Game Fishing Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Although I'm not a McCain supporter, I do think the New York Times story is such a bunch of B.S.

How many people think it was just a way to get all the attention off of Hillary and how her campaign is faltering??

At least that's how I see it. And it seems to be working......for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,957 Posts
The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing -- only innuendo denied by all of the principals.

And where did the Times get this information? It turns out that they talked to two anonymous former staffers -- neither of whom allege that the relationship actually became romantic -- and who describe themselves as disgruntled.

Read More
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,119 Posts
IB you've nailed it. Another factor is the Liberal leanings of the paper itself. I know many Dems will cry foul---yada yada yada on the bias charge but the facts remain facts.

Another very important tickler about the Times bias. John McCain was the "Maverick" the darling to the NY Times as long as he reached across the isle to help Democrats and forsake his party. As long as he served their useful purpose in the destruction of the Republican party they loved him. Now that they have to support by default-- because OF their bias-- a Democrat all bets are off. All the while they supported McCain they held that story. Coincidence? Now they have to put the rubber to the road and what do we get...A BS hit piece. No wonder they're losing readership along with all the other news organizations that call themselves news organizations..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,150 Posts
It's interesting to me that whenever the NY Times does a smear campaign like this it is nearly alway from "anonymous" sources, and this time form admittedly "disgruntled" former associates. I'm not saying that anonimity automatically negates a sources' credibility, just a curious observation on my part I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Maybe they are taking a page from the bush Rove play book.

Personally I don't give a damn if he diddled her or not. I don't see why that has any bearing on his ability to be a good president.

I do have some issues with his taking $85,000 from her clients, taking free rides in their corporate jets and then working hard to sway legislation to their benefit. That sounds like a good old bought and paid for politician. His conduct was even more suspect whan he worked so hard to shield his contributors from prosecution in the Keeting Five scandle. That one cost U.S. tazpayers ,mmany millions and McCain was 100% on the crooks side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
fishinfoolz said:
Another very important tickler about the Times bias. John McCain was the "Maverick" the darling to the NY Times as long as he reached across the isle to help Democrats and forsake his party. As long as he served their useful purpose in the destruction of the Republican party they loved him.
Keep in mind the NY Times has had this story since the beginning of December and if they really thought it had merit why did they endorse John McCain for the primaries almost two months later in late January--right before the big Super Tuesday vote that put him over the top? light: Then release it now when he has a virtual lock on the nomination? light:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
I do have some issues with his taking $85,000 from her clients, taking free rides in their corporate jets and then working hard to sway legislation to their benefit. That sounds like a good old bought and paid for politician.
I don't know where you're getting your talking points from, but I believe that's incorrect information. For starters, the amount in question was $20,000.

In his deposition, McCain got the opportunity to emphasize some of the same points his campaign made in 2000 and again this week about his letters to the FCC at Paxson's behest: that he never pressed the agency to rule in Paxson's favor, only to make a decision one way or another.
In fact, McCain can prove several instances where he voted against the company represented by the lobbyist on numerous occasions.

What we have is a busy candidate who can't ride roughshod on his staff 24/7 in all matters so that they accurately report what did and did not happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
IBCNUL8R said:
Although I'm not a McCain supporter, I do think the New York Times story is such a bunch of B.S.

How many people think it was just a way to get all the attention off of Hillary and how her campaign is faltering??

At least that's how I see it. And it seems to be working......for now.
I don't think it had anything at all to do with Hillary's campaign. It just seems like left wing sensationalism and the start of attacks on McCain.

This surely won't be the last. I'm confident the NY Times will have much more to say during the year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,270 Posts
What is it with these old fugly Republican politicians? conf:

Fred Thompson's wife was just plain HOT and John McCain's wife ain't no slouch either. Tup:

Now we find out that the crippled up, white-haired short little dude might have done a young lobbyist too? :?

And here we thought rock musicians got all the trim... :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Lol. and he's been doing it since he was a ltjg. Sounds healthy to me. Just don't get caught. An old military saying 'putes to 'a rigid member has no conscience.' some words changed in the name ????
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top