”, “As long as it doesn’t affect the way he (Clinton) does his job, it doesn’t matter”, etc.
Unfortunately, SHoward, that time you ask about already came and went…it started to disappear in the dreadful 60s.
I doubt that any of our current elite, in this cesspool that our society/culture has become, are going to, “…realize that an unfaithful spouse is also an unfaithful representative or president?”
At least, they are not anytime soon going to say so publicly, for fear of ridicule, scorn, condemnation, accusations of being “judgmental”, “holier-than-thou”, prudish, etc.
Michelle,
So, if the Republican’s lose the election and the country puts the empty headed marxist, you’ll still be happy, because at least you got to prove your point about your McHate.
As much as I have always respected you, I have to say the more you go down this path, themore and more disappointed I am with you.
This is about the future of America, not your ego.
What do you hope to accomplish with your constant, smug snipes?
What is the endgame? Mac drops out and Romney gets the Nod? Anyone as smart as you are knows that isn’t going to happen, so what can you possibly hope to accomplish by continuing to place your ego over the best interests of the party?
Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue, unless the GOP suddenly wakes up and dumps the candidate you hate so much? You might as well, because it would be no less mature than what you are doing right now.
so there is no ‘there’ there..
i still think he is a typical washington insider. special interests have him, especially those from south of the border. i also know from ‘life’ once a cheat always a cheat. just sayin’ where there is smoke there is fire. of course if you don’t have the facts to back up a story.. don’t print it!
nice to know that there is an editor out there that understands what makes a story worth printing. so much for the NYT’s staff. are they all pro bono now that the paper is in the crapper?
Granite, I read ya loud and clear. We started down this path a long time ago. It also doesn’t help that the Europeans think a leader without a mistress is somehow less of a man. All the lefties in this country are in such a hurry to immitate Europe that this is only one more rock in our shoe.
And I’m glad you picked up on my intentional dig at Clinton the Male. The reason I keep harping on him to others around me is because I hear the same line alot: “It’s no big deal; It’s between him and his wife; As long as he does his job, etc.”
People can’t quite get their head around the fact that someone that runs around on their spouse will run around on anyone, including us. That little guy from Texas was absolutely right about that.
As to my reaction to this story, I believe completely that this is a non-story about McCain, and the NYT was of course sitting on it until he was assured the Repub nod. Now it’s unload time.
Superfluous. We already know John McCain is a corrupt crony of business interests by his support of illegal aliens. What part of “illegal aliens” doesn’t the senator understand?
Unfortunately support for corruption of our immigration laws is so widespread in the lib media and in Washington it is considered normal and touted as “reform.”
And if McCain wins and takes us down the same socialist path?
I am not saying it will happen but after living in Nevada for almost twenty years, I would not give it more than a 50/50 on the odds table. Granted, he may be our best roll of the dice but it is still a roll of the dice.
He has been known to do a little bit more than just compromise on some very socialistic agendas and legislation.
Just sayin’
Media outlets should be wary of letting this story unfold unchecked until the facts are clearer.
I can’t help but think that the timing of this (less than 10 months until the election) and the fact that McCain’s downfall would make a lot of people happy (both dems and a segment of the GOP), that it seems almost a little too convenient…
emjem,
YES pigs fly!
So we all watched the debates last night, were made well aware of the looming disaster if either of those untruthful, pandering Marxist/socialists gets elected, and you’re still on the “nasty McCain” kick, Michelle?
I know — and agree — the he’s a grouchy, mean, Geraldo-supported, open-borders old coot, but that doesn’t put him in the same league with BHO or HRC when it comes to threatening the existence of our Nation.
The WaPo “campaign finance” story is better-done than the NYT hit piece, but is still full of “ifs” and differences of opinion. In the main, it’s an “if my aunt had wheels, she’d be a golf cart” thing, IMO. It’s an attempt to call McCain guilty before he has even allegedly done wrong.
Oh, and on “campaign spending,” did you happen to notice this little gem?
It’s clear that the Dems have forced Republicans/conservatives into “suck-it-up” mode. We’re talking national survival now, not snarking at a less-than-ideal candidate.
Forest or trees. Which are you going to see? You decide.
Here’s what bothers me. Lets assume the NY Times reported on exactly what they had and nothing less. What does that say about the reporters who were willing to resign because of their story being spiked? Not very much.
You have 4 journalist who think they have the goods on John McCain. They are professionals mind you. But only after threats and resignation letters do they get the publishers at the NY Times to print on the front page a gossip column they consider a legitimate news story.
So I ask you. What does that say about the reporters? Never mind the publishers. What does that tell you about the intellect of those with whom we rely to report news accurately? Don’t answer. That was a rhetorical question. I just find it astonishing that we have a 2 tiered news media in this country. The truth as it is, and the truth as some want it to be.
To call this a hit piece is too kind. This is a virus that’s infected the MSM and I’m afraid it’s being overlooked. For so many mainstream journalist’s to be taken in by this tabloid crap and not see anything wrong with it makes me wonder what else can we expect.
Scary stuff folk. Scary stuff.
In the land of Northwest coast liberals I’m surprised the editor had the stones to do the right thing. But, then again, doing the right thing from a journalistic stand point is a moving target. Whatever gets publicity rules….to sell those advertisements and make money…News is a business and the deliverables vary greatly in terms of mental nutritional benefits, fillers and artificial ingredients. Caveat emptor.
Ok, so you believe that McCain is equally as Marxist as Che Obama.
Even if I concede, that absolutely ridiculous point, what is your endgame? Do you actually think there is some scintila of a chance that John McCain is mot going to be the GOP candidate?
Since there is no chance of anyone other than Senator McCain winning the nomination at this point, all you do is help the real marxists.
I loved Reagan, he was the greatestPresident of my life, but he is not running this time and we did not have the chance to select him.
Would any of the MacHaters out there, like to try to gin up an argument about how Ronald Reagan would not have supported Senator McCain by this point of the campaign?
He wouldn’t, Ronald Reagan didn’t attack fellow Republicans. Period.
It’s a tough example to follow, but perhaps it’s time more of us started following his example. Especially the ones that keep invoking his name.
If it is true, everyone is invited to my house for beer and some skeet-shooting … soon to be followed by a very large pork barbecue. (How many people will 12 pigs feed?)
Now all I have to do is figure out where to send the Press Releases so that PETA and Code-Stink and their ilk are sure to see them.
Hey, you did not think I would shoot my pigs did you?
Nevermind. I am going for more coffee now.
#4 SHoward said:
Will there never come a time when we realize that an unfaithful spouse is also an unfaithful representative or president?
such a ridiculous comment on so many levels… what universe of sanctimony do you live in?
off the top of the head that rules out
Thomas Jefferson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Franklin Roosevelt
John Kennedy
yeah we should have removed Ike from command at D-Day…
I think McCain/Kennedy is illegal as it actively impedes the (one of few actual powers and responsibilities of the) federal governments as granted it by the Constitution to protect this nation and its borders.
I think McCain/Feingold blatantly violates the rights of individuals to participate in the election process and violates the constitution.
I think the thugs of fourteen was instituted to actively impede the actions of a democratically elected governing (and supposedly representative) body.
I think the very fact that I have no option but to “roll the dice” and “hope” for the best does not bode well for our future.
I think if the socialists (Think Stalin and Lenin as opposed to true Marxist communism … there is a major difference) do come to power I do not care which side they come from. For what it is worth (which is probably about the same as what I “think” is worth at this stage of the game) I will be out there with many others with a copy of the Declaration in one pocket, the Constitution in another pocket and the rest of my pockets full of my second amendment rights.
I think … to quote a poet and John Jay … “FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.”
That FEC situation is poetic, to say the least.
It also shows just how foolish and naive John McCain is.
Having quorum issues when one party controls one of the three elected parts of the Federal government (Senate, House, POTUS) is as predictable as the sun coming up. McCain was either a fool to forget it, or naively presumed that “we’d all just get along.”
He might be old, ornery, experienced and perhaps even wiley, but John McCain is neither brilliant nor wise.
To see him fall into his own trap is just a taste of what a presidency under him would be. Like Dubya, he simply lacks the capacity to think ahead effectively.
Aside from being a RINO, you have to accept that as a “thinker” he’s a counter-puncher, not a strategist.
This serves him well with the NYT fiasco. They’re even more ham-handed than he is, and they make an easy target for a counter-puncher. But if/when McCain is ever faced by someone who hit him with a complex problem - such as Venezualan Oil, or a Nuclear Pakistan suddenly becoming more friendly with the Taliban - we need something more than “Rough’N'Ready.”
People like to see toughness as leadership, forgetting that toughness without intelligence is a recipe for disaster.
Toughness without adequate intelligence gives us people like JFK, LBJ, and Dubya. Toughness built on real brains gives us truly great leaders like TR and Ike.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t there a very recent Senate Majority Leader that was married to a lobbyist? Not that a democrat would ever be corrupt or anything.
Oh yeah and Ronald Reagan divorced his first wife for Nancy… it’s not a huge stretch for one to imagine that his relationship with the latter just might have been more than hand-holding prior to the divorce…
jayhawk phrenzie.. whew.. lay off the coffee..
i am sure michelle is just as concerned about this country as you, but that doesn’t mean that she has to start writing loving prose about McCain. that would be rather hypocritical to do a 180 swipe. the mccain/feingold mess is something she has written about in the past. most conservatives considered it an afront to the constitution and free speech. it is just rich, that his idiocy as a senator has come back to bite him so quickly!!
and, yes, as someone that has followed politics and been a conservative for a long time, i am rellishing the moment!! i have not liked mccain since the mid to late 90’s, so i am ROFL!! thanks michelle!
It’d be sweet to see McCain sentenced to jail time, only to be released when McCain-Feingold is thrown out by the courts via his own lawyers’ appeal.
I think McCain underestimates how much conservatives like the 1st (and 2nd) Amendment.
No, McCain isn’t perfect…. He’s 20X worse than “not perfect”. Fred Thompson was “not perfect”.
uhangtight said:
Will your relishing of the moment increase or decrease when Nobama is being sworn in?
max, not quite right, reagan’s first wife left him broken hearted, as she was cheating on him, at a party he met nancy after he was sent packing by his first wife. so not quite true about Reagan.
oh and wartip, i’ll be standing there with you holding my copy of the constitution, bill of rights and ammo!
Remember what you said here today, max, when you find out your wife has been sleeping with your neighbor.
Oh, I’m sorry, it’s just sex. She can still be a good mom and a good wife. Who cares who else she’s porking.
Trust is trust, buddy. Have past people led after screwing around, sure. But do you think the Leader of the free world should not be expected to be a little better than that?
And don’t give us any Hitler crap. I know he didn’t sleep around on Eva and still wasn’t worth two bits as a human being.
BTW, speaking of sanctimony, these idiot leftists in the press are the ones that celebrated the Clinton affair as ok. Now they’re the ones making accusations at McCain? I’m not at all in love with McCain the candidate, but this bit of two-faced carp is exactly why I piped up about this issue.
Take your Euro sensibilities back to brussels. They’re doing oh so well over there with these enlightened attitudes.
What offends me in all of this McCannia is that some are saying this NYT attack has “galvanized” conservatives to come to McCain’s defense. I’m sorry, but I felt nothing for or against McCain because of the story. McCain is still a sham conservative who will throw us to the side if we help elect him. Sheesh.
I guess Ann Coulter is one of the “McHaters”, JHF, given her past statements on him. She does offer some of her thoughts in her recent article.
Although I don’t always agree with her approach in some of her articles, this one hits some things dead-on, like the system McCain helped institute severely limits our possibility of a Reagan-like candidate from coming forth now or in the future.
Someone said to me that God was going to let this nation learn some tough lessons. Throw Him out of school, the public, our government and what do we expect? The cream rises to the top. Unfortunately we no longer have milk, only pap & “thin beer!” No surprise we have such a shallow list of shallow people to potentially lead what has been the greatest nation on earth. Frightening!
Ooops. JHF should be JHP in #32.
#30 On February 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am, SHoward said:
“Remember what you said here today, max, when you find out your wife has been sleeping with your neighbor.”
Well said.
Ah, “Sanctimony”! I saw it in #21.
I KNEW I had left out of my above post #8 one of the terms the opposite-worldview-holders would trot out.
Dang.
SHoward, as I say all the time, if you have to explain such things to someone, that person will never - n-e-v-e-r - understand.
They have a polar opposite world view; with what essentially is its own different language, grammar, syntax, parts of speech, figures of speech, etc.
They just cannot understand, and do not want to understand.
And, as I’ve said before, trying to find common ground with such 180-degree opposite worldview holders is like trying to find common ground between a table and a dog.
Jayhawk/War Tip:
We’re facing a uniquely conservative dilemma. The two Dems want to spit in our collective eye yet McCain “mimics” their belief systems except for his national security and military stances. McCain is a study of contradictions (as are the Dems) so many people are tired of putting together his puzzle pieces hoping they’ll construct some semblance of a “normal” picture.
McCain wasn’t my guy. Anybody who’s buddy buddy with the NYT is kidding themselves. McCain’s “bipartisanship” can be sickening but at least we have a record. O’bummer smiles pretty, bats his eyelashes, and makes love to the camera… when he sniffles the crowd swoons.
There is a lot of soul-searching within the conservative movement. Some circles say that voting for McCain means you’re not a conservative. Other circles say that if you don’t vote for McCain, you being a theatrical non-conformist. Politics seems more of a roulette wheel these days.
While disagreement is good if it devolves into a slitering snake pit of nastiness, we all lose… except the determined socialist, zealot Dems…
Speaking only for myself…
he is MUCH more dangerous than the openly…more easily opposed…
Dimocrate extremists…
because he is not overtly Leftist.
He would also be more effective at advancing THEIR agenda.
What has to be mentioned in any discussion about the NY Times and this story is that the four reporters on the McCain beat, particularly Jim Ruttenberg, are fierce liberals. They are all fervently committed to the election of a Democratic candidate. Just look at their colleagues Deborah Sontag and Chris Hedges. Hedges had the MidEast beat and then the students at a Midwest college were forced to have him as a graduation day speaker. Thinking that the students were spoiled rich kids just like him, Hedges trashed America in his speech and was shocked when the students booed him. The four Democrat reporters who slimed McCain share the same iedology.
War Tip:
Haven’t been to a good pork barbecue in ages. My cousin has one of those giant smokers so part of the fun is waiting for hours and drinking and thinking. Good times, good times.
Best pork I’ve tasted but then I’ve always thought that the pork chops were sell-outs.
Y’all may want to look at The McCain World Rift - this explains a lot about the McCain issue.
I like it when Michelle and others take the NYT to task for unwarranted attacks against Republicans, Jayhawk. Not a problem for me at all.
Without the NYT story, wouldn’t the lead have been “Boos for Clinton”?
.
That does sounds like good food & good times, emjem.
I’m not usually much on pork, but if you get nice, thick chops straight from the farm now that’s some good eatin’.
There’s nothing like a good pig pickin’ and kicking back with a good cold beer to pass the time waiting on it to get finished. Maybe that’s why I always volunteer to be the one to stay up all night to cook it. *hiccup* Hmmmm?
Hank Williams, Jr. knew he had a hit with “the pig in the ground” and “the beer on ice”.
Beer with white meat, Barry?
How gauche!
:-0
Well, yes. Beer goes quite well with white meat and, even, “the other white meat”.
I don’t think I’ve ever been to a pig pickin’ where we had wine or champagne on ice.
Do people actually do that?
Good grief! Now I have the taste for a Sam Adams Light. Well, at least it is 12 o’clock here.
Purple:
Sounds good to me about now. Could we replace that beer (not a big beer drinker…. a thought that is sacreligious to some of my kin) with a martini? It really has been a long week.
The NYTimes has manipulated this election to the degree the residents of my state have been cheated out of the opportunity to have our primary votes count. Unfortunately we will be too busy trying to unseat our corrupt state officials to do much about reclaiming that right. (Local paper owned by NYT)
SHoward is correct: If someone cheats on his/her spouse, or cheats on the golf course, (or writes articles without factual basis) that person is untrustworthy. We’re married 54+ years and part of that is pure luck, the other part is complete trust.
How ironic the McCain-Feingold bill could come back to bite him!
Martinis for thee and beers for me, emjem. As we say in these parts, “whatever trips your trigger.”
I’m thinking some Sam Adams Boston Lager with the pork or some Sam Adams Brown Ale or Sam Adams October-Fest or…. well, I guess just about any other Samuel Adams blend is sounding good to me right now.
Gotta go with, emjem, Barry. except make mine a shaker or two of Manhattans to down before, during and after the pig pickin’.
(Had to stop at the BrewMonkey page when I got to “Fruit beers”. Was still in the a.m. here…wasn’t ready for that thought yet.)
By the way, the SPI editor should be happy with most any of the Sam Adams varieties. They are far from being a “thin beer“.
I think it also says alot about the character of the couple. Congrats and best wishes, UMSCgramma.
To each their own, peep. I’ve never been much of martini drinker, except for a couple of flavored varieties to which my lovely bride introduced me using some vanilla liqueurs. If we do some sampling of some of those and the Manhattan, I might be inspired to partake myself, along with some beer.
On February 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am, SHoward said:
Remember what you said here today, max, when you find out your wife has been sleeping with your neighbor.
Don’t worry about me, worry about yourself…
thanks
I hate to cut things short, especially now that everyone has gotten me so worked up for a malted beverage, but I have to run. I think I need to make a run through the grocery store to grab a six-pack.
Have a good weekend, all!
We drove you to drink, eh? Better bring some back for the other brew imbibing guests here at Michelle’s house.
Um, max, did you bother to read my entire post, or did you just get torqued off after reading line #1?
Here’s what I did: You implied in your previous posts that an untrustworthy husband (or wife, presumeably) would make a trustworthy leader or representative.
I made the logical extension of applying that idea to a down home domestic environment. In other words, would you feel the same if it were your own spouse? Would you feel it was ok, becasue she otherwise makes a good wife and mother?
That’s your implication: effectively, that Bill Clinton (or insert politician name here) was a fine and trustworthy president despite his enormous history of womanizing, while married.
If you want to trust a scoundrel, go ahead.
Today is Washington’s Birthday…so I thought, in tribute, I would use a quote from his Farewell Address:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens.”
He was perhaps our greatest President.
Speaking of pigs and ham - sorta, HAMnation has a great must see.
NYT-dirt
The point of the NYT piece is not really if the story is true, the point is the liberal media is starting to attack their previous darling. I heard on FOX both Geraldo and Mort Kondrake (sp?) saying something to the extent that this should be investigated further since if there is any impropriety, it needs to be looked into (I am praphrasing big time). Anyway, I was actually taken back by those 2, not the NYT, since they WERE such strong McCain supporters. The NYT wil keep doing this, since many people hear a story and they will still believe it is true 9 months down the line, even if disproved. Just look at how many people out there think 9/11 was an inside job. I am just waiting for the new stories to come our as soon as the dems have a pretty suer ominee, if not before. And I gurantee they will bring out McCain leaving his frist crippled wife. Someone will probably even get an interview with her, maybe on 60 minutes.
The fishy part of this entire story for me (NYT hypocrisy aside) is, if this story is so untrue, why did McCain go to such lengths to try to kill it?
If its patently false and he acted properly and in the normal course of his Senate duties in writing the FCC letters etc. Then who cares, the NYT will write anything and look dumb in the process?
I just think his claims of innocence now don’t match up with the strident (even hiring a lawyer) attempt to kill the story a few months ago??
Mngirl, you make a very good point. Even if the story is not true, the seed is planted in many people’s minds. I just saw on line an opinion piece for a Christian type web site that said this, if true, is in character for McCain because of his past alleged infidelities not just with his current wife Cindy, but with other women while married to his first wife. Maybe that is why he wanted to kill the story, because many people will think he did it because of how he has allegedly acted in the past.
Re: #62, mngirl, the reason McCain wanted to quash the story then, even with a lawyer, is that he could have lost the primary race to Mitt Romney, who was strong at the time and squeaky clean in the sexual relationships department. And McCain knows that most people will only remember the headline, not the details of the article. I’ll bet today if you surveyed people, they’d say he was actually caught having an affair with a lobbyist, although the NYTimes really only talked about rumors of an appearance of an impropriety. Right, that is thin beer.
The whole thing is of the “when did you stop beating your wife?” type. No matter what you answer, you’re damned if you do or damned if you don’t. Trouble is, you can’t just ignore it. Wonder if there’s any way to revoke Soros’ citizenship?
“The fishy part of this entire story for me (NYT hypocrisy aside) is, if this story is so untrue, why did McCain go to such lengths to try to kill it?”
Possibly because proving a negative is impossible, and he thought that it would be easier to simply squash it than to deny it over and over ad nauseum, until people say “methinks the man doth protest to much?” True or not, he will have suspicion hanging around his neck for the rest of his life, in all probability.
It’s reported LBJ used to make such false accusations, saying “I know it’s not true but I want to hear him deny it!”.
All you have to do is plant the rumor. “Unnamed sources revealed what is an unconfirmed rumor…” You let the MSM run with it. Drug use, infidelity, alcohol use…you name it, and it will be printed. No matter what happens the people (voters) will remember it. Prostitutes in the White House is a favorite for the past 150 years or so. We call it “muckraking”.
I may be wrong about this, but once upon a time, wasn’t “muckracking” usually ignored by most people?
Sure, it is always expected. Thomas Jefferson was once called the Antichrist during a campaign so it isn’t even new.
The problem I see today is that our increasingly dumbed down population buys this junk more and more. And all they have to do is alledge…
#69 On February 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm, SHoward said:
“The problem I see today is that our increasingly dumbed down population buys this junk more and more.”
Yep.
And, that really brings home what I’ve repeatedly said, that the fact that everyone’s vote counts the same as that of everyone else is our country’s greatest strength…and at the same time its greatest weakness.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen nothing to indicate that our population is not continuing to get even dumber.
For those that can stomach second-rate movies, see “Idiocracy.”
If you want something a little more intelligent, “The Marching Morons,” C. Kornbluth, 1951. It’s a science fiction short story, and I think the producers of Idiocracy took their inspiration from it.
These would speak exactly to your point, granite.
…and the Dimocraps/liberals make excuses for Clintons Oval Office extracurricular activities.
HERE
hunybuny016 04:12:27 PM Feb 22 2008
hey archaeoone: democrats also remember that gas, food and housing was more affordable during those clinton years. getting a hummer under your desk does not compete with the shenanigans of the GOP.
While Rick Renzi is being indicted (as he should be if the charges hold merit), Willy “The Freezer” Jeff is MIA.
The list of Dems who get free passes just keeps geting longer.
“Muckraking” depended a lot on the newspaper/press and their opinion of the candidate. The worse was the Jackson-Adams election. After that, it was toned down, though certainly not left out. Sometimes, something really “juicy” was deliberately left out. FDR’s affairs was always hushed up. Eleanor and him had a platonic relationship. He was dying during the reelection campaign of 44, but the Press conveniently left it out, as well as his disability. JFK’s marriage to an alleged Nazi spy was hushed up. Jackie wasn’t his first marriage. Old Joe got him shipped to the Pacific after that. The MSM, loving JFK, agreed not to print anything about it. These days, little “juicy” rumors are back and will run its course, through the MSM, except for Obama, for sure.
Meghan McCain Wearing Keffiyeh on Campaign Trail
I’m thinking people may be missing the reason for this NYT McCain piece. What it was is what might be terms a “gun=counting exercise.” That, put out a recycled story filled with old stuff, rumors borrowed and blue, to see who responds, how many respond, and with what intensity.
This is just the opening for the NYT’s and the media’s attack campaign in general to be conducted until Election Day. And of course, Republicans and Conservatives fell for it. The best choice by far would have been to simply ignore it — it really is weak. But now the Times has what it needs and each succeeding story will be based upon that data.
Whatever one thinks of the NYT, and I don’t think very much of it, they are not dummies.
You guys are still acting as if this story came out about a man otherwise and here-to-fore known to be honorable.
Yet there he stands with the Second wife, who is the result of his former adultery on his first wife, with this lady, a former staffer.
And you are trying to tell us he is too honorable to be “caught” with a lobbyist.
Not because McCain is honorable, but because some people think it is more important to win an election race, no matter what kind of person they win with - than to stop and think of the implications of handing your balloting authority over to a man who cannot be trusted to do the right thing by America - McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy Shamnesty - knowing crooked politicians always go further than your wildest imagination EVER DREAMED they would ever DARE to think of doing.
His mea culpa over the other adultery he was caught at was typical Democrat - “his first marriage broke up over a public case of adultery”.
What a way to state that you cheated on your faithful wife who stood by you will you were a POW, fighting Washington for any news of you, and the affair starts after she has a car wreck - what a way to reward a faithful wife - not only committing adultery with someone from the workplace, but then wording it for national publication in as ambiguous a manner as possible - obviously hoping many will assume it was the WIFE who was caught in a flagrant act. And the poor guy who had already “suffered enough” as a POW was the “injured party”.
NO REPENTENCE THERE!
Just so barfing. That is just not the way a man carries himself when he has made a commitment to stretch towards higher moral values in the future than he quite “feels” like doing.
I highly suspect that the NYT is “testing the waters” with this story - and I fully expect that stories to come may come with much more evidence.
But McCain’s crossover Dim voters won’t care, any more than they did about Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy, or Bill The Blue Dress Made Me Do It Clinton.
I don’t care about the lobbyist.
I care about an electorate that is so degenerate that they make excuses of blaming the media, even the Old Grey Nag, for the kind of story that is a natural for this candidate’s already manifested weaknesses.
McCain has already done it before, and his reputation for abusiveness to anyone he considers his “lessers” about him - staff, service people, Veterans and their families, even families of POWS, MIAS, and KIAS, not my experience that such unrepentently abusive people stop any of their chosen vices.
I just came from a very large family gathering, more than 100 adults - I didn’t run across a single McCain supporter - and I don’t think there are any Dims in the bunch.