The Times and McCain

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Democrats need to be careful. They know their guy isn't squeaky clean, and that's why Cali is disaproving. Mark my words, Obama is a swordsman.

The sword play won't be what gets him in trouble. It's the drug use that they will focus on. Also look for a picture of a mock Obama cabinet with Jackson and Sharpton in it. That should scare people into the voting booth.

[SeattleUte]

The title of the Times article says it all. It's a reverse puff piece:

"The Long Run: For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk"

What a crock. I'm expecting better from the Times in the coming months.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

McCain denies everything this morning. Now we wait for the response from his "accusers," one having already outed himself. He may not have had the affair, but his denying his staff warned him could sink him if more staff come out saying they did.

The next 48 hours are critical. If this gets legs, Repubs should start looking for someone else.

I agree. I didn't expect an anonymous source to "out" himself. If that keeps up, McCain could be in a world of trouble on this thing.

The biggest issue right now will be examining the interests the lobbyist represented and seeing how often McCain supported her interests prior to the "warning" his staff gave him.

The higher the percentage, the more screwed he will be.

I am still surprised the Times ran a story as big as this one with only anonymous sources backing it up, but if those sources go to bat for the Times, then who can complain? If the sources are legit, the Times was absolutely right to run the story. I still have questions about how long they held the story and why it is breaking so late in the game, and those will need to be answered as well.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I agree. I didn't expect an anonymous source to "out" himself. If that keeps up, McCain could be in a world of trouble on this thing.

The biggest issue right now will be examining the interests the lobbyist represented and seeing how often McCain supported her interests prior to the "warning" his staff gave him.

The higher the percentage, the more screwed he will be.

I am still surprised the Times ran a story as big as this one with only anonymous sources backing it up, but if those sources go to bat for the Times, then who can complain? If the sources are legit, the Times was absolutely right to run the story. I still have questions about how long they held the story and why it is breaking so late in the game, and those will need to be answered as well.

Boy, you and noah have a low threshold for titilation. I find this story borrrring. There's no there there. It's silly.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Boy, you and noah have a low threshold for titilation. I find this story borrrring. There's no there there. It's silly.

His entire campaign is built on lobbying reform and honesty. If it turns out he is both dishonest and bought by lobbyist money, it would be a big deal (because of what he claims to stand for).

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The biggest issue right now will be examining the interests the lobbyist represented and seeing how often McCain supported her interests prior to the "warning" his staff gave him.

The higher the percentage, the more screwed he will be.

I think Bill Bennett did a pretty good job of refuting the suggestion that he favored her clients. He even provide The Times info that it chose not to include in the story. Overall I think the lobbyist angle interests primarily those that will not vote for a Repub.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Boy, you and noah have a low threshold for titilation. I find this story borrrring. There's no there there. It's silly.

As I stated the biggest danger he ran (IMO) was several former or even current staffers refuting his claims that a "warning" discussion never took place; the straight talker would have been caught in a lie. It appears that McCain has won the day and even more.

Thank heavens we have you as an anchor in turbulant times.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

His entire campaign is built on lobbying reform and honesty. If it turns out he is both dishonest and bought by lobbyist money, it would be a big deal (because of what he claims to stand for).

Lesson for politicians: never advertise yourself as honest. Unless you're Jesus, the press will make it their personal mission to find some misdeed in your past to prove you are a liar.

Better option: admit you are a cheat from the outset, call it a personal decision, and the voters will forgive you.

[CJF]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html

If the NYT really did just find out, fine. I doubt it though. My guess is that they've been waiting for a good time to break it. So to make the story bigger they throw their support behind McCain. Probably didn't have any impact on the election, but it makes the Times look slimey.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

It appears that McCain has won the day and even more.

I think this is correct, but McCain needs to be ready to be screwed by The Grey Lady again in the future.

[SoonerCoug]

I don't think this news story is about bonking a younger lady. It's about McCain's unethical behavior, even aside from the alleged affair.

Newsweek produced a deposition yesterday that proved McCain lied yesterday morning. He contradicted his own testimony under oath. Man has zero credibility. Grumpy old man.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505