Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: headhuntersix on February 21, 2008, 09:46:20 AM
-
The New York Times Finally Gives John McCain "The Republican Treatment"
"I'm not even going to pull the (New York Times) passage for further circulation, but unnamed sources think there might have been a sex scandal but aren't really sure, which may or may not have been connected to an ethics scandal that they're not even sure existed, the evidence for which all comes from eight years ago, and which naturally warrants dredging up the details of an actual ethics scandal for which McCain was punished and has duly apologized and seen-the-light for incessantly since it happened, ahem, 20 years ago." -- Mary Katharine Ham
A few days ago, a blogger mailing list that I ended up on somehow made note of a story about Barack Obama. Long story short, there is a guy named Larry Sinclair out there claiming that he snorted cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999 and then went down on him.
Is that true? I have no idea. But the general sentiment on that mailing list seemed to be that story was beneath us and that as conservative bloggers, we shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
I had a different reaction. When I saw the story, I sent a one word reply: "Linked!" -- and it was, on Conservative Grapevine, right before I sent out the email.
Why? Because not only does the Left side of the blogosphere have zero qualms about promoting this kind of story when it involves Republicans, the mainstream media has absolutely no qualms about it either.
When a Democrat is accused of some sort of affair, the mainstream media is extremely concerned about making 100% sure the story is drop dead accurate, down to the last detail, before they'll even begin to think about printing the story. That's why Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story to the public, not the MSM. It's also why stories about affairs involving John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton have been buried or not printed at all in most MSM outlets over the last few years.
However, when a Republican is involved, Weekly Week World News standards become the order of the day and no excuse is too flimsy to run a story about an alleged scandal.
Unfortunately for John McCain, now that he's the Republican nominee for President, the MSM has revoked his "honorary Democrat" status and is treating him just like any other Republican, which is why the New York Times has published one of the flimsiest, most insubstantial smear pieces since their attacks on George Bush in 2004.
In short, the New York Times rehashed the 20 year old Keating Five affair and accused McCain of being unethical and having an affair based on, well, almost nothing.
The hotter story is, of course, the allegation Johnny Mac was playing the field. Here's the evidence that the New York Times has for that stunning allegation, that both McCain and the woman he's supposed to have had an affair with, Vicki Iseman, deny...
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
...Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”
That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.
A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.
... In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.
“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”
So, ah -- where's the beef? McCain's staff thought he was hanging around with an attractive female lobbyist too much, was concerned that it would look bad, and asked him to stop (probably out of fear that it would end up in the New York Times one day). So far, so good. But, I don't see a single specific allegation in there that McCain and Iseman ever slept together, kissed, went on a date, or for that matter, were ever even alone together. Yet, on Drudge, we have, "McCain forced to deny romantic link with lobbyist..."
It's a rotten, irresponsible story that doesn't even meet the standards of the Larry Sinclair story. At least in that story, you have an actual person, willing to go on the record and make an allegation that he had sex and cocaine with Barack Obama. In the end, Sinclair's tale may be every bit as bogus as the NYT hit piece that just came out in the Times, but that begs a question: is there any reason that the McCain "affair" story is in the New York Times and the Obama "affair" story isn't that goes beyond the fact that McCain is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat?
Interesting piece on a Conservative website. I'm sure Obama didn't do that...but why is John Mccain any different.
-
:'(
-
LOL @ Foxnews.com headline:
McCain: 'It's Not True'Candidate blasts New York Times report
Senator 'very disappointed' that paper published suggestions of inappropriate relationship with female lobbyist
-
When a Democrat is accused of some sort of affair, the mainstream media is extremely concerned about making 100% sure the story is drop dead accurate, down to the last detail, before they'll even begin to think about printing the story. That's why Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story to the public, not the MSM. It's also why stories about affairs involving John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton have been buried or not printed at all in most MSM outlets over the last few years.
However, when a Republican is involved, Weekly Week World News standards become the order of the day and no excuse is too flimsy to run a story about an alleged scandal.
I agree with this. Also seems like the story has a much shorter lifespan if a Democrat is involved.
I don't recall reading about Kerry, Edwards, or Obama having affairs?
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/20/us/20mccain-190a.jpg)
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
-
I don't recall reading about Kerry, Edwards, or Obama having affairs?
Because they are men of morals and possess the ability to keep it in their pants?
-
There's a big difference. McCain's own people acknowledged that something was going on btn the Senator and the lobbyist. During a run for the presidency, that can be bad.
The Obama allegation is some nutcase trying to make waves. No proof or corroboration from other people = a nutcase looking for fame.
This article is just more sour grapes from the right. The liberal media...hell, The Times employed Judith Miller and supported Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Boy, you don't get more liberal than that.
-
The current editor of the NYT left is wife 20 yrs for his then pregnant mistress in 1999. I guess when ur a left winger those facts don't matter.
-
The current editor of the NYT left is wife 20 yrs for his then pregnant mistress in 1999. I guess when ur a left winger those facts don't matter.
Right. And if the editor of NYT was running for president, and he gave our tax dolalrs to those companies represented by that mistress, then yes, that is a problem.
Remember - no sensible person cares if he cheated/flirted/whatever. We care if he handed millions of dollars over to her clients because she spent so much time playing on the private jet with him.
-
The current editor of the NYT left is wife 20 yrs for his then pregnant mistress in 1999. I guess when ur a left winger those facts don't matter.
They don't matter for the reasons 240 articulated.
-
I read a thing today that showed all his votes which went against the lobbyist. I should have posted...I'm digging.
-
240 is right and I won't deny that.
-
I loved McCains Bill Clinton like answers on the radio today.
Don't answer the question asked, asnwer the question you wanted to be asked.
-
I loved McCains Bill Clinton like answers on the radio today.
Don't answer the question asked, asnwer the question you wanted to be asked.
Good practice for when he's POTUS
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/20/us/20mccain-190a.jpg)
Hahaha....she looks like a female John McCain.
That hh6 will probably never make general helps me have some faith in military folks. ;D
-
I read a thing today that showed all his votes which went against the lobbyist. I should have posted...I'm digging.
Yeah, I'm not particularly fond of some of my exes either. Doesn't mean i didn't go out of my way to do shit for them when I was getting it.
-
Could care less about a canidate's sex life...If he wants to dig up Mother Theresa and fuck her, more power to him....Ok, maybe not that, but if he had some sort of affair, who cares....
-
Could care less about a canidate's sex life...If he wants to dig up Mother Theresa and fuck her, more power to him....Ok, maybe not that, but if he had some sort of affair, who cares....
It might be a good idea to stop posting until you get to the eighth grade.
-
Sure thing Calmus....
-
I read a thing today that showed all his votes which went against the lobbyist. I should have posted...I'm digging.
yeah, so much poor info about this at the moment. Supposedly he wrote letters to his group encouraging them to listen to her, he defended that as a friend helping a friend.
He probably didn't do anything wrong. If he did, they'll find it shortly, no doubt.
-
If he did, they'll find it shortly, no doubt.
240, whenever I read your posts, you strike me as a really well-intentioned person with very little real world experience.
The NYTimes has had its info for a while and just sat on the story until Romney, Huckabee got knocked out.
The story was very well-written. Even the great Bob Bennett- now McCain's lawyer, formerly clinton's- is not going to be able to do anything about it.
The only way more info comes out is if McCain takes legal action, which he won't, because although he is a dirty, dirty bastard, he has a skill for survival (think cockroach).
-
calmus, i agree i'm a lot of theory. i love being proven wrong here on things because that's how I learn. I neve claim to be an expert on anything, and often post things I don't agree with just to hear both sides of issues.
oh, and i just like to argue :)
-
Don't worry calmus...I can't make General doing what I do...I could go work for Blackwater...or any of the major news outlets. Calmus is good about pointing out everybodies shortcomings...but make fun of Comrade Obama and he has a shit fit. Get off the name calling....do u know that McCain did anything wrong..no then shut up. If its proved right then so be it.
-
He could...slander is hard to prove...actually Decker should weigh in...but these cases take forever. I think they will work the media and hope it goes away.
-
He could...slander is hard to prove...actually Decker should weigh in...but these cases take forever. I think they will work the media and hope it goes away.
Hahaha....he won't sue because he knows that the shit will really hit the fan then. He's just going to huff and puff like he did this morning and hope that there many more people out there who are as morally ambivalent as the average getbig Republican.
-
Yeah...I know dems have the market cornered on morals and values right.
-
Suing would just give the story a longer lifespan. He's better doing what he did: hold a press conference, make his denial, get on with his campaign.
-
I think he did the right thing...he said he was disappointed as opposed outraged..he can let the talk radio surrogates do that. He did well enough
-
Yeah...I know dems have the market cornered on morals and values right.
::) You guys are the ones who make the big "morals" and "values" song and dance, and then look the other way as soon as it bites you in the ass. Big surprise there. Should call it the "Hypocritical" Party....would be more accurate.
-
I need more proof then the word of the Grey Lady. U guys have all looked the other way on Obama.
-
240, whenever I read your posts, you strike me as a really well-intentioned person with very little real world experience.
The NYTimes has had its info for a while and just sat on the story until Romney, Huckabee got knocked out.
The story was very well-written. Even the great Bob Bennett- now McCain's lawyer, formerly clinton's- is not going to be able to do anything about it.
The only way more info comes out is if McCain takes legal action, which he won't, because although he is a dirty, dirty bastard, he has a skill for survival (think cockroach).
lol
-
mccain's lawyer bob bennet said they won't be suing the NY Times.
-MSNBC hardball 2/21/08
-
mccain's lawyer bob bennet said they won't be suing the NY Times.
-MSNBC hardball 2/21/08
Hard to sue the truth.
-
This train is headed to Uglyville. 8)
-
He could...slander is hard to prove...actually Decker should weigh in...but these cases take forever. I think they will work the media and hope it goes away.
I forgot almost everything from the bar exam re defamation suits except for this: McCain would have a libel suit and those are winnable. Carol Burnett kicked the ass of the National Enquirer for libel.
-
Yeah..but it takes time. This was a hit piece pure and simple. Unnamed sources....come on. Nobody can prove anything. The editor sat on this thing because his people couldn't prove anything. Plus the two sources in the piece were said to be disgruntled ex-McCain people. I think this thing is dead. The angle that she had influence on him is the big deal and nobody is banging on that. Its be proven un-true. They have dozens of examples where he voted the opposite of her position. I think this was a case of a woman caught up with her job and Mccain's people did their job by making sure she didn't damage him.
-
Yeah..but it takes time. This was a hit piece pure and simple. Unnamed sources....come on. Nobody can prove anything. The editor sat on this thing because his people couldn't prove anything. Plus the two sources in the piece were said to be disgruntled ex-McCain people. I think this thing is dead. The angle that she had influence on him is the big deal and nobody is banging on that. Its be proven un-true. They have dozens of examples where he voted the opposite of her position. I think this was a case of a woman caught up with her job and Mccain's people did their job by making sure she didn't damage him.
I don't think McCain wants to tackle this in a public forum. He already has a character history of admitted adultery which doomed his first marriage.
-
Democrats can hardly make adultery an issue in this campaign, particularly if it happened 20 or 30 years ago. They've already made it pretty much irrelevant after Bill Clinton and turning a blind eye to the infidelities of the mayors of L.A., S.F., and Detroit.
-
The current editor of the NYT left is wife 20 yrs for his then pregnant mistress in 1999. I guess when ur a left winger those facts don't matter.
Is he running for public office?
-
Right. And if the editor of NYT was running for president, and he gave our tax dolalrs to those companies represented by that mistress, then yes, that is a problem.
Remember - no sensible person cares if he cheated/flirted/whatever. We care if he handed millions of dollars over to her clients because she spent so much time playing on the private jet with him.
100% correct.
-
Suing would just give the story a longer lifespan. He's better doing what he did: hold a press conference, make his denial, get on with his campaign.
Agreed. This story has no legs. It will have run its course within a few weeks or less.
-
The media isn't liberal.
I think I've been through this several times.
The major media outlets are owned by Trans National Corporations.
However, the media favors sleaze. Nothing new there.
Look at the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
Whether or not McCain cheated is irrelevant IMO.
Look at France, their Presidents have had mistresses on the side without it affecting their capability to be presidents.
And the supposed affair is not even going on today.
Lets move on people.
-
The media isn't liberal.
I think I've been through this several times.
The major media outlets are owned by Trans National Corporations.
However, the media favors sleaze. Nothing new there.
Look at the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
Whether or not McCain cheated is irrelevant IMO.
Look at France, their Presidents have had mistresses on the side without it affecting their capability to be presidents.
And the supposed affair is not even going on today.
Lets move on people.
Have you looked at Sarkozy's approval ratings lately?
-
Have you looked at Sarkozy's approval ratings lately?
Sarkozy is going to marry Carla Bruni. Big difference.
He is divorcing and re-marrying.
And she isn't his mistress.
Look at France historically, and you'll see that the ability of the president to rule the country has in no way been affected by whether or not he's had a mistress.
And the public didn't care.
-
Sarkozy is going to marry Carla Bruni. Big difference.
He is divorcing and re-marrying.
And she isn't his mistress.
Look at France historically, and you'll see that the ability of the president to rule the country has in no way been affected by whether or not he's had a mistress.
And the public didn't care.
Sarkozy married her a few weeks ago.
The public (in France, or in the US) doesn't care as long as it's discreet.
FDR, for instance, had several women he was associated with....and guess what? We didn't care either.
-
Maybe Clinton and other Prime Ministers are able to have affairs and run the country but how can anyone really trust a person that can't even stay true to his commitment to the one person they said they would love and charish forever? It's not they are divorced, they are having affairs. If they can't be honest and faithful to a person they commited to, what chance do the people have that that same person will do the right thing when inticed by lobbyists, money, power, etc...as President?
-
Maybe Clinton and other Prime Ministers are able to have affairs and run the country but how can anyone really trust a person that can't even stay true to his commitment to the one person they said they would love and charish forever? It's not they are divorced, they are having affairs. If they can't be honest and faithful to a person they commited to, what chance do the people have that that same person will do the right thing when inticed by lobbyists, money, power, etc...as President?
I don't want to take anything away from those who can keep the big vows they make, but....
No mature adult expects perfection from another human being.
But you don't expect outrageous behavior either. That was Clinton's error....picking indiscreet (to put it mildly....hello trailer trash) women, and then compounding the problem by lying like a teenager. After that, it's impossible for people to respect you.
The same thing happened to an extent with Sarkozy ....in contrast to Mitterand or FDR.
-
I don't want to take anything away from those who can keep the big vows they make, but....
No mature adult expects perfection from another human being.
But you don't expect outrageous behavior either. That was Clinton's error....picking indiscreet (to put it mildly....hello trailer trash) women, and then compounding the problem by lying like a teenager. After that, it's impossible for people to respect you.
The same thing happened to an extent with Sarkozy ....in contrast to Mitterand or FDR.
I don't care what my neighbors do as long as it doesn't affect me, but shouldn't we expect more from the people that run the country and make decisions that affect everyone else's lives?
-
But you don't expect outrageous behavior either. That was Clinton's error....picking indiscreet (to put it mildly....hello trailer trash) women, and then compounding the problem by lying like a teenager. After that, it's impossible for people to respect you.
LOL... imagine if clinton had come right out when asked and said "None of your damn business".
No perjury, no impeachment, and a lot of ppl would have respected him more.
-
I don't want to take anything away from those who can keep the big vows they make, but....
No mature adult expects perfection from another human being.
But you don't expect outrageous behavior either. That was Clinton's error....picking indiscreet (to put it mildly....hello trailer trash) women, and then compounding the problem by lying like a teenager. After that, it's impossible for people to respect you.
The same thing happened to an extent with Sarkozy ....in contrast to Mitterand or FDR.
I agree with this.
I also think people in positions of public trust--which includes pretty much all elected officials--are held to a higher standard.
-
I agree with this.
I also think people in positions of public trust--which includes pretty much all elected officials--are held to a higher standard.
Roosevelt and Mitterand have never been considered bad presidents due to extra-marital affairs.
Roosevelt is by many people considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, American president ever, and one of the greatest politicians and statesmen of all time.
So if McCain is having an extra-marital history or not should not be an issue. He's not in bed with the American people.
-
Roosevelt and Mitterand have never been considered bad presidents due to extra-marital affairs.
Roosevelt is by many people considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, American president ever, and one of the greatest politicians and statesmen of all time.
So if McCain is having an extra-marital history or not should not be an issue. He's not in bed with the American people.
I don't think adultery necessarily makes a person a bad legislator or executive, particularly when it happened before a person is elected. But when it's done while a person is in public office, that's really a whole new ballgame. Clinton lost his moral authority to lead the military when he was getting blow jobs in the White House while soldiers were losing their jobs for adultery (which is a crime in the military). Someone like Gavin Newsome should have quit as mayor of S.F. after sleeping with his campaign manager's wife. IMO, Newt Gingrich forfeited his opportunity to run for president after pushing for the Clinton impeachment while being a major hypocrite. I had the same problem with Rudy and his screwing around while he was mayor.
It's really about people in positions of public trust respecting their office and the very public nature of their lives while in office.
-
I don't think adultery necessarily makes a person a bad legislator or executive, particularly when it happened before a person is elected. But when it's done while a person is in public office, that's really a whole new ballgame. Clinton lost his moral authority to lead the military when he was getting blow jobs in the White House while soldiers were losing their jobs for adultery (which is a crime in the military). Someone like Gavin Newsome should have quit as mayor of S.F. after sleeping with his campaign manager's wife. IMO, Newt Gingrich forfeited his opportunity to run for president after pushing for the Clinton impeachment while being a major hypocrite. I had the same problem with Rudy and his screwing around while he was mayor.
It's really about people in positions of public trust respecting their office and the very public nature of their lives while in office.
And adultery is a sin...you forgot that part.
-
And adultery is a sin...you forgot that part.
Thanks for sharing troll.
-
What a steaming pile of worthless shit!!
Good post patriot! You're a real American (because I said so).