There ARE some sane rational-thinking people at that rag after all.

Their own public editor said that the McCain story is full of holes and innuendo. Shame on them.

Gotta love election years.

Either that or McCain set them up by leaking a story he knew he could disprove.

Either that or McCain set them up by leaking a story he knew he could disprove.

Next thing we know briwo will be posting about smokestacks on the moon and the faked Apollo XI landing.

Don't you think we have enough conspiracists on this blog, briwo?

It doesn't matter who he has sex with.

It matters that his policies are swayed by bribes. That's the problem with virtually all of Washington, and State and Local officials too. From building permits to no-bid Iraqi Contracts, our broken Government stinks.

It doesn't matter who he has sex with.

It matters that his policies are swayed by bribes. That's the problem with virtually all of Washington, and State and Local officials too. From building permits to no-bid Iraqi Contracts, our broken Government stinks.

It doesn't matter who he has sex with.

It matters that his policies are swayed by bribes. That's the problem with virtually all of Washington, and State and Local officials too. From building permits to no-bid Iraqi Contracts, our broken Government stinks.

It doesn't matter who he has sex with.

It matters that his policies are swayed by bribes. That's the problem with virtually all of Washington, and State and Local officials too. From building permits to no-bid Iraqi Contracts, our broken Government stinks.

It doesn't matter who he has sex with.

It matters that his policies are swayed by bribes. That's the problem with virtually all of Washington, and State and Local officials too. From building permits to no-bid Iraqi Contracts, our broken Government stinks.

Broadcaster Lowell "Bud" Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson's behalf.

Tigerbalm,

Are you nuts????? This is EXACTLY the kind of brain dead fuck the Right wants!!!! Another Regan without the flatulence problem. Should be just the ticket.
Darth is waiting in the wings for a third run as VP.

All The News That's Shit

Let's find out more about all the lobbyists running all three major campaigns. Don't stop now, NY Times, you've only scratched the surface of the festering boil known as influence peddling.

Times Ombudsman: We Blew It




I hope they didn't stain their pretty blue dress...

I'm with SAGMAIN, lets look at each candidate's interaction with lobyists and others who would seek to influence.

These people are to represent "the people" not the special interests.

I certainly didn't see it as the condensed "we blew it" that was the headline.

Certainly, the last paragraph of the public editor's comments should have been included in the news story. And in that context, the article was incomplete.

But I read it as a major instance of McDubya not knowing inappropriate from appropriate behavior. And today he still doesn't seem to know: you can't crusade as the "above the lobbyists" candidate when you are cozying up to them. And talk about Reganesque! You got it, Conservatives! Now he's using the infamous "I don't recall." Maybe he's closer to Reagan than you thought. He's got the advanced age and convenient memory lapses thing down already.

No, he's not the only one in bed with lobbyists. They all are now. That's what happens when you have a SCOTUS that declares money=free speech. Everyone has it...just that the rich have a WHOLE LOT MORE of it, enough to drown the individual out.

After all we've been through over the past twenty years do we really care who the guy is sleeping with? I care about his flip flopping, his lies, his devotion to Bush and supporting his agenda, his passion for wanting to fight everyone , his lack of new ideas on the economy, health care, immigration, energy polices etc. Being a POW doesn't make you presidential material and if it's experience that he says is needed look around and see what experience has given us and under his watch no less.

Why did they run the story, beginning with a suggestion of an inappropriate sexual relationship?
To add teeth to their accusation that he was biased by the affair, so he did a favor for the lobbyist?

PLEASE.....the work he may have done WAS NOT inappropriate, and it happened 8 years ago.

Merely suggesting there was an affair, is a huge issue. If they can't back it up, they REALLY suck big time. Notice how they said "Four highly respected reporters in the Washington bureau worked for months on the story and were pressed repeatedly to get sources on the record and to find documentary evidence like e-mail.'

Oh my 4 "respected" journalist", whose names are now MUD..."JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON"

what was written in the times may have been true, but it was horribly written article. absolutely horrible

NY Times: "careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that's a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States."

Reaction: McCain is not "careless about his reputation" the NY Times is careless when writing a story suggesting an affair with a lobbyist who he voted 18 times against her agenda while the "appearance" was there. Just because someone might worry about the appearance of others(factory gossip), doesn't mean there was more than just an appearance or someone was careless about their appearance. The NY Times didn't have any solid evidence to bring the story out, and where was this story? Front page news and after McCain locked up the nomination.

I think the NY Times better start worrying about their appearance.

Ozark, How much of those campaign contributions can be siphoned off by the law maker for personal use?

For me the question is this: Did the Times print an unsubstantiated story on purpose?
The so called liberal Gray Lady hasn't been liberal in years (Downing St. memo). Are they just playing bad guy to give Rove and associates an excuse to run a smear campaign on Obama?
I can hear tomorrow's talking points already.

Vladimir Putin would've closed that phony/arrogant mockery of unbiased reporting down years ago and had his corrupt KGB mob throw the editor out a 10th story building.....and, dare anyone to say anything about it! I'd be satisfied w/ just someone getting his ass kicked over it.

NY Times: "careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that's a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States."

I guess a closely created manufactured appearance, and overly aggressive about thier reputation is an equally important thing....but I did not see them printing any of the Hillary Blow Up stories - and there were plenty of them with her and Bill.

In fact I did not see where they even printed the story where Bill intentionally elbowed the Obama supporter in the rope line - Or Hillary's consistent abuse of the Secret Service.

Nope...and you would never see it in the Times ...which is why it is no longer the paper of record in America and has been come the NY "Star"

I'LL NEVER KNOWINGLY GIVE A DIME TO IT. In, fact, I'd donate to shutting it down.

The so called liberal Gray Lady hasn't been liberal in years (Downing St. memo).

Am I missing something here? Are you saying the NY Times isn't liberal because it broke the Downing Street Memo? If you are I will be forever shaking my head in frustrtaion over how you reached that conclusion.

And just for the record, the NY Times is THE most liveral rag in the Union....Next to the SF Chronicle of course.

liveral? Well, they're that too.

More proof that the article was a great one.

It exposed McCains corruption.

Job well done NYT!

The uproar was over an assertion in the second paragraph that during McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, some of his top advisers became "convinced" he was having a "romantic" relationship with a female lobbyist and intervened to protect the candidate from himself.

Wow, watching the furor over this NYT article has been fascinating to Spud. The NYT never claimed that McCain was getting sexual favors from him lobbyist "friend" just that people in his campaign were "convinced" of it to the point where they risked their jobs telling him to cool it.

We already know that McCain cheated on his original wife, the mother of his kids with Cindy McTrophywife. we also know that Sindy looks a lot like Vicki. ie She's his type. We know that the firm that Vicki worked for got greased. Is it really so much of a stretch of the imagination to think that McCain is horn dawg with the morals of an alleycat whp got sexually serviced by a semi-attractive lobbyist in order to further her bosses agenda?

To imagine that the last surviving member of the Keating 5 S&L scandal is somehow not as straight a talker as he suggests and might actually be a flip flopping and bent pol?

S'rsly?

Cos Spud thinks that's the case.

NYT blew it? Nope looks more Vicki tha Sticky did most of the blowing here, except fer McCain who's faux outrage here has been blowing smoke up the Righty pundits asses using the so-called liberal NYT to that end. And some of them suckers fell for it.

There's no fool like an old fool.

Be Well.

Funny to see the leftists attack McCain for an alleged affair on very weak legs on one thread, then attack the righties who bring up "Clinton's blow job" and defend Mr. Bill on it, even though he lied under oath.

Wake me up when McCain is questioned under oath about the "affair" and is caught in a lie.

Amusing people you lefties are.