McCain accused of affair with lobbyist (NY Times) - denies it

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by peter12

This undermines your credibility forever. Get over yourself.

Dismissal. Always effective.

[Devils'Advocate]

So when do the rumours of his illegitimate black child make the rounds?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Naturally you report on the Republican. Does anybody still believe that the media is unbiased?

hmmmm i bet you that if all those stories were sitting on someone's desk they all got reported on. maybe not all in the ONE article you just read, but i bet you they'd all be out there.

unless you're calling rubecube the 'media' and calling him biased for only posting this article and not others to balance things out...

[mykalberta]

Ah yes, the NYT and their bastion of truth

Its likely that they will retract it in a few weeks on a blog post in a graphic so it isnt quotable in classic NYT style - maybe Chris Mattews will have to again apologize on behalf of the time for running with the story.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/016396.php

Is it possible that the Dems are actually worried that Father Time might actually have a better chance vs the Dems golden boy then they first thought?

EDIT - link to MSNBC Video http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22494526/ - also in classic NYT style they indicate that in a story that is a lie, so long as they have a blurb where the person denies it, then no official retraction is required. http://www.observer.com/2008/chris-m...rudy-reporters

So basically if you follow current NYT history, its ok if you call someone an adulterer and write a colum about it, so long as you indicate the person has denied it - classic liberal media garbage. Next thing they will be feeding questions to Democrats in the House and Senate like the NYT north the CBC.

[Cowperson]

Essentially, the newspaper is now the story instead of the story being the story . . . . and that's always a good telltale that the newspaper was out of line.

A nice summary of reaction is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Cowperson

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So lets see. You've got three stories on your desk. In the first a presidential candidate's husband is being sued for 17 million because of alleged campaign fraud. In the second a presidential candidate is being accused of cocaine use and adulterous sex with a man on two occasions. The homosexual man has agreed to a lie detector test(next Tuesday) and is suing said candidate for harrassment and trying to silence him. In the third you have a rehashed story of suspected adultery that is 8 years old with no witnesses who claim to seeing any wrong doing. O and the third involves a Republican.

Naturally you report on the Republican. Does anybody still believe that the media is unbiased?

No kidding. The media just waits to jump on the hottest ticket and ride that for ratings. Right now the Democrats finally think they have a shot to win so the media is going to flock to get them watching their program/reading their paper.

I cant wait until Obama has to address the skeletons in his closet. I think he's an interesting candidate and has the potential to be a good president but I can just hear his response when something negative comes to the surface:

"I've made a change in my live and I vowed after that happened that I was a changed man. What happened changed me for the better and that change lead me to be the changed man I am today. I apologize for what happened and if I could go back and change it I would change it in a way that no one was hurt. Just like I can change this country. Change..... Change."

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

"I've made a change in my live and I vowed after that happened that I was a changed man. What happened changed me for the better and that change lead me to be the changed man I am today. I apologize for what happened and if I could go back and change it I would change it in a way that no one was hurt. Just like I can change this country. Change..... Change."

actuallly made me smile

sounds similar to what mr 9/11's speeches were.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

actuallly made me smile

sounds similar to what mr 9/11's speeches were.

That's all I can think about when Obama speaks is how he's using a catch word to frame every single speech he makes. Just like Giuliani ("9/11") or Bush ("Terrorist", "Evil", "Evil Terrorists").

Once he starts cracking out the "Freedom" catch word, he's got this election in the bag.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

hmmmm i bet you that if all those stories were sitting on someone's desk they all got reported on. maybe not all in the ONE article you just read, but i bet you they'd all be out there.

unless you're calling rubecube the 'media' and calling him biased for only posting this article and not others to balance things out...

Nope. I'm suggesting that the one has been reported and the other two are going under reported or not reported at all. If McClain's wife had a lawsuit against her for fraud or if someone came foreward and said he had sex with McClain and McCain bought and shared cocaine with him it would be the lead story.

[Cowperson]

The behind-the-scenes story regarding how the Times worked on the McCain situation:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...d-2a2cd2b96a24

Cowperson

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Nope. I'm suggesting that the one has been reported and the other two are going under reported or not reported at all. If McClain's wife had a lawsuit against her for fraud or if someone came foreward and said he had sex with McClain and McCain bought and shared cocaine with him it would be the lead story.

Unless you can provide some sort of link from a legitimate source, I have to conclude that you're making both of the other allegations up. Especially the cocaine one, which sounds like it comes from the lunatic fringe of GOP push-pollers and swiftboaters.

That doesn't make this "McCain extramarital affair" business any less dumb. The media sometimes seems shockingly out of touch with what people are actually concerned about. Bill Clinton's personal life wasn't important. Neither is John McCain's. I say we all move on.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Unless you can provide some sort of link from a legitimate source, I have to conclude that you're making both of the other allegations up. Especially the cocaine one, which sounds like it comes from the lunatic fringe of GOP push-pollers and swiftboaters.

That doesn't make this "McCain extramarital affair" business any less dumb. The media sometimes seems shockingly out of touch with what people are actually concerned about. Bill Clinton's personal life wasn't important. Neither is John McCain's. I say we all move on.

It does say a bit to me about how certain people are willing to manipulate their positions of power for favours of a sort. Lewinsky didn't "do" Clinton for his looks.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

It does say a bit to me about how certain people are willing to manipulate their positions of power for favours of a sort. Lewinsky didn't "do" Clinton for his looks.

But Clinton did Lewinsky for hers? There's no accounting for taste.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So lets see. You've got three stories on your desk. In the first a presidential candidate's husband is being sued for 17 million because of alleged campaign fraud. In the second a presidential candidate is being accused of cocaine use and adulterous sex with a man on two occasions. The homosexual man has agreed to a lie detector test(next Tuesday) and is suing said candidate for harrassment and trying to silence him. In the third you have a rehashed story of suspected adultery that is 8 years old with no witnesses who claim to seeing any wrong doing. O and the third involves a Republican.

Naturally you report on the Republican. Does anybody still believe that the media is unbiased?

Not that it anywhere approaches what you are suggesting (inventing??), but if I'm not mistaken the Times had a cover story of Obama's drug use from decades earlier a couple of weeks ago. Odd that something he admitted to and is well known required a front page story to rehash the issue.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Unless you can provide some sort of link from a legitimate source, I have to conclude that you're making both of the other allegations up. Especially the cocaine one, which sounds like it comes from the lunatic fringe of GOP push-pollers and swiftboaters.

But that is my point. You don't see the other two stories in the mainstream media. The New York story relies on rumor. The other two rely on sworn testimony of eyewitnesses. Could they all be false? Sure, people lie but, why does one become a widely circulated story and the other two remain fringe?

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That doesn't make this "McCain extramarital affair" business any less dumb. The media sometimes seems shockingly out of touch with what people are actually concerned about. Bill Clinton's personal life wasn't important. Neither is John McCain's. I say we all move on.

Personally I hate adultery. Even if I wasn't a christian I would hate it. It is the ultimate act of betrayal. I wouldn't vote for anyone who would do such a thing. They lack principles.

edited to add links:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57009


http://www.whitehouse.com/

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Your source for the supposed Obama gay sex scandal is a conservative blog?!

Forgive me--but if the accusation itself weren't so risible, maybe it would have some legs. If it had even a grain of truth, the 24 hour news stations would be on it like white on rice. Not everything you read on the "internets" is true.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Your source for the supposed Obama gay sex scandal is a conservative blog?!

Forgive me--but if the accusation itself weren't so risible, maybe it would have some legs. If it had even a grain of truth, the 24 hour news stations would be on it like white on rice. Not everything you read on the "internets" is true.

So your reasoning is that if it was creditable news the main stream media would be covering it.

Lets look at what we know to be true:

A man says he had sex with Obama on two occasions. He further says Obama bought him cocaine and used crack cocaine in his presence. This man has filed a statement to this effect in court and asked the court for protection from Obama. This man has agreed to a lie detector test that will be carried out next Tuesday.

And you say that there isn't enough evidence for this to be a story.

Conversely this is what we know to be true in the news story that has been run on all the 24 hour news services:

McCain was seen with a female lobbyist on several occasions. Sources who will remain undisclosed said they thought they were getting too close and might be having an affair. Apparently the issue was raised by staffers and they distanced themselves from each other. There isn't one eye witness who has said they even saw them holding hands.

On the wieght of this information this was reported 8 years ago and then again this week.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Incredibly irrelevant comparison.

But what else would a republican do?

An association with a lobbyist would undermine his image as an opponent of special interests

How on earth is that comparison irrelevant? Because you say so?

And why do you assume I'm a Republican?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Lets look at what we know to be true:

Quit -footing around the issues here. What we really know to be true is that the left-wing media latches on to Republican sex scandals and ignores everything else.

I've done some in-depth research on Bill Clinton and if what I've read is true, he actually had an extra-marital affair with some woman named Monica. There may be others, but the commie liberal media never told us anything about it and instead have always portrayed him as nothing but the consummate family man.