(DD)

Have you noticed? No one advertises on this Blogg any more.

We tried, but they wouldn’t let us!

(DD)

Just read both articles. First want to call attention to Tim’s jet-lag induced oversight. The affair occured eight (8) years ago, so it was NOT with a 40-year-old lobbyist, not that it matters.

Anyone considering voting for Mr. McCain should consider reading the article. It is not so much about McCain’s relations with the woman as it is in his inconsistencies AND his propensity to ’sin and repent,’ becoming, in the process, a harpy. And, if the story is to believed, a hypocrite. I leave the readers to their own conclusion, but the piece is a good reminder of McCain’s Senate activities.

The ‘response’ by McCain’s camp at the end is worth reading. They seem to have concluded that McCain’s repentance expunged his record, claiming, “…He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election. ??

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

Huh, the story cited McCain apologizing and lamenting his past picadilloes.

The timing, the timing …

The Times got spooked into this dubiously sourced story by the pending National Review expose.

Tell us more RJ

(DD)

McCain is saying:

“Obviously I’m very disappointed in the article. It’s not true,” the four-term Arizona senator told a news conference.

“At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor any one or any organization,” McCain said.

I guess he ‘forgot’ about the Keating business and a number of times McCain has been chided for pressuring federal agencies on behalf of some ‘benefactor.’

I’m sure Obama stategists, and HRC’s as well, maybe not, are watching for him to say, “I forgot.” They’ll pounce on that, saying, what do you expect from a septuagenarian?

Methinks Johnnie’s put his foot in it with this one.

This the same thing that the
REPUBS accused Bill Clinton of while he was in the oval office!!

McCain better hope that the DEMS are nicer to him than the REPUB hypocrites were to Bill…

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

I think for a supposedly or at least formerly distinguished newspaper such as the New York Times to run a story that insinuates John McCain was having an affair without providing any thing other than hearsay is completely unethical. This reminds me of 2004 when Wesley Clarke leaked to the press that John Kerry supposedly had an affair with a younger woman. It’s bad enough that candidates fling enough s@!t back and forth to fertilize the entire globe, but it is inexcusable for newspapers to get down in the dirt as well. To be honest though, nothing the New York Times does should surprise me, unless they go back to objective reporting, that is.

(DD)

Midman,

I trust you read the article. It was more about McCain’s inconsistencies and indiscretions than about a relationship with the woman. And the paper never intimated the relationship was romantic, only reported that some McCain staffers worried that it was such OR that it would be perceived as such.

At one point the paper summarized the theme by saying, “Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.”

As I stated in another post, McCain’s response is the more remarkable thing.

And yes, you can argue by bringing it up, the Times could be accused of obliquely accusing McCain, but McCain never denied being seen with the woman, only that the relationship wasn’t romantic, which, if you read the article, isn’t really germane.

There is more truth on a single page of the world’s best newspaper: The NYTimes, than there is in the entire 60 years of the conservative movement.

I for one think it utterly disgusting that a skeevy old man like McCain would molest a woman 30 years younger.

This fits in with McCain’s character: he lately used public campaign finance money as collateral to pay for a bank loan financing his campaign. He then planned to USE PRIVATE FUNDING IF HE WON.

He is utterly dishonest and dishonors the military every day he remains in public life.

What a disgrace.

(DD)

THE NATION says today,
“Conservative elites do relish attacking The Times, and their default reaction to bad news is to attack the messenger, whether it’s Joe Wilson or a newspaper. But The Times editorial staff endorsed McCain, and its news staff held the story for months while McCain trailed in the primaries — when it would have done the maximum damage.”

The Times released the story ’cause it was going to break elsewhere.

I would love to see conservatives react to McCain’s violation of his marriage the same way they reacted to Clinton’s.

They won’t. Today the piece of trash known as Rush Limbaugh rallied to McCain’s side. Conservatives will rally around McCain even though they disagree with him. The reason? Because conservatives have no principles whatsoever other than the pursuit of power. They do not care about immigration, moral values, tax cuts or anything else as is shown by the fact they will nominate McCain.

Conservatism is bankrupt and dead and its adherents are pathetic losers. Reagan would be proud.

I would love to see conservatives react to McCain’s violation of his marriage the same way they reacted to Clinton’s.

They won’t. Today the piece of trash known as Rush Limbaugh rallied to McCain’s side. Conservatives will rally around McCain even though they disagree with him. The reason? Because conservatives have no principles whatsoever other than the pursuit of power. They do not care about immigration, moral values, tax cuts or anything else as is shown by the fact they will nominate McCain.

Conservatism is bankrupt and dead and its adherents are pathetic losers. Reagan would be proud.

(DD)

Not surprising, the MSM, of which The Times is certainly an integral part, is playing this all up as a sex scandal. That’s hardly the case. The Times ‘used’ McCain’s relationship with the woman as a lead to lure readers, it’s true, and for that they could be criticized, but the meat of the story is NOT about the woman, it’s about McCain. The ‘significant other’ in the story could have been a male and the text of the story would be little effected.

The truth is, John McCain is just another silver-spoon offering from the right. His father was an Admiral as was his grandfather and he was ‘anointed’ into the U.S. Naval Academy where he underachieved to the maximum. Following his ‘heroic’ stint in Nam, he had his choice of careers, he chose, surprise, politics. Dumping his wife and family, he married into a rich family in Phoenix which proceeded to b-u-y him entry to Congress. Everything he ‘accomplished’ after Nam was, in fact, at the aegis of others.

Following publication of The Times story, McCain said, “At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust.” This would seem to contradict history, as The Times pointed out, “At Mr. Keating’s request, he wrote several letters to regulators, introduced legislation and helped secure the nomination of a Keating associate to a banking regulatory board.”

The Times also took note of McCain’s inconsistency, pointing out that he had built a Senate rep as a scourge of lobbyists. But adding, “Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office.”

The Times was faced with a dilemma: if it left out the role of the woman, no one would have read the story, but by placing her in context, they ran the risk of diverting attention from the central topic. The Times made it clear, as well, that members of his staff generated the story. It wasn’t like the reporters went out ‘dirt digging.’

(Jed Clampett)

Great assessment, haven’t had a chance to read the article yet, but i’m glad to see some folks can see past the dissembling perpetrated by the media.
Of course they would focus on the romantic affair with the lobbyist, it’s the easiest thing to refute because there is little proof other than he said, she said.
But the other revelations of the piece are better left hidden from the majority, just for consumption of those that are able to read for longer than a blog post, and by focusing on the affair as the main part of the article, they can paint the whole article as a smear piece rather than a reveal.

The commentary here is utterly ridiculous.

That McCain would violate his honor where money and personal favors are concerned is obvious. It is a requirement for running as a Republican.

What is not a requirement is the violation of the moral values conservative voters rabidly prize. McCain’s molestation of a girl 30 years younger than he shows his disgusting character for what it really is.

He is a dishonor and a disappointment to the United States Military. With each lie he shows himself unworthy of the label of U.S. soldier.

This is a man who is truly unworthy of the presidency.

(DD)

Truth,

If you have evidence of molestation, you should come forward with it. Otherwise the Right might make a tragic mistake.

(DD)

Uh Oh!! It looks as though little Johnnie sent a letter to the FCC arguing against closing a loop-hole that would prevent Ms Iseman’s client from having ownership of more than one TV station in a single city.

Today’s Times points out that, “At a news conference on Thursday, Mr. McCain denounced an article in The New York Times that described concerns by top advisers a decade ago about his ties to Ms. Iseman, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay. He said he never had any discussions with his advisers about Ms. Iseman and never did any favors for any lobbyist.”

Does that qualify as a lie or a 71-year-old unable to remember what he did?

Bad Johnnie!! Bad Johnnie!!

After trying to post the same thing a dozen times in the last three days, I have given up. I don’t know if this site no longer supports Macs or what the deal is, but hopefully it will be fixed eventually.

Sweet more proxies.

Midman,

I don’t know from Macs but Jed has discovered a ‘cookie problem.’ You have to clear out the RS cookies in Documents and Settings and then NOT use the name block. You’ll still get proxy errors now and again, but things should be improved.

Everyone keeps saying things will get better, but they don’t. At some point this place will be a graveyard.

NRA,

Missed your earlier post.

Get real!! You have about as much chance getting an ad on here as Green Peace does on your site. Unless you let them write the ad. Huh? Maybe? You Think?