A steaming hot torrid illicit sexual relationship

Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Whaaat?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet.

....several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
Click to expand...

Just par for the course for the NYTimes.

The newspaper endorses McCain, waits like a spider until his nomination is nearly wrapped up, then dumps an eight year old smear story on the public.


Bringing the target of the story support http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2008/02/23/4870319-sun.php

It's put-up or shut-up time for the Times, with the nation looking at what it will expose next.

So far, nothing. "The Times is making the National Enquirer look responsible," quipped one commentator.
Click to expand...

a boost to the fund raising effort http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...times_article_spurs_cash_surge_for_john_.html

and the originator of the story is left scratching his head and wondering why his readers aren't smart enough to figure out the real story

"Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story." anguished Keller.
Click to expand...
 
Meh, they're just trying to sell newspapers if you can imagine such a thing.
 
They always "just try" to sell newspapers. Ask Gen. Betrayus. Too bad their priorities never change.
 
all though mickeyC isn't neear the same class a the Gen.

I think it was a stunt to actually help McCain
 
Or maybe to siphon votes from Obama to help Hillary, as they endorsed her on the dem side. :brow:

Kinda strange on one hand they endorse McCain, then seemingly turn on him with a suggestive, wimpy Ntl. Enquirer-style story, and their attempt to smear his integrity gains him support.

The newspaper would self destruct if they've learned nothing from the Betrayus blowback.

The Times is hoping for a McCain / Clinton shootout.
 
The Times is now backpedaling furiously.

New York Times Ombudsman Faults Paper on McCain Romance Story
by FOXNews.com
Sunday, February 24, 2008

The New York Times failed to establish a sexual relationship had existed between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman and therefore should not have published the salacious claims it made last week suggesting otherwise, the newspaper’s public editor wrote in Sunday’s online edition.

The editors and reporters were on to a good story about the Arizona senator’s fight against special interests at the same time he had appeared to do a favor for one, wrote Times Ombudsman Clark Hoyt, but charges that the relationship went beyond politics and into romance was a distraction without evidence. He added that Executive Editor Bill Keller’s argument that the story wasn’t about an affair belies the article’s narrative.

“I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide,” Hoyt wrote.

OUCH!

<more>
Click to expand...
 
Cerise said:
Just par for the course for the NYTimes.

The newspaper endorses McCain, waits like a spider until his nomination is nearly wrapped up, then dumps an eight year old smear story on the public.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure you already realize what a blatant hypocrite you're being after you trying to promote the lamest smear story ever last week with the Che/Obama thing right?



However.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. [Lowell] Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."
Click to expand...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
 
Cerise said:
B.O.'s office, his wall, his representatives, his responsibility. Kinda like it's "Bush's War" because he's the CinC. Right?
Click to expand...

Since Obama had nothing to do with the poster and Bush had a lot to do with the war that's a pretty dumb comparison.

You really don't have a problem with McCain contradicting himself do you?
 
but it's not bush's war. it's his handlers' war.

remember that horrible movie mad max beyond thunderdome?

remember "master blaster."

well bush is the tard on the bottom, taking orders from "master."
 
Gonz said:
Young Jedi, who is this master of which you speak?
Click to expand...


Oh, haven't you heard? Dick Cheney is the real president and Bush is just a figurehead that has his strings pulled. Vast left wing conspiracy number 235.
 
Gonz said:
Young Jedi, who is this master of which you speak?
Click to expand...


darthcheneyfr2.jpg
 
BUSH: “It’s important on campaign funding reform that we have campaign funding reform. But it’s also important for people to know that my friend is raising money from people who have business in front of his committee. Nothing illegal about that, but I just want to make sure the facts are laid bare.”

BUSH: “What I need to do is make it clear and not let Senator McCain get away with this Washington double-talk.”
 
Comparing and contrasting statements from the 2000 presidential campaign with current events?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top