submitter: Mission accomplished NY Times

Yes, because we all know that the NYT only published the article as part of a smear campaign to destroy McCain. And the were so sneaky they waited till all of his serious competition had dropped out to do it!

Dinki: submitter: Mission accomplished NY Times

Yes, because we all know that the NYT only published the article as part of a smear campaign to destroy McCain. And the were so sneaky they waited till all of his serious competition had dropped out to do it!

If the goal of the NYT was to knock out McCain in favor of another Republican, that would make sense. If they wanted to smear the Republican after the race was all but over in order to assist the Democrats, then it the timing works out better. I'm not saying that I believe it was an anti-McCain plot, because it was a pretty sad effort if it was.

You gotta love the thinking of the conservative donors... they find their disgust for the NYT even greater than their dislike of a candidate that they've labeled a liberal...

They found a republican who has sex with adult women!

Nabb1: I'm not saying that I believe it was an anti-McCain plot, because it was a pretty sad effort if it was.

I'm thinking the NYT did this to bolster McCain and galvanize conservatives in defense of him. If it's not, the NYT is completely incompetent, and that's a much more implausible explanation.

I'll believe there's nothing to this story when McCain sues the Times for libel.

Sex scandal article allows McCain to cash in with increased donations and conservative support. Mission accomplished NY Times

Yea, wait until Larry Flint show's up with the video.

/Gennifer Flowers?
//anyone?
///Bueller?

Dinki:

Yes, because we all know that the NYT only published the article as part of a smear campaign to destroy McCain. And the were so sneaky they waited till all of his serious competition had dropped out to do it!

They were going to run the story later this year but the New Republic forced their hand.

I don't think conservatives are flocking to McCain, I think most of them are still telling him, "See, we told you so"

Only in America is the issue not McCain, not the lobbyist and not the sex... It's the New York Times.

The timing on this is excellent for the McCain camp. He's already beaten his Republican opposition and the national election is far away, giving them a lot of time to defend this. Plus it's going to just make doubtful right-wingers join him in fighting off the "liberal media", not to mention that this story was going to break sooner or later. I won't quite say this is a gift to McCain, but it's close.

He is lieing

\Big Surprise!

On one hand, the NYT story allows a pretext for phonies like Rush and O'Reilly to back McCain without appearing as hypocrites.

On the other hand, it places McCain in the potential position of violating federal elections law and going to jail. McCain elected to take public financing for his campaign last year, and now he's trying to get out of that so he can raise money. The FEC chairman just reprimanded him because his attempts to raise money cut place him in direct violation of the law that he helped write.

Also, he took out a $1 million dollar bank loan with the condition that he take public financing as collateral. If he pulls out of the public financing system, they're going to call in the loan.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Only in America is the issue not McCain, not the lobbyist and not the sex... It's the New York Times.

Well yeah. It was a hatchet job

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Only in America is the issue not McCain, not the lobbyist and not the sex... It's the New York Times.

You're Dan Rather, aren't you?

Hang On Voltaire: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Only in America is the issue not McCain, not the lobbyist and not the sex... It's the New York Times.

Well yeah. It was a hatchet job

Well yeah. That's a bare assertion.

Cagey B: I'll believe there's nothing to this story when McCain sues the Times for libel.

Exactly

Hang On Voltaire: Well yeah. It was a hatchet job

And in this case, McCain's response gets him in trouble. He denied doing any favors for the lobbyist, and Newsweek just uncovered a sworn deposition where McCain states that he was doing the lobbyist a favor.

Hang On Voltaire: I don't think conservatives are flocking to McCain, I think most of them are still telling him, "See, we told you so"

Thread after thread. Attack the messenger, not the message. Right-wing asshatery.

You want to send McCain a message? How about:

Stop running on how lobbyists and special interests are ruining government if you're gonna run around Washington hob-knobing with lobbyists and special interests.

That's the story.

Nabb1

If the goal of the NYT was to knock out McCain in favor of another Republican, that would make sense. If they wanted to smear the Republican after the race was all but over in order to assist the Democrats, then it the timing works out better. I'm not saying that I believe it was an anti-McCain plot, because it was a pretty sad effort if it was.

If they wanted to smear McCain to help democratic voting in the elections, wouldn't they wait for about eight more months? Voters have notoriously short memories for this sort of stuff.

evidence that mccain took bribes increases his support amongst conservatives. wish i could say i was surprised!

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

doesn't look good for the "talking express"

/total douchebag

flavor of the month: evidence that mccain took bribes increases his support amongst conservatives. wish i could say i was surprised!

I haven't seen any evidence, but I can't say I'm surprised conservatives are supporting a candidate getting slammed by the NYTimes. It's utter stupidity.

DarnoKonrad: Stop running on how lobbyists and special interests are ruining government if you're gonna run around Washington hob-knobing with lobbyists and special interests.

The other part of the story is that McCain and his advisers are either either naive or stupid about the ways of Washington. If McCain's advisers were concerned about romance with a lobbyist, then either got brainwashed by the "maverick" image or they don't know how lobbyists work. I don't know how McCain can label Obama "naive" when apparently he has his own troubles about avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

there is atlest 2 things in this world that gets "conservatives" to throw their values out the window, little boy ass, and their hatred for the NYT...

I think someone from the GOP or McCain camp planted the story intentionally and kept egging the NYT to pursue it because they expected it to play out like this. Since there's no story to be had, they can make the NTY the victim and McCain can play the strong war hero that would never find himself in a scandal like that.

This solves two of their problems: it helps unite Republicans behind a single candidate and builds up his strength to fight the Democrats' nominee in November.

/tin foil hat

LocalCynic:

And in this case, McCain's response gets him in trouble. He denied doing any favors for the lobbyist, and Newsweek just uncovered a sworn deposition where McCain states that he was doing the lobbyist a favor.

I saw that. The question of McCain's actions in re to the FCC are certainly legitimate. I was referring to the affair semi-allegations

Ahh, the New York Times... If only all liberal news outlets could have things blow up in their faces like this.

SeismicJizzer: Link (new window)

Link (new window)

doesn't look good for the "talking express"

/total douchebag

THIS

FEC Warns McCain on Campaign Spending

If this pans out, his ass is in the sling. Can't even play by the same rules he's been championing. Tho as the presumptive nominee, he's gonna get a whole lot of right wing baggage he hasn't been keen to support in the past.

From the New York Times story:

At one point, his campaign invited scores of lobbyists to a fund-raiser at the Willard Hotel in Washington. While Bush supporters stood mocking outside, the McCain team tried to defend his integrity by handing the lobbyists buttons reading "McCain voted against my bill." Mr. McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called "cowardly."

and

By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning "soft money," the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws.

One of his efforts, though, seemed self-contradictory. In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of "bad publicity" after news reports of the arrangement

/Republicans who defend this man just sicken me

LocalCynic: If McCain's advisers were concerned about romance with a lobbyist,

That's not even what happened. More accurately McCain's advisers were concerned about the appearance of a romance with a lobbyist.

But reporting on that is the New York Times fault. Uh huh.

/not aimed at you but the thread.

Mugato: They found a republican who has sex with adult women!

Yeah. I think this is really the surprising news in all of this.

/NTTAWWT

DarnoKonrad: SeismicJizzer: Link (new window)

Link (new window)

doesn't look good for the "talking express"

/total douchebag

THIS

FEC Warns McCain on Campaign Spending

If this pans out, his ass is in the sling. Can't even play by the same rules he's been championing. Tho as the presumptive nominee, he's gonna get a whole lot of right wing baggage he hasn't been keen to support in the past.

I can't believe the media isn't reporting on this, maybe they are waiting on the FEC's decision?

SeismicJizzer: From the New York Times story:

At one point, his campaign invited scores of lobbyists to a fund-raiser at the Willard Hotel in Washington. While Bush supporters stood mocking outside, the McCain team tried to defend his integrity by handing the lobbyists buttons reading "McCain voted against my bill." Mr. McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called "cowardly."

What kind of ass-backwards logic was his campaign using? And has it somehow infected the Clinton camp?

So when the Times runs a story about Obama's drug history it's journalism but when they run a story about McCain's questionable favors for a lobbyist while running as the candidate of integrity it's a "smear campaign" - even after they endorsed him.

Ah, gotta love consistency.

Hang On Voltaire: I saw that. The question of McCain's actions in re to the FCC are certainly legitimate. I was referring to the affair semi-allegations

If McCain weathers the storm by claiming this is a non-story because one part of the story is wrong, there's still going to be some blow-back. I certainly can see an angle as to how this could help McCain, in that it gives a pretext for the conservatives pretending to dislike McCain to suddenly be in his camp. But that's only going to get him so far. I don't think he'll be able to shake the questions about his involvement with lobbyists merely by saying "this allegations are similar to the discredited NY Times report." The more his people try that type of dodge, the more he looks like a politician and the less he looks like a reformer.

Now, I realize that McCain's strategists are trying to play to his strengths by digging in and trying to appear like a "fighter" who is "strong" and won't back down. McCain has already signaled that he is placing all of his eggs in the war basket and that he's going to run as a MACHO candidate. But he should look to how poorly that type of campaign has worked for Hillary. She has tried to come off as an indignant fighter who will never back down, and she ended up looking ridiculous. McCain is going to have the same problem. Instead of looking like a fighter, he's going to come off looking like someone who wants to pick fights with people. Democrats (and some conservatives) have already begun planting that image of the belicose, warmongering Senator who has a terrible anger management problem.

SeismicJizzer:

I can't believe the media isn't reporting on this, maybe they are waiting on the FEC's decision?

I think that would be wise. Tho, I've heard a bit here and there. it's new.

SeismicJizzer: I can't believe the media isn't reporting on this, maybe they are waiting on the FEC's decision?

Most people wouldn't know the difference between the FEC and the FCC. Some of them are in this very thread.

Mugato: They found a republican who has sex with adult women!

You magnificent bastard! I kissa you face!

randomjsa: Ahh, the New York Times... If only all liberal news outlets could have things blow up in their faces like this.

How is this blowing up in the NY Times' faces? Have they been sued for libel?

Oh, wait, all the conservative types are bashing it yet again because instead of a story justifying hostile actions in the Middle East, it's a story they don't particularly like this time.

It's not "blowing up in your face" if all the affected parties do is harrumph about how they deny it, but not to the point of, you know, getting legal authorities involved with troublesome questions and investigative powers. It's more, "business as usual".

The NY Times article derailed itself with the junk about the sexual innuendo. The article should have stuck to the main point that McCain shows a serious conflict of interest with corporations and lobbyists.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd love a good republican sex scandal as much as anyone else but christ man, you gotta learn to not shoot your wad too early if there is actually anything to this.

Donald_McRonald: SeismicJizzer: From the New York Times story:

At one point, his campaign invited scores of lobbyists to a fund-raiser at the Willard Hotel in Washington. While Bush supporters stood mocking outside, the McCain team tried to defend his integrity by handing the lobbyists buttons reading "McCain voted against my bill." Mr. McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called "cowardly."

What kind of ass-backwards logic was his campaign using? And has it somehow infected the Clinton camp?

according to this site Clinton has taken over a million in PAC donations
Link (new window)

In case you were wondering if Republicans actively support the festering cesspool of corruption and scandal that their party has become, or whether they just live with it because it's the best they have right now....well, here's your answer.

He's corrupt and scandalous....ZOMG, I MUST SEND HIM MONEY!!!

depmode98: The NY Times article derailed itself with the junk about the sexual innuendo. The article should have stuck to the main point that McCain shows a serious conflict of interest with corporations and lobbyists.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd love a good republican sex scandal as much as anyone else but christ man, you gotta learn to not shoot your wad too early if there is actually anything to this.

I was thinking the same, the only thing I can come up with is that sex part was added to keep the story in the news for a couple more days

the NY Times article was so bad, it's actually making me defend McCain on this one. How can you sue for Libel, when the article didn't actually SAY anything. All it does is say that if you squint really hard at the picture of McCain and the hot girl and shake it a little, conceivably you can almost imagine them humping. That's perfectly true!

And another thing, it doesn't change the fact (i'm talking to you now huffy conservatives) McCain probably cheated and left his first wife because she was paralyzed, to fark his current wife.

SeismicJizzer: according to this site Clinton has taken over a million in PAC donations
Link (new window)

I just meant the utter ass-backwardness of styling yourself as a reformer who shuns lobbyists while at the same time inviting lobbyists to a fundraiser and then pissing them off by telling them that you don't want to deal with them (even if maybe you do). It makes my head spin just trying to think about it.

Donald_McRonald: SeismicJizzer: according to this site Clinton has taken over a million in PAC donations
Link (new window)

I just meant the utter ass-backwardness of styling yourself as a reformer who shuns lobbyists while at the same time inviting lobbyists to a fundraiser and then pissing them off by telling them that you don't want to deal with them (even if maybe you do). It makes my head spin just trying to think about it.

the thing is in this day and age, it is so easy to catch you in a lie why bother?

Cagey B: I'll believe there's nothing to this story when McCain sues the Times for libel.

McCain is a public figure, and in order to win a libel judgment would pretty much have to show that the Times had concrete proof that he DIDN'T have an affair with her, but chose to run the story anyway.

poot_rootbeer: McCain is a public figure, and in order to win a libel judgment would pretty much have to show that the Times had concrete proof that he DIDN'T have an affair with her, but chose to run the story anyway.

This fails to explain why McCain lawyered up and tried everything he could to prevent them from running the story.