Here some pieces from the article in the NYT:

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. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.

But the concerns about Mr. McCain's relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.

Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman's client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)

Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office."



....and people want to keep bringing up some guy that bought a slice of Obamas property?

This should be great during the debates.

Hell, the republicans' moral relativity strikes again.

In any case, this is small potatoes when you think that the fundies and righties elected a drug-ridden, dodge-drafting, multiple business-failure trustafarian to the WH TWICE!!!

If he can make it, anyone can.

Charles Keating reared his head again in the article.

I'd almost forgotten that McCain escaped indictment over the Savings & Loan affair with Keating, a fellow Arizonian, as his best buddy and chief contributor.

S & L bailout ended up costing US taxpayers $160,000,000,000 (billion).

Gee, the GOP sure likes spending money - unless it's on say, uninsured kids here in the U.S. to the tune of $6 billion paid for with higher cigaretter taxes.

BS story from a BS newsrag.

POS the NYT.


Murphy

Just looking at John McCain...one gets a feeling that this is the type of a guy who would have a hard time keeping his pee-pee in his pants if a semi attractive women came on to him and he had a few "Pops" in him.

"I feel the power...Obi-One-Kanobi!!! "

WTF is wrong with these people? They could have brought Dan Rather back and delivered this story on 60 minutes.

oooops, even with dwindling readership the NYTimes probably still catches more eyes than 60 minutes.

Never mind.

If it is OK for president Clinton to mess around, what is the problem with John?

Has anyone tried to read the story? It was difficult for me to follow. Not many real facts, mostly anecdotal information. Not sure this really qualifies as journalism. You can acuse me of killing the messenger, but there really is no message.

Those that want to believe this will, those who do not won't. That is the problem with unsubstantiated claims like this.

Has anyone tried to read the story? It was difficult for me to follow. Not many real facts, mostly anecdotal information. Not sure this really qualifies as journalism. You can acuse me of killing the messenger, but there really is no message.

Those that want to believe this will, those who do not won't. That is the problem with unsubstantiated claims like this.

SNIPER

When McCain flew in her private jet I wonder if the pilot did parabolic curves to give the folks in the cabin a little weightlessness for sex fun. Ugh. The picture of that is not pretty LOL

Clinton was not "OK," Sniper. We had a national debate about the WHBJ for some years. Impeachment, I recall. It's all they ever found wrong with him, unlike the incumbent whose sex drive may well match his IQ.

I can see where political/fairness considerations come into play here for McCain. The NYTimes is, after all, a corporate venture, and the corporations must be good to their own.

But it's piss-poor journalism . herm

The New York Times endorsed McCain.

The New York Times endorsed McCain.

Posted by Burt


Doesn't mean every reporter agrees with the decision and wants to see him in the white house.

The Washington Post version of this is quite a bit better written.

BS story from a BS newsrag.

POS the NYT.


Murphy

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-02-21 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:




WTF is wrong with these people? They could have brought Dan Rather back and delivered this story on 60 minutes.

oooops, even with dwindling readership the NYTimes probably still catches more eyes than 60 minutes.

Never mind.

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon at 2008-02-21 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag






There's that typical righty response of zero-substance we're so used to.

"I don't like the story so I'll ignore it and point to their falling numbers in print media.....waaaaah"

The whining right gets a drop of their own medicine and starts to blubber.

With such a demonstration of low fortitude, y'all better get a bucket 'o drugs to survive the next 9 months. Whining pussies.

If the New York Times wanted to torpedo Sen. McCain campaign It seem top me that it would have kept this story until just before the Election. Give it time an lets see if this story has any legs. Thats what a reporter and newspaper to do report the NEWS!!!

The story doesn't do much more than insinuate an affair. Shouldn't have been published unless they had proof.
However, given the sub-prime crisis, it is good to remind voters of McCain and his idol, Ronnie Reagan's role in the S&L scandal. Do we really need a Keating 5 alumni dealing with crooked mortgage companies?( unless Mrs. McM needs another shopping center, then its straight talk, of course).
Like Jon Stewart said, this coming out now has got to piss of Flipp, so McCain stalling it was probably a good thing to do..

Let's see...the allegedly liberal New York Times struggles for months over whether or not to release this information and the mouthbreathers call them scumbags.

Conservative Matt Drudge pukes the story onto his webpage the second he hears about it and nary a word of criticism is aimed in his direction.

Typical.

The guy who investigated the Keating 5 thing has a book just out. He says that in his investigation he found that McCain had done nothing wrong, but when he suggested that McCain not be included in the "5" that it fell on deaf ears because if McCain were not there then it would have been 4 Democrats and no Republicans involved.

From and H&C Interview last night...

BENNETT: Well, you know, maybe I was prophetic. I mean, I wrote that chapter a long time ago. If your listeners want to know about the Keating Five case, I have a whole chapter on it. And what happened was that I had recommended that John McCain be cut out of it and not go forward. And, you know, I call it the way I see it. As I said, I'm a Democrat. And I recommended they go forward against Senators DeConcini, Senator Cranston and Senator Riegle.

But if you cut out John McCain, you would have had 28 days of public hearings with just Democrats in the dock. So, it's probably the first time in the history of the Senate that they rejected the advice of their counsel to exonerate a senator.

Thanks Sawdust, of course Neil Bush ripped off more than all 5 of them combined, but who cares, right? It's only taxpayer money.

What I find particularly funny is that the allegedly liberal media told us all about the wacky antics of the loser brothers of the last two Democratic presidents, but I've never heard a peep about good ole Neil Bush who ripped off $1.6 billion from the taxpayers.
Why is that?

I am not up on Neil Bush.. I only was trying to introduce some facts into the discussion about McCain.

Common--did you read the story posted on this thread?

The story is BS.

It is rumor and innuendo and apparently everyone knew this story was out there because of the indiscretions of the reporters.

And what is hilarious--is that the talk radio giants and even the cable guys are sticking up for McCain and denouncing the NYT.

So maybe that was the intent--try to do a smear piece on McCain--who BTW was endorsed by the NYT--great deflection--and knowing that it was such bullshit--as confirmed by the New Republic--

That folks would come to the aid of McCain and turn the conservatives towards McCain!!

WOW! Those guys at the NYT are friggin geniuses!!

Signed,

Larry Mohr ;o)

What I find particularly funny is that in a thread about the NYT and John McCain, the only thing Rastacyborg can think of to talk about is the Bush family.

How long after Bush leaves office will the liberal obsession with that name continue? Will the amount of seconds it takes for the word "Bush" to come to mind in irrelevant situations increase over time?

I wish it would've come out 3 months ago. Then it would've had an impact on the primaries, and maybe we wouldn't be stuck with this guy.

This does not matter, McCain will win the WH.

BS story from a BS newsrag.

POS the NYT.

~Murphy.

Yeah, fark that new writer they brought on board recently, wot was that guys name again? Oh, right Bill Kristol. That guy is a total idjit!

I wish it would've come out 3 months ago. Then it would've had an impact on the primaries, and maybe we wouldn't be stuck with this guy.

~RiR.

Face it, all the GOP candidates sucked this time around. Rudy 9ui11iani? Huckabee the Christo-fascist? John "100 years in Iraq" McCain? Mittens the magical underwear wearin' Romulan? Brownback Mountin'? Fred "Nap Time" Thompson? Tommy "The Moron" Thompson?

Do. Not. Want.

Hell, the best candidate you kids fielded was Ron freakin' Paul. How sad is that?

Now the party is more fractionalised than the former Yugoslavia and it serves you guys right.

Be Well.

The Dems suck too. And time will tell whether you can make it through your convention without Balkanizing yourselves.

How long after Bush leaves office will the liberal obsession with that name continue?

How long ago was Whitewater and/or Clinton's bj.

And they didn't fuck the country up a billionth of what cowboy George has.

"It's as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. It's as predictable as Ted Kennedy finding a bar at happy hour," Limbaugh said.



HHHAAAHHHAAAAHHHAAA.


Oh boy does Rush have them pegged.

No shame, this is the party that hides their agenda and cannot even be called the things that define them.

If anyone here defends this one, well, you know.

Oh yeah.



Flee hell.

"It's as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. It's as predictable as Ted Kennedy finding a bar at happy hour," Limbaugh said.

When's Rush's next junket to the Dominican Republic to sample that country's fine selection of underage hookers. Viva viagra!!

"Times Held McCain Story for Months"

Ugh... this is one area where the French could teach the US a few things about politics. Please just stop the stupid fucking witch hunts already. All this does is make everyone else a liar and hypocrite.

And what is hilarious--is that the talk radio giants and even the cable guys are sticking up for McCain and denouncing the NYT.

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-02-21 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

WOW.....HOLY SHIT!!!

Talk Radio standing up for a neo-con? THAT'S CRAZY!!!

CRAZY I TELLS YA!!!!

The SKY IS FALLING!!!!!

The controversial piece, written by Washington bureau reporters Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn Thompson, Stephen Labaton, and David Kirkpatrick, and published in this morning's paper, explores the possibility that the Republican presidential candidate may have had an affair with the 40-year-old blond-haired lobbyist for the telecommunications industry while he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee in the late-1990s.

Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.

Explores the possibility??? Relied on anecdotal evidence? Where are the anonymous sources? Obviously the NY Times is desperate, they publish an article because they don't want to get out-scooped by some left then center site. Maybe they can blame it on Jason Blair.

Poor Chris Mathews, he wanted sooo bad for this to be true. He kept asking over and again about the sexual aspect of the story and everyone, McCain's attorney and the NBC analysts did not bite... Keep asking the same question and hoping you will get a different answer.

This story is weaker than an Rcade bench press.

It seems less vetted and has less details than the hatchet job done by CBS on the fake papers of George Bush's military record.

Bee Swell

At least, even if it were true, Mr. McCain has some class and associates with classy women unlike some others, whose taste betrays their origins. The "blond lobbyist" is very good looking, educated, and poised woman.

Let's see now, who is it who prefers what his defender, Mr. Carville, characterized as "trailer trash," and whose "sophisticated" sexual overtures consist of dropping his pants and exposing himself upon meeting a woman thinking that this would demonstrate his sexual allure. After all, not everyone is transformed by Peyronie's Disease, which apparently confers irresistible charm on those afflicted.

Oh well, maybe as Mr. Kissinger observed, "Power is the ultimate aphrodasiac." I wonder how Billy Boy is doing now.

"righties elected a drug-ridden, dodge-drafting...to the WH TWICE!!!"

The righties didn't elect Clinton.

"How long after Bush leaves office will the liberal obsession with that name continue? Will the amount of seconds it takes for the word "Bush" to come to mind in irrelevant situations increase over time?"

Not sure I can speak for all "liberals," Joe, but I don't think it's just a "liberal obsession." I think that if anyone is not outraged by the very name for many years to come, our national character has disintegrated to the point that Bush's has. The name will become part of the language and be lower cased. Quisling comes to mind. The irrelevance, of course, exists strictly in the mind of the beholder. herm

Others deflect to Carville and, of course, Clinton. Sigh! herm

Well said, Herm.

or, as my dhimmitwit mother would say, "ALLLLLLL presidents cheat on their wivezzzzzzzzzzz!" when clintoonyloons did it...just sayin'...what'z good for the libtards is good for the rest of u.s., RIGHT?

or are we not as equal as the rest'a'y'all?

Well, Nancy, I tried to start a dialog a while back that the bright ones "cheat" (not just Clinton, but JFK and FDR come to mind) while the dull ones (not just Bush, but Ford and Truman) keep it in their pants.

Extracurricular sex, whether with interns or secretaries or groupies, is not my problem. But what the perhaps monogamous Bush has done to "his" nation is my problem, and I weep. Comment? herm

How long after Bush leaves office will the liberal obsession with that name continue?

JOE

Certainly much less time that it's seeming to take rethugs to quit talking about Clinton. Several references today. That's 7 years and counting.

"The "blond lobbyist" is very good looking, educated, and poised woman."

So is his current wife, with whom he cheated on his first wife...

Let's not forget that McLovin cheated on his wife for years with several different women.

The woman that remained his wife while he was in hell, and raised his children. I've read nothing to suggest that she cheated while he was being tortured. And According to McFlipflop's last vote, it wasn't really torture.(not)

The NYTimes article may we be crap, but he opened himself up to the scrutiny. The claim sounds reasonable because it is exactly something he has and would do.

may we = may well

Alexandrite do you have proof that he cheated on his first wife or are you just spoutin off your stupid mouth again?

If so what is it?

Please no more unnamed sources.

Let's guess who MEDIATROLL is.


Whoever, he's a coward who has to use another ID to continue the bullshit.

I think it's completely understandable, because his first wife "had suffered her own crippling, near-death ordeal during his captivity, due to an automobile accident in December 1969 that left her facing months of operations and physical therapy;[76] by the time he saw her again she was four inches shorter, on crutches, and substantially heavier.[77]", and McCain was turning forty, and Cindy was 23 yrs old, pretty and rich...

Didn't expect the assist, but my links have the same stuff as your links...now mediatroll has a lot o sources, betel.

How can people NOT know this stuff, yet have such strong(and ignorantly hypocritical) opinions ? Our media sucks, that's how.

Media- Since McCain admitted he did this, and Obama admitted the Cocaine use...what's the problem with the NYTimes article but not with the Obama articles, mediatroll?
Has the transparency on your "I must bash democrats and not republicans" plan worn off? Seems like.

I was listening to Neil? Boortz this morning, and he got blindsided by what I also thought was common knowledge about McCain. It was kinda embarrassing to hear it live, not that Boortz deserves mercy or kindness.

Boortz is good argument against pure darwinism as he literally thinks anyone not as lucky or "talented" as him should die in a gutter. The man has no soul.

Even worse: He's stupid and often wrong.

At least get a functioning brain stem when you sell your soul to the devil. Words to live by.

Today Boortz said that roaches and lobsters were the "same species". Really. He's not a stupid man though, just prey to his simplistic, insensate ideology and thoughtless mouth.

Facts are, if it is true, it isn't a smear.

Alexandrite McCain was separated from his first wife when he met Cindy unlike Bill Clinton when he met Juanita Broderick, Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and countless others.

Hardly something to be embarrassed by. If you are getting divorced looking for another mate seems logical.

He wasn't divorced yet. It's called adultery.

And there is one politician that hasn't done drugs or broken the law as a kid. His name is lying sack of shit.

No doubt you're related.

Sorry I missed the Bill Clinton deflection on the first read.

Been hearing it none stop for 7 years every time W fucks up. Which is daily. Get a new line, bushbots...the "clinton did X" was tired 4 years ago when I started here. No doubt you remember those days, since you're not new at all, mediatroll.

the "clinton did X" was tired 4 years ago when I started here.

I agree. Hearing about Iran contra is even worse since it's going on 20 years old.

Since Bill Clinton is not in a prison cell for all the crimes (he and help me steal the furniture) Hillary will never be forgotton by us.

Lets review their crimes again.

1. Sexual harrassment including rape.
2. Obtaining FBI background files on Republicans.
3. Stealing the white house furniture.
4. Campain contributions on religious grounds.
5. Hiding Rose Law Firm billing records.
6. Lying in a deposition(oh he did lose his law license on this one)
7. Castle Grande
8. White Water
9. Taking campaign contributions from the Chinese government.
10. Hiring more crooks that any other administration. Yes that include even Bush.

People died because of iran contra. At least that fucking mattered. Especially when you consider that most of the trollish unamerican Pieces of dirt responsible somehow wormed their way back into power.(negroponte for starters) And the some dirtballs from Nixons admin too(rummy, cheney)

Wake me when vince fosters murderer runs a cabinet position or a war.

That's not a fair comparison. The Reagan administration was breaking the law and lying to Congress for the greater good on an international gun-running scale. Clinton was lying about sex, the impeached criminal...

Guns AND drug running. With terrorists and enemies of state.
Just like now, only iran/iraq instead of Saudi Arabia/pakistan. We never learn.

Ignorance is bliss, right mediumtroll? You'd know...

Wake me when vince fosters murderer runs a cabinet position or a war.

Some say he actually was elected president. We'll probably never know.

People died because of iran contra.

I stand corrected. Deflections are OK as long as dead people are involved. I did not know this. To me all deflections are ignorant.

Does this mean a republican won't be called out if he deflects by invoking Saint Teddy? The lefties hate it when that happens it seems.

No, deflections are not OK, goatman. I thought you were saying you were just tired of hearing about iran contra period.

But betel is right, you choose a poor counter example. Even for a deflection.

I thought you were saying you were just tired of hearing about iran contra period.

Nope, well, yes. Tired of deflections in general whether death is involved or not.

It's not nice to pick on Ted Kennedy. For all he knows he died last year. : )

For all he knows he died last year.

LOL

What do you expect from the NYT, they are A Communist Owned Newspaper and the editor is a flaming queer.

Funny how the Cons could spend tens of millions and years invesigating Clinton's sex life but when the shoe is on the other foot, they suddenly find they are OUTRAGED.

He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office."



That is why McLame is the head of the "Bullshit Express".

If you are getting divorced looking for another mate seems logical

Yeah, getting married again what one, two months after your divorce speaks of the kind of deliberation over a decision that we need in a president or maybe he was shtooping her while still married. Either way McLame's sex life is the least of his problems.

Of course didn't the great republitard hero Reagan cheat on his first wife with Nancy too.

Throw in Newt and you have a trifecta of republitard family values.

I saw on the news last night baghdad Bobs wife next to him and speaking after denying this.

Can anyone imagine that tight haired bun pent up lady being the first lady?

That is truely a really scary scary thought. I am sorry but she looked like a real bit** if you know what I mean. I bet she takes alot of work to keep happy.

Well I don't see any $4 million rings in her future like when Kobe cheated on his wife.

Not unless she buys it herself with the money she made the old fashioned way... inherited it.

The New York Times used to be a fairly good newspaper, but now is just a propaganda arm of the democrat national commitee. The NYT and shitsburger are a disgrace.

Two anonomous sources and the nyt can pulish a story. But if you have a guy on utube saying he had sex with obama no one covers it. The limo driver even saw them. Where is the balance?

And what is hilarious--is that the talk radio giants and even the cable guys are sticking up for McCain and denouncing the NYT.

Told ya long ago they would Only the stupider of God's creatures ever believed they wouldn't wrap their lips around John's sphincter.

But John may be having some trouble trying to evade his own campaugn finance laws.

And what is hilarious--is that the talk radio giants and even the cable guys are sticking up for McCain and denouncing the NYT.

Well... When some fools believe a national story based on no fact and all fiction, why shouldn't they point out their stupidity? It doesn't matter that is was the Quaker Oats Man McCain. The news is a major publication didn't want to get scooped by a Blog Site. Hell even Time Magazine thought this was a joke. There is another article which claims the real story was the appearence of cozying up to a Lobbyist. Not sure how it turned into a fool blown love affair.

This story is real amateur stuff. When you kill someone with the death of a 1000 cuts, none of the individual cuts are fatal. It is the combined cuts which added together do the damage. Between now and November we are going to get 1000 more stories about McCain. It will be interesting if Hillary is the Democratic nomination. She has all of those FBI files she has yet to use. I am sure one file is on John McCain. The Times held onto this story and endorsed McCain. A Time's endorsement signaled Democrats that it was all right to cross over and vote for McCain. They now figure they need not wait any longer. The Republicans are too far into the process. Since the story is of little value by itself, why wait? Bigger stories are coming. Are there any disagreements between people working at the Times and management? You're kidding! There have been so many lay offs at the Times that anyone who wasn't a toad, disappeared long ago!

Okay, so they got the wrong crooked Arizona Republican:

Rep. Rick Renzi (R) has been indicted on multiple charges by a federal grand jury looking into a controversial land deal in his home state of Arizona.

This is the new assassination journalism, "Hate and wait," until the propitious moment to use "news" for political advantage.

Was this "news?" Isn't "news" published when it occurs? If it were "news," then it would be "yesterday's news" delivered today so as to further an agenda.

The "media" has degenerated into an advocate for causes and massages information to distort reality. The NY Times deserves no respect. Sulzberger, a not particularly bright offspring who inherited control of the newspaper, has tarnished the now disgraced venture.

But then, the handwriting in on the wall for "newspapers" as the internet has passed them in terms of revenue, then there's "local" TV and radio, and the Yellow Pages.

There is the trend and lack of imagination and leadership in the process conjoining the "paper" with the "internet," with the resulting elimination of the NY Times, when its revenue can no longer support its legacy undertakings.

The newspaper has been converted into a tabloid rag that seeks to exercise political power. The "Watergate episode," and the role of the media in ending the Nixon presidency, has given it an unwarranted elevated view of its role in this country, and it has deliberately undertaken to conrol the political process. This is corruption, and the stench permeates the propaganda it disseminates, which is increasingly transparent as to its purpose.

The NY Times is wending its way into the trashbin of history by abandoning its legitimate role as a purveyor of news and degenerating into political advocacy. You're so "yesterday," Mr. Sulzberger, and the NY Times is an anachronism. You're in a time warp. Watergate is over and done for. Fantasyland is where Sulzberger lives.

Ted Kennedy? No he didn't die. He was pickled alive and that extends his lifespan. Oh, he was pickled in alcohol, not brine. He keeps replenishing the pickling fluid daily and unstintingly.

He's still quite a swimmer.

The young girl who was drowned, Ms Kupechne (?), is a heroine as her sacrifice kept this degenerate from becoming President. But then, we did even worse with Mr. Carter, an abomination. The weak presidential field today is too horrible to contemplate.