This is an interesting story that the New York Times broke today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html) about links between John McCain and a D.C. lobbyist.

Mr. McCain's confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain's commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But 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?"

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator's advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman's access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others. ...

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. "I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that," he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper's inquiries.

The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.

already discredited by Bob Bennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Bennett). a registered Democrat, who as Senate Special Counsel, cleared McCain in the Keating Five scandal.


(try harder)

already discredited...

Link?

Link?
when you post a news story:rolleyes:

when you post a news story

In other words, you have nothing.
How predictable. :rolleyes:

In other words, you have nothing.
How predictable. :rolleyes:
oh, i've got it...but you're not going to like it:comphit:

Typical dharmabum, take a story that deals in allegations, not facts and that the majority of people consider a smear and used it to start a thread whose title says McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.

Is it any wonder dharma gets so little respect.

oh, i've got it...

So far, you "got" nothing to show.

This is an interesting story that the New York Times broke today about links between John McCain and a D.C. lobbyist.

Who cares if he's having an affair? Are you his wife?

Who cares if he's having an affair? Are you his wife?

No. He's a partisan hack who posts a supposition on the part of some reporters who are trying to bring up something that was discredited years ago and report it as fact.

No. He's a partisan hack who posts a supposition on the part of some reporters who are trying to bring up something that was discredited years ago and report it as fact.

and discredited last night (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?022008/022008_hc_bennett&%27In%20the%20Ring%27&Hannity_Colmes&Powerhouse%20trial%20lawyer%20Robert%20Bennett%20o pens%20up%20about%20Bill%20Clinton%2C%20Judith%20M iller%20and%20other%20high-profile%20clients&Hannity%20&%20Colmes&%27In%20the%20Ring%27&Video%20Launch%20Page&-1&Shows)


if you can't trust bipartisan discrediting, what can you trust?

Who cares if he's having an affair? Are you his wife?
have you seen the lobbyist? she's hot!:banana:

If McCain was unduly influenced by the lobbying firm then that's a real story.

But that's not the Dhramatic focus of the story.

I thought it was prudish Republicans who had that preoccupation.

This is good.
Ive seen threads running down all candidates,or throwing up inuendos about each.

Im off to the next thread,no doubt it will be smoething daft like Obama have Communist sympathies,or maybe his wife not being patriotic enough,or even a swipe at Mrs Clinton.

oooops,spoke tooooooooo soon.

Obama is a cannibal, Hillary is a Nymphomaniac, and McCain has been dead since 2003.

:D

I thought it was prudish Republicans who had that preoccupation.

Apparently they only care about that when it is a Democrat.

and discredited last night (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?022008/022008_hc_bennett&%27In%20the%20Ring%27&Hannity_Colmes&Powerhouse%20trial%20lawyer%20Robert%20Bennett%20o pens%20up%20about%20Bill%20Clinton%2C%20Judith%20M iller%20and%20other%20high-profile%20clients&Hannity%20&%20Colmes&%27In%20the%20Ring%27&Video%20Launch%20Page&-1&Shows)

if you can't trust bipartisan discrediting, what can you trust?

ROFL! His attorney denied the story. What a shocker!
Yeah, that really proves a lot. :rolleyes:

Case and point right there.

The NY Times will write about an 8 year old affair that might or might not have happened about a Republicain.

They will not write about a lesbian relationship that might or might not have happened between Hillary and one of her aids.
(Huma Abedin) Is there a liberal slant there?



This is an interesting story that the New York Times broke today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html) about links between John McCain and a D.C. lobbyist.

ROFL! His attorney denied the story. What a shocker!
Yeah, that really proves a lot. :rolleyes:
look at who his attorney is:rolleyes:

look at who his attorney is

The guy he pays to go on tv and deny these stories.

Is there a liberal slant there?

No.

I think Hillary being a Tuna-licker is a big deal... I would imagine the slightest peep would be broadcasted around the world... i mean, with such a corporate-controlled, conservative media :rolleyes:

dharmabum still hasn't addressed the fact that he is rumor mongering with absolutely no proof. Rather than saying, "NY Times says McCain might have had an affair eight years ago", he said, "McCain had an affair with a lobbyist".

Hey, dharma, you have anything to say about the following article that illustrates a double standard by the NY Times? You were quick to jump on the Mcain had a mistress bandwagon. Lets see how quick you are to admit the NY Times has a liberal bias and printed the story only to hurt John McCain.



NYT Suggests Unproven Adultery by McCain -- Unlike Clinton
By Tim Graham | February 20, 2008 - 23:10 ET
So The New York Times has released a story by a four-person investigative team alleging a potentially inappropriate relationship between Sen. John McCain, the apparent GOP nominee for president, and a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman, three decades his junior. There is no proof of an inappropriate romantic or sexual relationship, merely suspicions by staff members now said to be disgruntled. So why is the Times biting on this story? A look back at a few Clinton sex scandals suggests a different standard for Republicans and Democrats.

When Arkansas state troopers told The American Spectator and the Los Angeles Times in 1993 they secured sexual conquests for Gov. Bill Clinton, we found:

As in the Gennifer Flowers case, the Times initially buried Clinton's sex scandal in small wire stories on the back pages. Washington Bureau Chief R.W. Apple proclaimed "The New York Times is not a supermarket tabloid." But the Times ran a front-page Maureen Dowd story the day before the release of Kitty Kelley's book -- without any of Kelley's critics, or any attempt to prove Kelley's allegations [that Nancy Reagan had an affair with Frank Sinatra]. The Times also ran a 1991 Fox Butterfield article which revealed the name of William Kennedy Smith's accuser and described her "wild streak," her fondness for drinking, and her speeding tickets.


In 1999, when Juanita Broaddrick came forward to charge Bill Clinton with sexual assault in a Little Rock hotel when he was attorney general of Arkansas, once again, the Times tried to be last and least:

The newspaper that published Kitty Kelley’s allegations about Nancy Reagan’s sex life on page one also touched the Broaddrick story as a media critique, lamenting that "smaller outlets on the Internet and cable television" are "overwhelming the slower and more sober judgments of mainstream news organizations." The Times followed up with a short mention from White House reporter James Bennet and a few TV articles from reporter Lawrie Mifflin.


The "news" alleging adultery against McCain is not "fit to print."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/02/20/n-y-times-suggests-unproven-adultery-mccain-unlike-clinton

Dharm,
The NY times endorsed McCain about a month before running this story.
THEY KNEW OF THIS BEFORE THEY ENDORSED HIM.

How can you say that there is no liberal slant?

I have friends who are liberal, and they admit that there is a severe liberal slant in the media.


The guy he pays to go on tv and deny these stories.

Dharm has no backbone.

dharmabum still hasn't addressed the fact that he is rumor mongering with absolutely no proof. Rather than saying, "NY Times says McCain might have had an affair eight years ago", he said, "McCain had an affair with a lobbyist".

The guy he pays to go on tv and deny these stories.
nice try, but still not good enough!

try "the senate special counsel that cleared him of any wrong doing in the keating 5 scandal...the only one that was."

Truely unbelievable.

Coul someone point out the difference between these three threads for me.

[1]John McCain having affair with DC Lobbyist.

[2]Michelle Obama has never been proud of her country.

[3]Obamas Communist Mentor.

All 3 are simply to blacken each person character, or as with Mrs Obama, her husband.

Glad to see once again character assassination alive and well.

[1] This story if true, is/was years old.

[2]Mrs Obama isnt running for office,and chances are her words were taken outta context.

[3]If your saying theres reds under the Obama bed, get real.

nice try, but still not good enough!


Exactly my thoughts about your claim it was "discredited" just because his lawyer got on TV and denied it.

Dharm,
The NY times endorsed McCain about a month before running this story.
THEY KNEW OF THIS BEFORE THEY ENDORSED HIM.

How can you say that there is no liberal slant?

I have friends who are liberal, and they admit that there is a severe liberal slant in the media.
You need to get smarter friends. I've been saying for ages, despite no one listening to me, that the only slant in the media is a slant for whatever makes money. Whatever sensationalist garbage is likely to attract viewers/readers, they'll air it. Partisan politics be damned.

Dharm has no backbone.

No, Dharm has partisan blatherers on ignore.

Keep it up and you will be there soon.

How can you say that there is no liberal slant?

Easy.
Because there isn't.

No, Dharm has partisan blatherers on ignore.
You have yourself on ignore?

You have yourself on ignore?

:rolleyes:

Coul someone point out the difference between these three threads for me.

[1]John McCain having affair with DC Lobbyist.

[2]Michelle Obama has never been proud of her country.

[3]Obamas Communist Mentor.

All 3 are simply to blacken each person character, or as with Mrs Obama, her husband.

Glad to see once again character assassination alive and well.

[1] This story if true, is/was years old.

[2]Mrs Obama isnt running for office,and chances are her words were taken outta context.

[3]If your saying theres reds under the Obama bed, get real.Paul, this is becoming a pattern with you. You whine and moan about the level of discourse here on the Forums. Not about people's opinions but about what they choose to talk about.

It's getting really old.

It's really, really easy to avoid all this you know.

..... that the only slant in the media is a slant for whatever makes money. Whatever sensationalist garbage is likely to attract viewers/readers, they'll air it. Partisan politics be damned.Then the Times is putting on a good show pretending to have a slant.

Sisko's point about them endorsing McCain while sitting on this story would be called a right wing conspiracy by Hillary if it were done to her.

And how about the Times charging MoveOn.org $65,000 instead of the usual $181,000 for their "General Betray Us" ad.

If you want to make the case about the media in general then have a ball, but in the case of the New York Times you'd be somewhat inaccurate.

Apparently they only care about that when it is a Democrat.The right-wing is already accused, somewhat fairly, about being preoccupied with the sex stories.

It's the left who criticize them for it and say that it doesn't matter.

Yesterday your guy Tom Hartmann used the first five or six minutes of his program using phrases like "screwing", "doing" and "having sex with" in order to illustrate how much the potential sex aspect of the story doesn't matter.

In the end there is no difference between the left and right in these matters.

The guy he pays to go on tv and deny these stories.Speaking of that, when Bob Bennett was defending Bill Clinton, Bill Bennett said something to the effect of "Someone who's innocent doesn't hire my brother".

Dharm,
Please read the quote below and then answer the question.
Please don't duck the question.

Dharm,
The NY times endorsed McCain about a month before running this story.
THEY KNEW OF THIS BEFORE THEY ENDORSED HIM.

How can you say that there is no liberal slant?

I have friends who are liberal, and they admit that there is a severe liberal slant in the media.

Speaking of that, when Bob Bennett was defending Bill Clinton, Bill Bennett said something to the effect of "Someone who's innocent doesn't hire my brother".

Yes,that is the troubling thing about this McCain possible sex scandal.
Why Bob Bennett.He defended Clinton during Paula Jones.
Recently defended his Patron { Clinton } inferring the same thing
about McCain he did with The Jones Case.That there's nothing
there.No Corroboration.In Slick Willy's case,it's very explainable.
Like a Mafia Don,Clinton had the muscle to shush-up anyone
even remotely connected to a case.Ask The McDougals,or even
Jim Guy Tucker.
So,the fact that Bob Bennett is now legally charged with defending
and mitigating McCain's case,speaks to some sort of guilt.
Plus as Bob Bennett pleaded last night on - Hardball - he does not
talk about any confidential stuff between himself and his guilty or NO
client {s}.

The right-wing is already accused, somewhat fairly, about being preoccupied with the sex stories.

That is true, which is all the more ironic for all of these Republican sex scandals that reach the public eye seemingly every few weeks.

Dharm,
Please read the quote below and then answer the question.


I already answered that question in post #32.

That is true, which is all the more ironic .....True, but your man Tom spent more time on the sex aspect yesterday than any other radio show I listened to.

True, but your man Tom spent more time on the sex aspect yesterday than any other radio show I listened to.

Ah, the irony...
How many radio shows did you listen to?

And how about the Times charging MoveOn.org $65,000 instead of the usual $181,000 for their "General Betray Us" ad.
From what I recall, it was a clerical error where they got charged the "we'll print it on any random date" rate rather than the "we'll print it on a specific date" rate. It was a stupid ad anyway.

Paul, this is becoming a pattern with you. You whine and moan about the level of discourse here on the Forums. Not about people's opinions but about what they choose to talk about.

It's getting really old.

It's really, really easy to avoid all this you know.
Go ahead Brooks, Im open to suggestions.

No, Dharm has partisan blatherers on ignore.





So tell me, dharma, how did you place yourself on ignore.

The article doesn't ever refer to an 'affair'?:rolleyes:

There is no affair.
There is no story.
There is no need to attack McCain because even Republicans arent enthusiastic about him.

It amazes me that Republican Party are going to come down to John McCain being the best they can put forward against the Democrats, no doubt there are many talented members within the ranks.

The article resorts to innuendo and salacious suggestions because there is nothing factual to report. The Times is doing what they are known for, attacking Republicans.

Paul,

Neither party will put forward the best candidate their party has to offer. The Republicans will have McCain and the Democrats will have either Clinton, someone rejected and disliked by a majority of the electorate who is where she is only because of her sex or Obama, an unseasoned, ultra-liberal who is only there because of his race.

Nothing wrong with attacking Republicans as long as their articles can be backed up with evidence and fact.

Just as many many media outlets attack the Democrat Party.
Same thing, as long as there is evidence, investigative journalism
seems to be somewhat lacking in Americas media.

Anyone standing for public office should be scrutinised.

Paul,

Neither party will put forward the best candidate their party has to offer. The Republicans will have McCain and the Democrats will have either Clinton, someone rejected and disliked by a majority of the electorate who is where she is only because of her sex or Obama, an unseasoned, ultra-liberal who is only there because of his race.

So if neither party puts forward their 'best man' for the job, then both Parties are doing a disservice to the American people.

So if neither party puts forward their 'best man' for the job, then both Parties are doing a disservice to the American people.

No, both parties are working within parameters that make it almost impossible to put forth the best candidate. Candidates need money and exposure, neither of which gurarantee quality.

No, both parties are working within parameters that make it almost impossible to put forth the best candidate. Candidates need money and exposure, neither of which gurarantee quality.
Something wrong with the system then.
Whoever can raise the most finance gets a shot at the title.

Tell me of a system where this is not the case.

Tell me of a system where this is not the case.
Id say most.
I dont know of a system anywhere in Europe were someone looking to stand for election goes gets as many bucks as possible to give them the edge.

In Europe, most candidates are restricted to a limited budget of thousands,maybe tens of thousands of dollars,thats it.

I've been saying for ages, despite no one listening to me, that the only slant in the media is a slant for whatever makes money. Well said, and 100% true.

Tell me of a system where this is not the case.I call BS - you have no idea what you're talking about. You have zero knowledge of any other countries' campaign finance procedures.

"In Britain, ...election campaigns last a month, not a year ...spending levels and limits would seem inconceivable in America's own money-drenched campaigns.... During British campaigns, the national parties are granted free television time, allocated according to their share of the vote. Beyond that there is a ban on paid television political advertising, the biggest expense in American political campaigns and the chief cause of the fund-raising frenzy."

Source (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E6D8123DF931A25757C0A96E9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1)

Ah, the irony...
How many radio shows did you listen to?
About six.

And for the record, you were right and I was wrong about Tom Hartmann.
He's very good and exceptionally respectful of his right wing guests.

He's just somewhat partisan talking-pointish, but far less so than the majority of radio hosts.

Paul abd Fluffernutter,

You seem to be limiting the discussion to only money. Candidates are always party insiders and no matter what you say it cost money and it necessitates exposure. Money isn't given to nobody outsiders and neither is exposute.

Name a national elected figure who just happened to be so good people voted for him without his/her party's backing.

Keating Five: For the record, McCain was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for “poor judgment.” McCain accepted numerous campaign donations and free flights from Keating. The flights were an ethics violation. In 1986 McCain's wife "joined Mr. Keating in investing in an Arizona shopping mall." They vacationed together. McCain intervened repeatedly on Keating's behalf for Lincoln Savings and Loan. McCain himself wrote "“I still wince thinking about it.”

Lobbyist: Whether or not McCain was boffing this woman is NOT point of the article. The point is that McCain demonstrated very poor judgment in flying around with her in corporate jets, showing up with her at fund-raisers, and then intervening on her behalf. "But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity."

By the way the Times was one of the first with the story about Lewinsky's blue dress, so they swing both ways. Just more one way than the other. Ask Rupert Murdoch for more about such tactics.

Paul abd Fluffernutter,

You seem to be limiting the discussion to only money. Candidates are always party insiders and no matter what you say it cost money and it necessitates exposure. Money isn't given to nobody outsiders and neither is exposute.

Name a national elected figure who just happened to be so good people voted for him without his/her party's backing.

Im sorry if I have misread things, I thought we were discussing candidates funding.

I dont think any candidate stands without his party backing, in this neck of the woods anyway.

Tho in the US, how much funding did say-Mitt Romney raise, and then back out. Millions of dollars plus millions of his own.

Sorry Dharm,
Post 32 is not factual. I gave you facts in my post.
Now please answer my last question. (If you are able)

The question is in the quote in post # 39.
Don't duck the question.



I already answered that question in post #32.

Fluffernutter,

I was just listening to Robert Bennet tonight and he said the McCain was found to be totally innocent of any wrongdoing in the Keating affair. He said the only reason the Democrats insisted on including McCain in the affair was that if they didn't all the defendents would be Democrats and the Democrat congress could not allow that.

I also listened to Lany Davis say that John McCain is totally honest and the Times tried to run a hit piece.

If you have any proof that McCain broke any law in the Keating affair please post it.

Fluffernutter,

I was just listening to Robert Bennet tonight and he said the McCain was found to be totally innocent of any wrongdoing in the Keating affair. He said the only reason the Democrats insisted on including McCain in the affair was that if they didn't all the defendents would be Democrats and the Democrat congress could not allow that.

I also listened to Lany Davis say that John McCain is totally honest and the Times tried to run a hit piece.

If you have any proof that McCain broke any law in the Keating affair please post it.
The Senate Ethics Committee said that McCain was minimally involved. Not "totally innocent", and he was still reprimanded, but I don't think that was much of an ethics violation.

Sorry Dharm,
Post 32 is not factual.

Sorry Sisko,

You are Incorrect. Post #32 is factual and it is my final answer to your question.
I realize you don't like my answer, but that isn't my problem.

About six.

In one day? Wow, thats a lot of radio. I listen to podcasts and that is more than I can do in one day.


And for the record, you were right and I was wrong about Tom Hartmann.
He's very good and exceptionally respectful of his right wing guests.

He's just somewhat partisan talking-pointish, but far less so than the majority of radio hosts.

Thank you for admitting that.

Easy.
Because there isn't.

This is what dharmabum calls a factual answer to a question. When asked to provide facts for his assertion there is no liberal slant he simply says there isn't any as if that ends the discussion.

Once again he is dharmaizing. dharmabum is quickly becoming a non-entity where serious discussion is involved.

Then back up your answer with facts. So far you have offered none.

Sorry Sisko,

You are Incorrect. Post #32 is factual and it is my final answer to your question.
I realize you don't like my answer, but that isn't my problem.

He is the one who brought up this topic here on AF to begin with.
We call down the NY Times as having a severe liberal slant.
We offer facts to support our statement.

He just says "no there is no liberal slant."

Next we will have FT saying that it has a slant to the right.

This is what dharmabum calls a factual answer to a question. When asked to provide facts for his assertion there is no liberal slant he simply says there isn't any as if that ends the discussion.

Once again he is dharmaizing. dharmabum is quickly becoming a non-entity where serious discussion is involved.

The NY times endorsed McCain...

...then, from the SAME post.....

How can you say that there is no liberal slant?

:@@:

Unbelievable.

Even in B*sh Bizarro World, how can a newspaper endorse a conservative Republican war hawk for president, and then in the same breath be called "liberal".............?!?!?!?!?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After he made all of the incredibly stupid comments listed below.......

http://action.credomobile.com/comics/Original%20Image010808.jpg

........the ever-so "liiiiiberal" (:rolleyes:) New York times rewards this extreme Rightwing demagogue William Kristol by giving him a daily column so that he can better disseminate his ultra-Conservative spewage.

Quote someone without giving the entire quote. (Just like a liberal)

Ft,
I said The Times Endorsed McCain then a month later hit him with this story with nothing but heresay.
They picked one ofthe most Liberal , and they picked one of the most Liberal Democrats. How can you say there is no liberal slnt???


...then, from the SAME post.....



:@@:

Unbelievable.

Even in B*sh Bizarro World, how can a newspaper endorse a conservative Republican war hawk for president, and then in the same breath be called "liberal".............?!?!?!?!?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After he made all of the incredibly stupid comments listed below.......

http://action.credomobile.com/comics/Original%20Image010808.jpg

........the ever-so "liiiiiberal" (:rolleyes:) New York times rewards this extreme Rightwing demagogue William Kristol by giving him a daily column so that he can better disseminate his ultra-Conservative spewage.

Quote someone without giving the entire quote.

It matters nothing what your entire remark was.

I was simply pointing out that you apparently ARE aware that the NY Times endorsed the war hawk Republican John McCain.

Then you have the nerve to claim the newspaper that would endorse such a person is "liberal".......................?!?!?

It is to laugh.

___________________________

The enormous gap between what the U.S. political leadership does and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the greatest propaganda accomplishments in the history of the world.

Freethinker,

I expect stupid answers from dharmabum but not from you.

They endorsed McCain because he was the most liberal of all the Republicans running. They then did their best to scuttle his campaign by reporting the already debunked, eight year old story.

Stop dharmaizing.

They endorsed McCain because he was the most liberal of all the Republicans running.
That's one hell of a blanket statement to make. Each Republican candidate running was liberal in some areas and conservative in others. You can't really quantify which was "most liberal".

I expect stupid answers from dharmabum but not from you.

Frogger only respects FT when he insults him.

Isn't that an interesting phenomenon?

Even in B*sh Bizarro World, how can a newspaper endorse a conservative Republican war hawk for president, and then in the same breath be called "liberal".............?!?!?!?!?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After he made all of the incredibly stupid comments listed below.......

http://action.credomobile.com/comics/Original%20Image010808.jpg

........the ever-so "liiiiiberal" (:rolleyes:) New York times rewards this extreme Rightwing demagogue William Kristol by giving him a daily column so that he can better disseminate his ultra-Conservative spewage.

Well said FT. All too true. Bizarre, eh?
There are certain right wingers who have been swimming in the kool-aid for so long that they cannot see the illogic of their statements.

Dharm and FT seem to skip right over the 8 year old story part.


Freethinker,

I expect stupid answers from dharmabum but not from you.

They endorsed McCain because he was the most liberal of all the Republicans running. They then did their best to scuttle his campaign by reporting the already debunked, eight year old story.

Stop dharmaizing.

Frogger only respects FT when he insults him.

Isn't that an interesting phenomenon?

Frogger should not expect anything from me, since I have been ignoring him for months.

Dharm and FT seem to skip right over the 8 year old story part.

Dharmabum skips over all the useless posts by people he has on ignore.

:thumbs:

Frogger should not expect anything from me, since I have been ignoring him for months.


That's all I ever wanted from you dharma. Thanks!

Borg,

It is not a blanket statement.

While all the Republican candidates may have been liberal in some areas, something I do not concede, John McCain was the most liberal in the most areas, ergo, he was the most liberal of the major Republican candidates.

While all the Republican candidates may have been liberal in some areas,...........

ROTFL.

I'd love to hear you name them.

John McCain was the most liberal in the most areas,....

:rolleyes:

Being "more liberal than" a far Right religiwacko like Mike Huckabee on various issues that relate to religious belief still does make one a "liberal".

Being "more liberal than" a far Right isolationist like Ron Paul on various issues that relate to immigration still does make one a "liberal".

Being "more liberal than" a Rightwing economic conservative like Mitt Romney on various issues that relate to the economy still does make one a "liberal".

The following article from the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald is rather long but well worth reading as it illustrates the anatomy of a smear as practiced on John McCain by the NY Times.



Last Thursday, local time, The New York Times published a story on its front page under the headline, "For McCain, Self-Confidence of Ethics Posses Its Own Risk". The story suggests an improper romantic relationship between Senator John McCain and a much younger female lobbyist eights years ago.

It appeared under the by-lines of Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton, with additional research by Barclay Walsh and Kitty Bennett.

The story also implies that a commercial advantage was gained from this association. More broadly, the multiple criticisms of McCain in the story suggest that on the questions of ethics - the bedrock of his presidential campaign - his rhetoric does not match his actions.

What follows is a dissection of the text, highlighted at each point where the narrative is manipulated to support the insinuation in the headline and the opening paragraphs.

The story provides a case study of how the Times has for years been loading its reportage with partisanship while affecting a posture of rigorous imparitality.

"WASHINGTON - Early in Senator John McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet.

[1. She worked for the client. She was the liaison between McCain and the client.]

"Convinced the relationship had become romantic ...

[2. The story will offer no subsequent evidence to support this belief.]

" ... some of his top advisers ... "

[3. Anonymous and negative attribution number 1]

" ... intervened to protect the candidate from himself ... "

[4. the phrase "to protect the candidate from himself" infers McCain had done something improper or reckless]

" ... instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

[5. Anonymous and negative attribution number 2]

"When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist's client, the former campaign associates said ...

[6. Anonymous and negative attribution number 3]

" ... some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But ...

[7. The use of the word 'But' immediately after the denials serves to undercut the veracity of the denials.]

" ... to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

[8. There was no threat to McCain's reputation. The Times is retroactively creating one.]

"It had been just a decade since an official favour for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain's political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal.

[9. McCain was not "ensnared", which means trapped, by the Keating scandal. A congressional inquiry found he had no case of impropriety to answer.]

"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 honour chastened by a brush with shame. But ...

[10. The emotive terms "scourge", "crusader" and "honour" are followed immediately by a qualifying "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 ...

[11. For the third time, the immediate qualifier "but" undermines the previous positive.]

" ... 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.)

[12. The story offers no evidence that this common practice by members of congress resulted in any special pleading on behalf of these corporate leaders by Senator McCain.]

"Mr. McCain helped found a non-profit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But ...

[13. For the fourth time, a positive fact is immediately undermined by a qualifying "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 favour.

[14. This turns an ethical action by McCain into an innuendo of hypocrisy.]

"He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but ...

[15. For the fifth time, a positive fact is undermined immediately by a qualifying "but". It is also common practice to hire lobbyists to work on presidential campaigns.]

" ... is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office.

"He is essentially an honourable person," said William P. Cheshire ...

[16. This attributed quote, the first one in the story, damns McCain with faint praise rather than answer any of the innuendos loaded into the opening of the story. Thus the deck is stacked against McCain at the opening of the narrative.]
" ... a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. "But he can be imprudent."

Mr. Cheshire added, "That imprudence or recklessness may be part of why he was not more astute about the risks he was running with this shady operator," Charles Keating, whose ties to Mr. McCain and four other lawmakers tainted their reputations in the savings and loan debacle.

[17. Here McCain is accused of recklessness and lumped in with lawmakers whose political careers were ruined by the Keating scandal while investigators found McCain had no case to answer.]

"During his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. McCain has played down his attacks on the corrupting power of money in politics, aware that the stricter regulations he championed are unpopular in his party. When the Senate overhauled lobbying and ethics rules last year, Mr. McCain stayed in the background.

With his nomination this year all but certain, though, he is reminding voters again of his record of reform. His campaign has already begun comparing his credentials with those of Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic contender who has made lobbying and ethics rules a centrepiece of his own pitch to voters.

"I would very much like to think that I have never been a man whose favour can be bought," Mr. McCain wrote about his Keating experience in his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For." "From my earliest youth, I would have considered such a reputation to be the most shameful ignominy imaginable. Yet that is exactly how millions of Americans viewed me for a time, a time that I will forever consider one of the worst experiences of my life."

A drive to expunge the stain on his reputation ...

[18. That is very strong language, given that McCain was clearly of wrongdoing by a congressional inquiry.]

" ... in time turned into a zeal to cleanse Washington as well. The episode taught him that "questions of honour are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics," he wrote, "and because they incite public distrust they need to be addressed no less directly than we would address evidence of expressly illegal corruption."

Mr. McCain started his career like many other aspiring politicians, eagerly courting the wealthy and powerful.

[19. The emotive term "eagerly" is used unsupported by any examples.]

"A Vietnam war hero and Senate liaison for the Navy, he arrived in Arizona in 1980 after his second marriage, to Cindy Hensley, the heiress to a beer fortune there.

He quickly started looking for a Congressional district where he could run.

[20. Having "quickly" sought a seat in Congress, "eagerly courted" the wealthy and powerful, and married a beer "heiress" carefully creates the impression of a fortune-seeker.]

"Mr. Keating, a Phoenix financier and real estate developer, became an early sponsor and, soon, a friend. He was a man of great confidence and daring, Mr. McCain recalled in his memoir. "People like that appeal to me," he continued. "I have sometimes forgotten that wisdom and a strong sense of public responsibility are much more admirable qualities."

During Mr. McCain's four years in the House, Mr. Keating, his family and his business associates contributed heavily to his political campaigns. The banker gave Mr. McCain free rides on his private jet, a violation of Congressional ethics rules (he later said it was an oversight and paid for the trips). They vacationed together in the Bahamas. And in 1986, the year Mr. McCain was elected to the Senate, his wife joined Mr. Keating in investing in an Arizona shopping mall.

Mr. Keating had taken over the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and used its federally insured deposits to gamble on risky real estate and other investments. He pressed Mr. McCain and other lawmakers to help hold back federal banking regulators.

For years, Mr. McCain complied.

[21. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, complied means 'to act in accordance with a request, order, rule, etc'. The use of the word "complied" here serves to create the impression that McCain was acting on instructions. The word "agreed" would have been more accurate and less far emotive.]

"At Mr. Keating's request, he wrote several letters to regulators, introduced legislation and helped secure the nomination of a Keating associate to a banking regulatory board.

By early 1987, though, the thrift was careering toward disaster. Mr. McCain agreed to join several senators, eventually known as the Keating Five, for two private meetings with regulators to urge them to ease up. "Why didn't I fully grasp the unusual appearance of such a meeting?" Mr. McCain later lamented in his memoir.

When Lincoln went bankrupt in 1989 - one of the biggest collapses of the savings and loan crisis, costing taxpayers $3.4 billion - the Keating Five became infamous. The scandal sent Mr. Keating to prison and ended the careers of three senators, who were censured in 1991 for intervening. Mr. McCain, who had been a less aggressive advocate for Mr. Keating than the others, was reprimanded only for "poor judgement and was re-elected the next year.

Some people involved think Mr. McCain got off too lightly.

[22. The investigation into McCain's role in the Keating affair was conducted by Robert Bennett, a registered Democrat, who found McCain had no case to answer. His recommendation was subsequently vindicated. Bennett spoke to the Times prior to publication of the story and says he told the paper he had found that McCain had not acted improperly in the affair, had not breached any law, and not acted dishonestly at any time to his knowledge. Nowhere in the story is Bennett quoted.]

"William Black, one of the banking regulators the senator met with, argued that Mrs. McCain's investment with Mr. Keating created an obvious conflict of interest for her husband. (Mr. McCain had said a prenuptial agreement divided the couple's assets.) He should not be able to "put this behind him," Mr. Black said. "It sullied his integrityreport into this matter, the Times quotes Mr Black, a tangential figure, as ."

[23. Rather than quote the official the only authority worth quoting.]

"Mr. McCain has since described the episode as a unique humiliation. "If I do not repress the memory, its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important," he wrote in his memoir. "I still wince thinking about it."

[24. Following after the claim that he "got off lightly", this uses McCain's own contrition to beat him about the head.]

"Mr. McCain earned the lasting animosity of many conservatives, who argue that his push for fund-raising restrictions trampled free speech, and of many of his Senate colleagues, who bristled that he was preaching to them so soon after his own repentance. In debates, his party's leaders challenged him to name a single senator he considered corrupt (he refused).

[25. McCain can't win. Several lawmakers lost their careers because of the Keating scandal and McCain was not one of them. Yet he is simply lumped in as an equal member of the "infamous" Keating Five.]

(article continues)

"We used to joke that each of us was the only one eating alone in our caucus," said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who became Mr. McCain's partner on campaign finance efforts.

Mr. McCain appeared motivated less by the usual ideas about good governance than by a more visceral disapproval of the gifts, meals and money that influence seekers shower on lawmakers, Mr. Feingold said. "It had to do with his sense of honour," he said. "He saw this stuff as cheating."

Mr. McCain made loosening the grip of special interests the central cause of his 2000 presidential campaign, inviting scrutiny of his own ethics. His Republican rival, George W. Bush, accused him of "double talk" for soliciting campaign contributions from companies with interests that came before the powerful Senate commerce committee, of which Mr. McCain was chairman.

[26. Again, McCain can't win. This criticism was made in the heat of a primary contest, a season when politicians of the same party criticise each other, and it was made by someone famous for the sheer scale of his fund-raising from corporate donors.]

"Mr. Bush's allies called Mr. McCain "sanctimonious."

[27. "Allies" - anonymous and negative attribution number 4.]

"At one point, his campaign invited scores of lobbyists to a fund-raiser at the Willard Hotel in Washington. While Bush supporters stood mocking outside, the McCain team tried to defend his integrity by handing the lobbyists buttons reading "McCain voted against my bill." Mr. McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called "cowardly."

By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning "soft money," the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funnelled through the two political parties to get around previous laws.

One of his efforts, though, seemed self-contradictory.

[28. This was landmark campaign finance reform, yet the positive is immediately qualified by a negative, in this case a highly tenuous negative.]

"In 2001, he helped found the non-profit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of "bad publicity" after news reports of the arrangement.

[29. Once again, when McCain does the right thing, it used as a criticism of double standards.]

"Like other presidential candidates, he has relied on lobbyists to run his campaigns. Since a cash crunch last summer, several of them - including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who represented companies before Mr. McCain's Senate panel - have been working without pay, a gift that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.

[30. Staff volunteering to work on cash-strapped campaigns is common practice. This year, Senator Hillary Clinton's senior staff worked for nothing during part of the campaign. In this case, the practice is converted into a "gift".]

"In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has hired another lobbyist, Mark Buse, to run his Senate office. In his case, it was a round trip through the revolving door: Mr. Buse had directed Mr. McCain's committee staff for seven years before leaving in 2001 to lobby for telecommunications companies.

[31. Another innuendo. By using the term "revolving door", the story implies that because Mark Buse worked as a lobbyist for telecommunications this by creates a conflict of interest.]

"Mr. McCain's friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.

"Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don't think his personal and social relationships matter," said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.

Mr. McCain's confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the centre of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

[32. The story baldly describes the relationship between McCain and Ms Iseman as "compromised".]

"The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain's commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

[33. No evidence is proffered of any legislative action taken by McCain as a quid pro quo for the donations.]

"Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But ...

[34. For the sixth time, the story undermines a fact with the immediate qualification of "but". The cumulative impression is that McCain and Ms Iseman were romantically linked.]

" ... 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?"

[35. Anonymous and negative attribution number 5.]

"That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates ...

[36. Anonymous and negative attribution number 6.]

" ... some of the senator's advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

[37. The term "concerned that the relationship had become romantic" clearly suggests the relationship had become romantic.]

"A former campaign adviser ...

[38. Anonymous and negative attribution number 7.]

" ... described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide ...

[39. Anonymous and negative attribution number 8.]

" ... recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman's access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates ...

[40. Anonymous and negative attribution number 9.]

" ... said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career.

Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.

[41. Anonymous and negative attribution number 10.]

"The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

[42. "Others" - anonymous and negative attribution number 11.]

"Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about her.

"Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation's interests before either personal or special interest," Mr. Weaver continued. "Ms. Iseman's involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort."

Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about "her conduct and what she allegedly had told people which made its way back to us." He declined to elaborate.

[43. This is the paper's only named source in the story about an improper romantic relationship and it does not even support the allegation.]

"It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said ...

[44. Anonymous and negative attribution number 12.]

" ... their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.

Ms. Iseman acknowledged meeting with Mr. Weaver, but disputed his account.

"I never discussed with him alleged things I had 'told people,' that had made their way 'back to' him," she wrote in an e-mail message. She said she never received special treatment from Mr. McCain's office.

[45. Buried at the bottom of the story, this is the first time Ms Iseman is quoted disputing the story's innuendos, long after the paper has stating, near the start of the story: "Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But ... "]

"Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favouritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. "I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that," he said.

He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper's inquiries.

[46. The inclusion of this paragraph creates the impression that McCain sought to go over the heads of the six reporters working on the story.]

"The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.

[47. This paragraph has been included to create the impression that McCain had something to hide. Yet it is the Times which has something to hide. It refused to divulge the names of those suggesting an improper romantic relationship. No public figure has any moral obligation to respond to the blackmail of anonymous accusations. These accusations were disputed on the record by senior officials, yet the attributed quotes were buried while the anonymous speculation was used to lead and sustain the story.]

"Mr. Davis and Mark Salter, Mr. McCain's top strategists in both of his presidential campaigns, disputed accounts from the former associates and aides and said they did not discuss Ms. Iseman with the senator or colleagues.

"I never had any good reason to think that the relationship was anything other than professional, a friendly professional relationship," Mr. Salter said in an interview.

[48. This statement, by a named senior source, comes near the end of a 3,000 word piece. It negates the basis of the story and is buried at the bottom.]

"He and Mr. Davis also said Mr. McCain had frequently denied requests from Ms. Iseman and the companies she represented. In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients' hopes.

[49. These examples of even-handedness by McCain appears at the end of the story, where as the damning phrase, "a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee" appears, unanswered, at the very beginning.]

"The McCain aides said the senator sided with Ms. Iseman's clients only when their positions hewed to his principles.

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman's clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain's staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain's staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied ...

[50. Again, the use of the word "complied", instead of agreed creates the impression McCain was doing what he was instructed.]

"He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

[51. Omitted here is that McCain did not seek to influence the Commission on how to make a decision, but merely urged them to make one. This was impatient, but not unethical.]

Mr. McCain's aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favouritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But ...

[52. For the seventh time, the story undermines a positive fact with the immediate qualification of "but".]

" ... the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain's advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers ...

[53. Anonymous and negative attribution number 13.]

" ... dispute that.

Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history.

"Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter," he wrote, "would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy."

[54. "Hypocrisy". The story ends with exactly the word the headline has suggested and the narrative has sought to convey.]


http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/anatomy-of-a-smear/2008/02/24/1203788136184.html

Overtly slanted right-wing media spin.

Fact remains:
"By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)

After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.

And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.

Source (http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/)

Poor judgement...

Poor judgement...

Hardly. The guy's just another corrupt party tool, and it says volumes that McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer. Of course, Dubya was the best they had to offer and the righties can't seem to get enough of his destruction of our country and all it USED TO stand for.

Bottom line: don't expect much in the way of ethics, integrity, intelligence, insight, or morality from a Republican presidential candidate. Not these days, anyway.

Yesterday your guy Tom Hartmann used the first five or six minutes of his program using phrases like "screwing", "doing" and "having sex with" in order to illustrate how much the potential sex aspect of the story doesn't matter.

I am extremely disappointed in you Brooks.

I went back and downloaded the podcast of the show you are referring to here Brooks and I realized the obvious and glaring flaw with your "point". What you did is the extreme example of taking something completely out of context. You are complaining about the individual words with no context whatsoever and then ignoring all the various good points Thom Hartmann and his callers all actually made.

Yes, Thom said he doesn't care whether John McCain screwed that woman, he is more concerned about these cozy, secretive relationships between lobbyists and our representatives and whether We the People are getting screwed by them! It is an excellent and valid point and the only thing you can come up with to say in response is to complain that he used the word "screw".

That is so intellectually anti-climactic...
In the history of intelligent and relevant points added to important conversations, it is right down up there with "I love lamp."



In the end there is no difference between the left and right in these matters.


If you cannot see any difference in the way Thom Hartmann talked about the issue and the way Rush Limbaugh talked about it (http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/21/rush-limbaugh-rushes-to-john-mccains-defense/), then you are beyond reason.

Tell you what, I have the show on mp3, I can edit out this conversation and if anyone can tell me how, I would be happy to post the clip here so everyone can judge for themselves if they think it was the same level of conversation Rush Limbaugh was having.

Anybody know a way I can share an audio clip?

Hardly. The guy's just another corrupt party tool, and it says volumes that McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer. Of course, Dubya was the best they had to offer and the righties can't seem to get enough of his destruction of our country and all it USED TO stand for.

Bottom line: don't expect much in the way of ethics, integrity, intelligence, insight, or morality from a Republican presidential candidate. Not these days, anyway.

All Republicans are evil - very original.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

....he (McCain) reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honour chastened by a brush with shame. But....

[10. The emotive terms "scourge", "crusader" and "honour" are followed immediately by a qualifying "But".]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know what you mean.

The terms "scourge", "crusader" and "honour" should have instead been followed immediately by --

"Guffaw. What a load of horseshit."

("brush with shame"......LMAO. What an interesting way to spin the fact that McCain is as fucking crooked as the day is long and got caught redhanded taking payola from Keating)

All Republicans are evil - very original.

No. Just their politicians.

Dharm,

You are less than honest. Look at the way you titled this thread. .......... McCain having an affair.......

If you were honest you would have titled it............................... McCain might or might not have HAD an affair 8 years ago.


Frogger should not expect anything from me, since I have been ignoring him for months.

Dharm,

You are less than honest.

That is hilarious coming from you.

:rolleyes:

If anything, I should have titled this thread "McCain's inappropriate relationships with Lobbyists".

Dishonesty is not hilarious coming from you, dharmabum. It is simply par for the course.

You, FT and the Chicken Wrangler are three of the most partisan hacks posting at Allforums.

I gave facts to back up my assertion. You have not offered any facts in your assertion.


That is hilarious coming from you.

:rolleyes:

If anything, I should have titled this thread "McCain's inappropriate relationships with Lobbyists".

I gave facts to back up my assertion. You have not offered any facts in your assertion.

You have that exactly backwards. :thumbs:

I've heard the whole thing was debunked.

But Colbert had a funny bit on it yesterday.

He ripped the NY Times for not smearing well enough. They didn't use "sex" ONCE in the article. Then Colbert rattled off this funny little poem (paraphrase)

There once was a candidate McCain
Who had all of the white house to gain
And as a well known hobbyist
He boned one his lobbyist
And there went his 08 Campaign.

Now THAT would have been at least original. LOL

Really?????
What facts have you given that I am not honest???

The way you titled this thread is less than honest
AND YOU KNOW IT.

You have that exactly backwards. :thumbs:

Really?????

Yes, really. You have merely given your repeated opinion that the media is "liberal".

You have not given facts to prove your opinion.


The way you titled this thread is less than honest


I already admitted I should have titled it differently, not because it is not honest, but because it misses the larger issue.