I was watching MSNBC when the "special report" came on and gosh, my heart dropped thinking they were going to come on and say something bad about Obama. Whew, so relieved they did not.
It remains to be seen if it's true or not, but I wonder if the smoke/fire saying will be true in this instance.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
The NY Times article is pretty damn flimsy. If this is all the NY Times has, it's not going to sink McCain's campaign. If, however, there is any corroborating evidence this could get ugly.
Of course, the article was more about how McCain does the bidding of lobbyists...with this aspersion thrown in for good measure.
justice58
· 1 year ago
I love the John McCain-- "Playa"? ----------------------------------- ahahahahahahahahaha
Just too funny!
Nita
· 1 year ago
it doesn't take a playa to bag a prostitute... just an exchange of valuables. if she was using sex or the tease of sex to get mccain to go along with the folks who were paying her to lobby for them, that's nasty.
leopards don't change their spots; once a cheater always a cheater -- and McCain did the ultimate wrong (beyond stealing from old people in the Keating Five scandal) by leaving the faithful mother of his three children for a trust fund baby who could help his political career. But i don't see how this will ultimately hurt McCain unless there's a lot more to it. there will even be people who applaud him. Bill had hoes coming out of the woodworks, and women who accused him of sexual assault. He was still elected.
Sex titillates, but there's going to need to be more... something beyond sex.
Nita
· 1 year ago
Anonymous said...
Of course, the article was more about how McCain does the bidding of lobbyists...with this aspersion thrown in for good measure.
Right. If there's a pattern of this type of behavior, that is what bodes ill for McCain. Do we really need somebody in the white house with such poor delayed gratification skills? If McCain is willing to turn on a dime for some pussy, or the thought of pussy -- who is he really in this for, and how can he be trusted?
Even without pussy, how easily led is he by the lobbyists?
The Christian Progressive Libe
· 1 year ago
Rikyrah, you are too much, LOL.
McCain...a Playa? You been hanging around Skeptical Brotha too long, LOL.
Cindy McCain should be feeling very small right now, cause she has to remember when she was the "it" girl replacing McCain's crippled first wife as the younger model.
Gotta respect karma, though; what comes around truly does go around.
And you should have seen how many people were trying to defend McCain on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, but Olbermann kept them honest because he wasn't having it.
He didn't let Pat Buchanan jump in with remarks about how "Clinton did it", either. McCain's supposed to be "straight-talk"; right now he got caught "double-dipping" and will try to spin it away clean at 9:00am EST.
The Christian Progressive Libe
· 1 year ago
Also proves that Washington's full of "Pimps Up, Hoes Down"...so I'm going to have a bowl of popcorn as I watch the ReThugs excuse McCain, while impeaching Clinton for a blow job, and explain how the two are different.
This may also explain why Huckabee's still in the race; to pick up the pieces if McCain implodes.
And Romney has only "suspended" his campaign - even though he's officially endorsed McCain, he's never said he's dropping out of the race, and cut off his chances to get back in it like Rudy and Fred Thompson have done.
If it distracts us from the Borg Queen's meltdown and attacks on Obama, it might be worth it. Of course, I keep my eye on the Borg Queen at all costs, cause that heifer plans on stealing the nomination from Obama and doesn't care if she destroys the Democratic Party in the process.
The whole McCain issue just might be a distraction from the Borg Queen's antics, as well as get McCain out of the race...again.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Well, I guess he may be as old as time and has a so called "hot" trophy wife, but, he isn't exactly a "moral" conservative and now we know why!
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
the mccain we hear about from his mouth and from the mouths of the adoring media asshats is a myth.
the real mccain sways like wheat in the winds of public opinion and political expediency. he changes positions faster than mitt romney, yet they never call him on this.
my understanding is that this story has been on hold now for months and it has been under assault from mccain's very powerful attorneys.
that being the case, since the NYT printed it anyway, i imagine there's a whole lot more to this than we're reading.
ironic that this comes up just in time to take the heat off of bill o'reilly's despicable, shameful, worth-of-firing comments about michelle obama and lynching.
and as for being a cheat and a manipulator and a con and one who is obligated to corporate interests, he is as spotted as any leopard in the jungle.
he's just another pandering, flip-flopping, power-hungry, entitled, old man seduced by youth and beauty, without a true moral center of any kind.
that, i hope, is what the rethugs who think mccain is a saint will see.
and somewhere . . . maybe in arkansas, maybe in texas, a dimpled Bible thumpin' half educated Baptist preacher is sinking his teeth into a hunk of fried squirrel and smacking his lips, thinking deeeeeeelicious.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Wow. So much for a 'change' from the divisive politics of the past!
Pretty hypocritical to see all of you Obama supporters pile on to the 'politics of personal destruction' so quickly. Just about as quickly as Obama shed the pretense of being centrist.
Thus far, Obama's rhetoric has been appealing to moderates, independents and even some moderate Republicans. "We are not red states and blue states, but the United States." This statement suggests a willingness to cross party lines and challenge BOTH parties.
Obama is running back to the left on school choice, immigration, energy policy and terrorist survelliance. He is distinctly partisan.
Obama will not challenge the lobbyists and special interest groups that are the financial and political muscle of the fringe left of the Democrat party.
I can still 'hope' that Obama means what he says and shows the political will and courage to break with his own party on issues where the 'left' and 'right' must come together, but I'm losing faith...
D.
· 1 year ago
I hope the Obamaist spin machine can come up with something that carries more weight than this.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
The New York Times smears John McCain , accusing him of ethics violations and insinuating that he had an affair with a lobbyist. What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story, is how thin it is. It's mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to the late 1980s. The "news" that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain's friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence. This line sums up, I think, the absurdity of the paper's attempt to cobble together an anti-McCain story out of these widely-separated elements:
"It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal."
Just a decade! Every ten years, McCain does something that the Times can unfairly paint as inappropriate. For what it's worth, when the Keating Five scandal was unfolding, Barack Obama was in law school. I guess making oneself vulnerable to two negative stories in forty years is the price of a lifetime of public service.
Bob Bennett, who is representing McCain with respect to the Times story--that doesn't mean that he will sue the newspaper, as that is impossible under current law--said that the Times had lowered its standards by printing this rather absurd smear. That is incorrect, of course. The Times is a mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, nothing more. Its smear of McCain--not the last, to be sure--is entirely consistent with the editorial policies it has maintained for many years. This story is just one more reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news source.
faboomama
· 1 year ago
This won't turn off the fundies. Look at d's response up there. He seriously believes that the Obama campaign has something to do with this. The Talibangelicals aren't going to go, "See, told you that McCain is worthless." No, they see themselves as an oppressed people. They see this as the big mean NYT picking on McCain.
Look at all the recent GOP (gay) sex scandals. These people have managed to to say, "So what? It's none of my business. LALALALALA I can't hear you!" Meanwhile, they're pushing some stupid, "Obama was seen in gay clubs!" so-called smear. Because, you know, that's shameful unlike McCain's former FL campaign co-chairs getting caught soliciting men in the bathroom.
No, if anything, this story with the sex scandal will have these people rallying behind McCain. I bet you that all those "conservative" freak shows like Coulter and Hannity will be singing McCain's praises today. It's like family. I can talk crap about my mama, but don't you talk crap about mama or there's gonna be a fight.
The real story is how Mr. Intergrity has been cozy with a lobbyist. The NYT could have left the affair part out, but I think they probably have more since they put it in. The sad thing is that the sex part is all the fundies can understand since it uses simple words. They won't get why McCain's really close relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist is huge. Too many details and big words. They'll tune that out and say it's all about sex, not his harmful votes on behalf of telecommunication companies. I wouldn't be surprised if this is tied with the FISA bill eventually.
D.
· 1 year ago
Faboo, I don't think the campaign had anything to do with it. But there's going to be a nasty spin put on this by Obama's (and probably Clinton's as well) supporters.
From what I've seen of the Obama campaign, they aren't going to get into the weeds over this; they'll address the real point of the story, which is McCain's dealings with the communications lobby. That's fair game.
But hell, even the post we're commenting on now didn't address that. It just addressed the sex.
And God knows that if the statement you made about family is applicable to ANYONE's campaign, it's Obama's.
Sabyen91
· 1 year ago
Oh, I don't think Obama needs to spin it. At least 5 other news outlets were sitting on this story in addition to the Times so I am thinking...not so flimsy. This is not the end of the story.
jon
· 1 year ago
The innuendo about a possible romantic relationship was pretty flimsy -- although as sabyen91 says, other news outlets have been looking at it as well, so we may well see a lot more of it. The interesting question to me is whether this'll help shine the spotlight on how phony McCain's "maverick" and "straight talk" image is. From Matthew Yglesias' commentary on a McCain person-of-spoke's response:
"Meanwhile, there's all this stuff Salter doesn't deny (because, again, it's true) about McCain's questionable ethics. He wrote "letters to government regulators on behalf of the [Iseman's] client," he "often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support," he resigned as head of a non-profit when "news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor," his Senate office and his campaign are run by corporate lobbyists, etc."
The AP story and Drew Clark's post Technology Liberation Front both have good information focused specifically on the lobbying aspects -- like McCain changing his long-held position on a deadline for phasing out analog TV specifically to help Paxson Communications. The TLF piece also gives some good background about the "spectrum wars".
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves ... hey, maybe it'll lead to highlighting the Obama's better positions net neutrality (for) and internet censorship (agains), and the contrast with both McCain and Clinton. Hmm, probably not. But I can hope, can't I?
jon
rikyrah
· 1 year ago
This is a very interesting post outlining it all, and asking interesting questions about Huckabee.
All Comments
It remains to be seen if it's true or not, but I wonder if the smoke/fire saying will be true in this instance.
Of course, the article was more about how McCain does the bidding of lobbyists...with this aspersion thrown in for good measure.
-----------------------------------
ahahahahahahahahaha
Just too funny!
leopards don't change their spots; once a cheater always a cheater -- and McCain did the ultimate wrong (beyond stealing from old people in the Keating Five scandal) by leaving the faithful mother of his three children for a trust fund baby who could help his political career. But i don't see how this will ultimately hurt McCain unless there's a lot more to it. there will even be people who applaud him. Bill had hoes coming out of the woodworks, and women who accused him of sexual assault. He was still elected.
Sex titillates, but there's going to need to be more... something beyond sex.
Of course, the article was more about how McCain does the bidding of lobbyists...with this aspersion thrown in for good measure.
Right. If there's a pattern of this type of behavior, that is what bodes ill for McCain. Do we really need somebody in the white house with such poor delayed gratification skills? If McCain is willing to turn on a dime for some pussy, or the thought of pussy -- who is he really in this for, and how can he be trusted?
Even without pussy, how easily led is he by the lobbyists?
McCain...a Playa? You been hanging around Skeptical Brotha too long, LOL.
Cindy McCain should be feeling very small right now, cause she has to remember when she was the "it" girl replacing McCain's crippled first wife as the younger model.
Gotta respect karma, though; what comes around truly does go around.
And you should have seen how many people were trying to defend McCain on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, but Olbermann kept them honest because he wasn't having it.
He didn't let Pat Buchanan jump in with remarks about how "Clinton did it", either. McCain's supposed to be "straight-talk"; right now he got caught "double-dipping" and will try to spin it away clean at 9:00am EST.
This may also explain why Huckabee's still in the race; to pick up the pieces if McCain implodes.
And Romney has only "suspended" his campaign - even though he's officially endorsed McCain, he's never said he's dropping out of the race, and cut off his chances to get back in it like Rudy and Fred Thompson have done.
If it distracts us from the Borg Queen's meltdown and attacks on Obama, it might be worth it. Of course, I keep my eye on the Borg Queen at all costs, cause that heifer plans on stealing the nomination from Obama and doesn't care if she destroys the Democratic Party in the process.
The whole McCain issue just might be a distraction from the Borg Queen's antics, as well as get McCain out of the race...again.
the real mccain sways like wheat in the winds of public opinion and political expediency. he changes positions faster than mitt romney, yet they never call him on this.
my understanding is that this story has been on hold now for months and it has been under assault from mccain's very powerful attorneys.
that being the case, since the NYT printed it anyway, i imagine there's a whole lot more to this than we're reading.
ironic that this comes up just in time to take the heat off of bill o'reilly's despicable, shameful, worth-of-firing comments about michelle obama and lynching.
and as for being a cheat and a manipulator and a con and one who is obligated to corporate interests, he is as spotted as any leopard in the jungle.
he's just another pandering, flip-flopping, power-hungry, entitled, old man seduced by youth and beauty, without a true moral center of any kind.
that, i hope, is what the rethugs who think mccain is a saint will see.
and somewhere . . . maybe in arkansas, maybe in texas, a dimpled Bible thumpin' half educated Baptist preacher is sinking his teeth into a hunk of fried squirrel and smacking his lips, thinking deeeeeeelicious.
Pretty hypocritical to see all of you Obama supporters pile on to the 'politics of personal destruction' so quickly. Just about as quickly as Obama shed the pretense of being centrist.
Thus far, Obama's rhetoric has been appealing to moderates, independents and even some moderate Republicans. "We are not red states and blue states, but the United States." This statement suggests a willingness to cross party lines and challenge BOTH parties.
Obama is running back to the left on school choice, immigration, energy policy and terrorist survelliance. He is distinctly partisan.
Obama will not challenge the lobbyists and special interest groups that are the financial and political muscle of the fringe left of the Democrat party.
I can still 'hope' that Obama means what he says and shows the political will and courage to break with his own party on issues where the 'left' and 'right' must come together, but I'm losing faith...
"It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal."
Just a decade! Every ten years, McCain does something that the Times can unfairly paint as inappropriate. For what it's worth, when the Keating Five scandal was unfolding, Barack Obama was in law school. I guess making oneself vulnerable to two negative stories in forty years is the price of a lifetime of public service.
Bob Bennett, who is representing McCain with respect to the Times story--that doesn't mean that he will sue the newspaper, as that is impossible under current law--said that the Times had lowered its standards by printing this rather absurd smear. That is incorrect, of course. The Times is a mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, nothing more. Its smear of McCain--not the last, to be sure--is entirely consistent with the editorial policies it has maintained for many years. This story is just one more reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news source.
Look at all the recent GOP (gay) sex scandals. These people have managed to to say, "So what? It's none of my business. LALALALALA I can't hear you!" Meanwhile, they're pushing some stupid, "Obama was seen in gay clubs!" so-called smear. Because, you know, that's shameful unlike McCain's former FL campaign co-chairs getting caught soliciting men in the bathroom.
No, if anything, this story with the sex scandal will have these people rallying behind McCain. I bet you that all those "conservative" freak shows like Coulter and Hannity will be singing McCain's praises today. It's like family. I can talk crap about my mama, but don't you talk crap about mama or there's gonna be a fight.
The real story is how Mr. Intergrity has been cozy with a lobbyist. The NYT could have left the affair part out, but I think they probably have more since they put it in. The sad thing is that the sex part is all the fundies can understand since it uses simple words. They won't get why McCain's really close relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist is huge. Too many details and big words. They'll tune that out and say it's all about sex, not his harmful votes on behalf of telecommunication companies. I wouldn't be surprised if this is tied with the FISA bill eventually.
I don't think the campaign had anything to do with it. But there's going to be a nasty spin put on this by Obama's (and probably Clinton's as well) supporters.
From what I've seen of the Obama campaign, they aren't going to get into the weeds over this; they'll address the real point of the story, which is McCain's dealings with the communications lobby. That's fair game.
But hell, even the post we're commenting on now didn't address that. It just addressed the sex.
And God knows that if the statement you made about family is applicable to ANYONE's campaign, it's Obama's.
"Meanwhile, there's all this stuff Salter doesn't deny (because, again, it's true) about McCain's questionable ethics. He wrote "letters to government regulators on behalf of the [Iseman's] client," he "often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support," he resigned as head of a non-profit when "news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor," his Senate office and his campaign are run by corporate lobbyists, etc."
The AP story and Drew Clark's post Technology Liberation Front both have good information focused specifically on the lobbying aspects -- like McCain changing his long-held position on a deadline for phasing out analog TV specifically to help Paxson Communications. The TLF piece also gives some good background about the "spectrum wars".
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves ... hey, maybe it'll lead to highlighting the Obama's better positions net neutrality (for) and internet censorship (agains), and the contrast with both McCain and Clinton. Hmm, probably not. But I can hope, can't I?
jon
Yippee-Kay-Yay, GOP