Breaking News on John McCain

tiple
you posted, "I heard he was going to give a press conference but would refuse to take any questions, kind of like pleading the 5th, I guess.
"
who did you hear that from? Obama?
McCain had a press conference at 8am this morning and took all questions asked.

I don't know what the truth is. i suspect it is just politics as usual
BUT for someone to say this isn't something the NYTimes
susdualy does.
That was a joke right?
NY Times Old motto
all the News that is fit to print
New Motto
Print all the news that will fit
 
lannie Davis backs up mcCain. why would he do that?
in this wapo article lannie reveals he had toldthe Post in 2000 there was no wrong doing
From WaPo:
"Lanny Davis, a former special adviser to President Clinton and longtime Democratic activist, challenged reports today that Sen. John McCain may have done a favor for a female lobbyist, calling them meritless.
Mr. Davis said the likely Republican presidential nominee did not “yield to a lobbyist” and backed up Mr. McCain’s account that the senator only wrote to the Federal Communication Commission in a routine letter that did not cross the lines of propriety…
Mr. Davis, who emphasized he doesn’t support the Arizona senator’s bid, was also lobbying on the same deal [as Vicky Iseman].
“It is sad and unfortunate that facts are not included to make a fair story and that good journalism rules were not followed,” Mr. Davis said. “I am unhappy. I am sad that McCain’s actions are being described as improper when we went beyond the pale to avoid looking like he was violating an FCC rule.”…
During the Post interview, Mr. Davis reminded the reporter that he had already made a statement to the paper in 2000 which cleared the senator of wrongdoing. The statement was not included in today’s story which paints a damning picture of Mr. McCain’s activities.
The Times never contacted him at all, Mr. Davis said. He said he was troubled by today’s accusations."
 
Didn't care when Bill cheated, don't care that McCain might have cheated. Unless the President is some kind of nymphomaniac whose sex addiction prevents him or her from effectively serving in the office, I don't care about their sex life. Frankly, I want to be shielded from the details.
 
So anonymous sources only. No specific quid pro quo alleged. No specific act of marital infidelity alleged. I am not a McCain fan, but NYT does not distinguish itself here. Remember, this is a paper held up as among the very best of "real journalism." Imagine if Fox had run this story on Obama.

Journalism, whatever the publication, is about entertainment/circulation/ratings, revenue, and power.

While the article is a shoddy hit piece, I do agree that McCain's sanctimonious attitude regarding the flow of political money is wrong.
 
Do I care if McCain was banging Vicki Iseman on Paxson Communications’ Gulfstream? No.

But why is he accepting favors from a Lobbyist representing clients (telecom firms) who had business before the Commerce Committee he chaired? Why is she repeatedly hanging around the Senator? Why was McCain rebuked by the FCC for meddling on behalf of Paxon Communications (at her behest)? Why does the campaign forget to mention that Ms. Iseman was on the Paxon Communications Gulfstream?

Those seem like legitimate questions. If not, why not?

John Weaver (McCain strategist and campaign advisor) obviously thought it was strange and asked her to tone it down.

I find this to be poor judgment, especially after the reprimand he received from his involvement with Charles Keating.

Now, back to the game of shoot the messenger.
 
No, The New York Times does not need to publish titillating stories to attract attention, and a story of any kind does nothing for a newspaper's circulation in general, unless it is a special edition announcing the end of World War II or something.
The New York Times is widely accepted as the best newspaper in the United States, and has the highest standards. They believe the story is real, or wouldn't have published it.
 
Mac
Uh? My posts don't look any different to me than any other posts.
I post in regular sentences and paragraphs where appropiate. My typing isn't always word perfect so there are spelling errors but I don't format anything or try to make my posts unusual.
I use a PC that isn't that old and DSL to connect. I have no idea
 
Ditto what Lone Star said above and what Mac highlights as well. That is the meat of it.

We have this multiple sourced story about how several aides were fanning out in a full court press to close down the contacts between McCain and Vicki Iseman. Didn't someone just try to have a straight talk with the straight talker ? Did he just dismiss them with "I'm a navy pilot, do what I want, ...ladies man..." What was going on here?

.
 
If the allegations are true McCain is toast with a capital T. But if the NYT has no more than the innuendo laid out in the article the NYT will be pounded. Hard. Chris Mathews said that whether the NYT has a follow-on tomorrow on page one above the fold with new facts will be a big indicator of where this is going. I agree.
 
SomeMildLanguage –

If your response is directed at my questions (and, ostensibly, Mac and Triple), I am not asking about anything that is innuendo.

Either he was on the Paxton Jet or he was not. He was admonished by the FCC for his interference on behalf of Paxon. A senior strategist (Mr. Weaver) is on the record that he told her to beat it. She (in an EM to the NYT) is rather vague about what they talked about and seems to focus on the alleged relationship, not the apparent conflict of interest.

Again, he appears to have a blind spot when it comes to relationships between himself and lobbyists. First Keating and now with Ms. Iseman.

Tom Wingo –

So the insinuation is to not ask these questions because now the Republican base may be stirred? So we should not ask difficult questions that might disrupt the other party's base?

That seems like a sound approach to vetting candidates.
wtf.gif


What is out of line about my questions?
 
The story reads like a freakin' gossip column.

Go ahead, name your sources. Go ahead, tell us who says what so "facts" can be checked and verified. In the utter absence of any of that, the story is utter hogwash.
 
Dean nails the situation wrt McCain, as Lone Star did previously. This isn't a one day news story. I'm guessing there will a lot more sunshine on this.

.
 
you're shittin' me. howard ******* dean? the guy is a liar and democrat and a screamer...but i repeat myself.

hook'em
 
I'm fairly convinced this is another example of people here being unable to address the relevant matters as it relates to John McCain. It's not about sex, it's about him being an egregious hypocrite on a matter that is the very foundation of his straight talking maverick identity.

Before long, you guys are going to run out of bullets - too many messengers to shoot.

.
 
One additional question regarding this on again, off again pledge to receive matching funds; did McCain pledge the matching funds as collateral against the $5 million dollar line of credit with the Maryland bank?

Am I reading that right? If that the basis for the Federal Election Commission letter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top