New York Times Smears John McCain
February 20th, 2008 at 09:12pm Matt Margolis
By now, you’ve probably heard news of the New York Times smear job against John McCain. It is such a ridiculously poor piece one has to question the motives of the New York Times for even going forward with it. With McCain pretty much securing the nomination, it’s inevitable that he’ll be the target of baseless smear attacks…
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. In the meantime, discuss.
UPDATE: Wow, even Alan Colmes concedes this is a non-story.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
70 Comments
1. JD | February 20th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
We can be certain that Senator McCain will tell US that he did not have sexual relations with that woman Ms. Iseman.
2. Kyle | February 20th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Ah, yes. If by “smear” you mean the truth.
Good luck with all that.
3. Kahn | February 20th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Well, I’ve got to say that Rush was 100% correct about this. He predicted that the NYT and others were sitting on stories about McCain that they were saving until he was sure of nomination.
Nothing like an impartial press, eh? You liberals like to attack FOX. But even the most liberal of you must admit this is obvious manipulation of the news for political purposes. The facts are not even in dispute. The timing is. Just when did the NYT know these facts? Why not publish a month ago, or two?
You are OK with this? Really, you are? You’re OK with the “paper of record” manipulating the reporting of news? What if they turn against YOU or your particular little group?
Defend it if you must. Use it to attack McCain if you must. But you are missing the BIG story. AND - the NYT miscalculated. It’s too far to the elections for this to matter. And so long as he doesn’t lie about it under oath, I thought you people were OK with this stuff anyways?
4. Casper | February 20th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Matt,
I curious as to which parts of the article you think are false. The fact that McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising “poor judgment” for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating is public record.
5. Mortimer | February 20th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Before everyone rushes out and clutches their familiar stereotypes, maybe the story is true? THE NY Times may not be perfect, but they have better standards than any right wing blogger with his cookie cutter derived from Rush opinion as fact. Cause you right wing noise makers mostly have one thing in common, you never go out and get the story yourself, you still rely on the bad old MSM to do almost all the dirty work. After all, you (Ed. Note: String of insults at end of comment deleted).
6. Some Assembly Required | February 20th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“the NYT miscalculated. It’s too far to the elections for this to matter.”
Kahn,
This effectively makes your point moot.
7. Casper | February 20th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Kahn,
So the problem is not the information included in the article, but the timing of it?
To be honest, there was nothing in the article that surprised me, nor was there anything that would keep me from voting for the man. Unless a person does absolutely nothing in his public life, things like this are going to surface.
8. Kahn | February 20th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Casper and other liberals. McCain was not charged in the Keating Five Scandal. The facts in this story are not new. And the facts are not even recently discovered. Why then wasn’t this a pertinent story a month ago? Or two months ago? Or a year ago?
SAR - just because I think the NYT miscalculated does not make this moot. The truth is that the “paper of record” has launched into an obvious political attack. And more imporatntly you liberals don’t care.
For your information:
“allegations is that before and during World War II, the newspaper downplayed accusations that the Third Reich had targeted Jews for expulsion and genocide, at least in part because the publisher, who was Jewish, feared the taint of taking on any “Jewish cause.”[8]
Another serious charge is the accusation that the Times, through its coverage of the Soviet Union by correspondent Walter Duranty, helped to cover up the Ukrainian genocide perpetrated by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s.[9][10]
In 1965, the Times published a story about a Jewish man turned Neo-Nazi, Dan Burros. Burros killed himself only minutes after the paper came out with the story.[11]
The Times has been accused by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting of giving partial coverage of events in the 1980s in Central America, in particular by insisting on human rights violations committed in Nicaragua, to the detriment of other abuses during the Salvadoran Civil War, the Guatemalan Civil War or under the dictatorship in Honduras.[12]
Until 2004 the Times had a policy of not using the term Armenian Genocide.[13] Despite publishing dozens of articles about the Armenian Genocide,[14] the Times for a period shied away from using the term in its articles as part of its editorial policy. The Turkish Government denies genocide occurred. Times columnist and former reporter Nicholas D. Kristof, who is of Armenian descent, has criticized in his Times column the ongoing denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times
Before you attack wikipedia as a source, remember you’re putting faith in an organization that downplayed the holocaust.
But you’re OK with that. See, not a question now. A statement. You are OK with supposedly neutral and honest press pimping itself out a a political hit machine.
9. Kahn | February 20th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Should a press outlet that makes no pretense of being an honest broker, that openly campaigns for politicians of one party and attacks those of another still enjoy full protections of the First Amendment? Should the New York Times not be subject to the same limitations of the Campaign Finance Laws that other partisan organizations are?
Why or why not?
10. Casper | February 20th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“Casper and other liberals. McCain was not charged in the Keating Five Scandal. The facts in this story are not new. And the facts are not even recently discovered. Why then wasn’t this a pertinent story a month ago? Or two months ago? Or a year ago?”
I never said he was charged with anything, nor was any important information in the article that I didn’t already know. There certainly wasn’t anything that would keep me from voting for McCain. I would very happy with McCain as our next president.
As for why they waited to break this story now, I don’t know. I read the NYTs for the same reason I read this blog and a dozen other sources. To get information. I also realize that the NYTs is biased just as all sources are, and I take that into consideration.
11. Casper | February 20th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“Should a press outlet that makes no pretense of being an honest broker, that openly campaigns for politicians of one party and attacks those of another still enjoy full protections of the First Amendment?”
Thought you were talking about Fox for a minute. Do you think Fox should be subject to the same limitations of the Campaign Finance Laws that other partisan organizations are?
Frankly, I think all media has bias.
12. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Mortimer,
It could be true, but that is highly unlikely as the NY Times has mostly gotten it wrong about everything for at least the past two decades…chances are, they’ve got it wrong again.
13. Rich | February 20th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Wow you libs are biting on this story with nobody on the record? Remember this in the general when unsourced stories on Obama make it into the news. When you complain I will direct you to your gloating on this thread.
14. liberalT | February 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
right - its a ’smear job’ when they report on McCain’s alleged affairs but it requires a special prosecutor when it is Bill Clinton. HYPOCRITE. Try to go one day without putting your foot in your mouth…
15. Kahn | February 20th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
libT - A former employee of Bill Clinton sued him for sexual harassment. He lied about other affairs when deposed. He was disbarred and lost the law suit. I think you will have a hard time finding quotes here attacking him for the affair. It was the whole “taking advatage of emploees ans lying under oath” thing that got Bill in trouble.
YOUR side has always refused to see this. You are the HYPOCRITE here.
Meanwhile, you are 100% OK with “mainstream” supposedly honest press manipulating reporting blatantly for political purposes. This says a lot about you.
16. liberalT | February 20th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Deleted - off topic.
17. new york times mccain Tre&hellip | February 20th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
[…] the motives of the New York Times for even going forward with it. With McCain pretty much … credit : […]
18. Darva Conger | February 20th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Yawn. Why don’t you guys go back to Obama is a commie and his wife hates apple and the flag.
19. Judith | February 20th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Are all liberals just plain nutz? They can’t ever acknowledge the written facts. I am getting so I cannot even stand the thought of them even being around. Probably won’t have to worry after Nov. because none of us will be here.
20. Matt Margolis | February 20th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
According to liberalT, attacking your political opponent is a sign of desperation. So, since liberals have been attacking Bush relentlessly since 2000, that is evidence of how desperate they are.
21. liberalT | February 20th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
oh - i fully admit that with that moron in control I am desperate. No denying that!
22. Judith | February 20th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Obuma Wowomba Magomba isn’t a commie. He’s a jug eared nobody with no history who thinks he’s the Messiah. And he hates his mother’s people (that’s us folks) as he said in his book. I read that. Snake oil salesman for all the 6th grade reading level dumbies in this country. Boy, CHANGE AND HOPE. All the 18 year old are buying this hype and we are letting them decide on the future of this country. They have the experience level of their idol. Hope that feeds the masses.
23. Kahn | February 20th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
LibT, well I guess you found quotes proving something. Not what you were talking about. And you didn’t actually to point to any. But something, I guess, sorta, maybe.
Clinton recently said that an independent study here people showed her said FOX was the most neutral.
NBC has opnely stated they are for Obama. NYT is obviouly Democrat. NPR has actually been caught sharing donor lists with Democrats multiple times, CBS used forged documents to attack Bush. Are these not in fact political organizations that should be controlled by the same campaign finance laws as everyone else?
24. liberalT | February 20th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Deleted - slander plus blasphemy.
25. BARRASSO | February 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Deleted - string of insults.
26. looking4laughs | February 20th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Hey Kahn, “Why then wasn’t this a pertinent story a month ago? Or two months ago? Or a year ago?”
Because McCain convinced NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the story.
It was right before the New Hampshire primaries.
How do you all like McCain now?
McCain gamed the NYT to hold off on the story so he could make his big comeback.
How do I know? Because Drudge told me so, link http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm
27. Christian Wright | February 20th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Deleted - slanders American military hero
28. Kahn | February 21st, 2008 at 12:21 am
Well LibT - thanks for that out of context McCain quote.
Can you point to FOX giving donor lists to the Republicans?
Can you point to FOX News reporters (not commentators) stating support for Republican candidates?
Can you point to FOX using forged documents to attack a Democrat?
And as to THIS NYT story, can you point at FOX using unsourced innuendo of extra-marital activity with a lobbyist in relation to a Democrat?
No huh, change the subject again I guess.
Meanwhile, the Times revists the Keating 5 episode where the Democrats own council recommended not including McCain and is on record saying he did nothing wrong and is an honest man. AND, the times mentions the scandal without mentioning McCain was cleared?
Please, stop pretending that anything you guiys do is OK because you hate us so much. And NO, we’re not “as bad” as you are.
29. Kahn | February 21st, 2008 at 12:34 am
looking, OK - but um, the NYT didn’t actually publish it then, did they? The details of how Drudge got it are murky, aren’t they?
Meanwhile they revisit Keating where he was cleared without mentioning it and the make innuendo about an affair with a lobbyist that both have denied, with no evidence, with no sources, and with no evidence he made any decisions in her favor as a result.
Sound like A1 reporting to me. Not biased at all!
30. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 12:46 am
liberalT,
Mostly, you are just boring us these days.
31. mccain new york times Tre&hellip | February 21st, 2008 at 7:09 am
[…] the motives of the New York Times for even going forward with it. With McCain pretty much … credit : […]
32. Christian Wright | February 21st, 2008 at 7:13 am
Give McCain a break.
He was tortured in VN and was never treated for PTSD. PTSD is a serious psychological and mental disability. McCain violent outbursts of anger are symptomatic of PTSD. Thank goodness he does not carry a firearm.
33. Nicole Neroulias | February 21st, 2008 at 7:36 am
I’ll be interesting to see how Vietnam veterans react as McCain - one of their own (less disputedly then Kerry, apparently) - starts dealing with the ugly side of politics in this campaign. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks that anyone who survived 5+ years as a POW must, at least on some level, laugh when confronted with problems like this.
Check out http://veterans.lohudblogs.com for more on this angle.
34. Angela | February 21st, 2008 at 7:39 am
Ok, so I’m as liberal as it gets and I think this story is garbage. I would go as far as to say that McCain is taking a hit on this to innoculate Obama from his own unsavory antics–the Larry Sinclair story that will break late next week. The timing of this is quite interesting.
35. liberalT | February 21st, 2008 at 8:05 am
its a real quote Mark - and it is from McCain.
36. plainjane | February 21st, 2008 at 8:10 am
McCain is about to get an education in the right wing conspiracy. Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, and all the other wing nuts attend all the Washington parties and will be more than willing to share what they know to take down McCain. I find it interesting that despite the fact the Huckster can’t get enough delegates, he waits in the wings.
The wingnuts have their mole inside the New Your Times. You just knew stories like this would break once the New York Times hired Bill “The Bloody” Kristol and allowed him to roam the halls.
37. Kahn | February 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am
plainjane - so Rush lives in DC now and works for the New York Times. It must be very interesting living with a mind a f*cked up as yours.
38. southerner | February 21st, 2008 at 8:46 am
Mark, I see you deleted two posts above but felt fine with leaving Judith’s racist screed (number 22) in there. You know, the one where she said he was jug-eared, made fun of the ethnicity of his name and said he he hated ‘his mother’s people’. Guess that show’s what’s okay with you.
39. liberalT | February 21st, 2008 at 9:00 am
Mark only deletes things that make fun of christianity and white men. Being horribly horribly racist against muslims and other minorities is just fine with Mark.
40. Kahn | February 21st, 2008 at 9:03 am
is Islam a race now?
41. hermie | February 21st, 2008 at 9:04 am
I’ve said at least two years ago that the MSM was sitting on every anti-McCain story since 2000, waiting to smear him when they thought the time was right.
They smiled and patted McCain on the back, giving him kudos for being a ‘maverick’ (ie: When he said or did something that they could use to hurt the Bush WH.). They waited and kept their knives sharp…just itching to stab their ‘friend’ in the back.
42. thatjerryguy | February 21st, 2008 at 9:43 am
Coming from the NY Times, this must be true. After all, the NYT never ever ever makes up stories. Just ask Jayson Blair.
43. Sunny | February 21st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Judith | February 20th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Obuma Wowomba Magomba isn’t a commie. He’s a jug eared nobody with no history who thinks he’s the Messiah. And he hates his mother’s people (that’s us folks) as he said in his book. I read that.
Grow up Judith. I read Senator’s Obamas first book, and never saw such a statement. I have heard him speak of his mother, who died of ovarian cancer, and his word are of love. Your hatred and racism is showing, and you need to tone down your bigotry. You add nothing to the discussion when you carry on with such ugly words. It is time for everyone to act like adults and end the name calling. I regret to see the NYT write such a story about Senator McCain, a man who has honorably served his country during war and in the Senate. Why such damaging stories are written at all are beyond me, but especially at this time. This does not change my opinion of Senator McCain one iota. We are all human and ones private life should be just that - private. We now seem to believe that we are entitled to know EVERYTHING about a candidate, that they are public property and no longer have the privilege of any privacy. That needs to end. The name calling and disrespectful banter also needs to end - all of these people running for public office are entitled to be treated with respect even if you do not agree with their position on the issues. Address that - and stop the personal attacks. You look petty, stupid and incapable of meaningful discussions when you stoop to such levels.
44. plainjane | February 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
plainjane - so Rush lives in DC now and works for the New York Times. It must be very interesting living with a mind a f*cked up as yours.
37. Kahn | February 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am
If this is your interpretation of my post what can I say? Your comments do make it clear why a recent poll by the American Research Group has President Bush at a19% approval; there must not be that many like you still out there. I never used the words live or work in my post, but there they are in your rebuttal, basically as a quote.
45. stopjohnliberalmccain | February 21st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Now we’re figuring out why Huckster did not leave the race.
He probably knew something like this was out there to trip up McCloseGitmo and then leave Huckster as the nominee of the party.
I bet you sheep are not happy now that you jumped on the good ship USS McAmnesty.
46. John Ryan | February 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
How could anyone possibly believe that a multi millionaire senator running for the White House could possibly make the mistake of bedding a gorgeous blonde 30+ years younger than himself ??
I also believed in Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, and Bill Clinton.
47. FRANK | February 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Casper,
The Democrat Bennett who investigated the Keating affair explicitly exonerate Mccain from that investigation. It too is a public record. Don’t read the top half, read the bottom half too so that opinions like yours will not be skewed.
48. hermie | February 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
The MSM is now trying to spin it into a story about improper contact with a lobbyist. Gone now is the attempt to smear McCain about a non-existent affair.
49. stopjohnliberalmccain | February 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Shouldn’t we be celebrating a heterosexual Republican? Having discreet sex in private? With an adult? A professional, successful professional female adult?
McAmnesty looks better and better all the time compared to Foley and Craig.
50. Canadian Observer | February 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
If McCain is scuttled and Huckabee gets the nomination, it just about guarantees a Democratic win.
51. Timothy Horrigan | February 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
This does open up the possibility of Jeb Bush becoming President… thus assuring the continuity of Bush rule in this time of crisis. McCain claims he is loyal to Bush… but in 2000 he was GROSSLY disloyal… he tried to deprive George W. Bush of his birthright.
52. Piggy | February 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
This cracks me up. Could any of you direct me to the right wing blogs when Kerry was accused of sleeping with an intern?
53. stopjohnliberalmccain | February 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Only 36% of Republicans, according to Zogby, think the nation is headed in the right direction and we’ve picked McCloseGitmo as our nominee.
Ohhhh what sheep we’ve become. How quick we were to throw our principles out the window and line up like robots behind McNavalPilot only because he was right on ONE DAMN issue. The surge. Other than that, he is a RINO thru and thru.
54. Dennis | February 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Why the flap about Vicki Iseman? You have to go back a few years to understand his advisers’ concerns.
Whatever happened to John McCain’s first wife? We always see him with the lovely Cindy Lou Hensley, but never hear anything of the woman who stayed faithful to him through all his years as a prisoner of war. Carol McCain waited for the return of her husband from Vietnamese captivity for five and a half years; she stayed faithful even in the face of her own tragedy.
On Christmas eve 1969 while driving in snowbound conditions she crashed. She lost her left leg, ruptured her spleen, and went through a long series of operations. Before the accident, she had been a model; afterward she was crippled and four inches shorter.
McCain learned of her accident on the plane home and wasted no time getting rid of her. In April 1979 while attending a military reception in Hawaii, McCain met Budweiser heiress Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior. He filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from Carol a year later.
“Would United States Senator John McCain be a presidential contender if it weren’t for his marriage to Cindy Hensley McCain, heiress to the Hensley liquor fortune? It’s doubtful. The senator’s wife and – more important – his father-in-law, James Willis Hensley, are very wealthy people.”
As a career military man from a military family McCain’s pay peaked at around $45,000. After getting rid of Carol he moved to Arizona, the Hensley’s home state, to plunge into politics. While working for his new father-in-law, he “was promoting himself as much as he was Budweiser beer.”
The New Times put it well: “From Day 1, Hensley money has enabled McCain to be a full-time politician, free from financial concerns.” From Day 1 of his campaign, John McCain has posed as a man of character: his supporters have even gone so far as to characterize him as the Anti-Clinton.
And remember all the grief all you right-wingers gave Kerry for marrying Teresa? Hypocrisy, anyone?
see http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j022300.html
55. sleepygene | February 21st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Either this is the most reckless story about a presidential candidate ever or the NYT has more info. and is tying up lose ends before publishing it.
56. Joe | February 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Ya know…. the point not this woman that was travelling around with him.
The point is that Mr Clean McCain apparently is not as free of lobbyists as one might have believed.
57. Canadian Observer | February 21st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
54. Dennis | February 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Sadly, McCain’s treatment of his first wife is all too common in today’s society of superficiality.
John Edwards being a wonderful exception.
58. FmrMarine | February 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
McCain’s former chief of staff, and the Lady allegedly involved in this “story” all say it is a LIE !
It is another liberal BU!! S#!T story, as fake as dan blathers AWOL crap.
Funny only weeks ago the times rag ENDORSED McCain, now they print a pro ported “STORY” several years old, and denied by everyone involved.
59. Kahn | February 21st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
lobbying is not illegal. The unions lobby, should that be illegal? The environmentalists lobby - a crime? The NRA, the NAACP, the Urban League… all bad?
The article makes no specific allegations - hence making it difficult to refute. No favors can be shown. No relationship can be shown. What are you liberals even talking about? It is the very definition of innuendo.
I thought you people were “better” than this?
60. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
former marine…
hahaha, those who are involved deny it?!!?
Just you just come to the political dinner table? Let me catch you up. Sometimes they lie and deny things when it might endanger their political situation.
It’s actually a rather human reaction. I’m not saying though that McCain is not telling the truth. Maybe he is and maybe the NYT is completely wrong and this is just a jab or smear article.
However, NYT does say that they are very cautious about what they decide to publish. So far I think they have been pretty credible so I’m hopinh they can elaborate and explain why they want to publish this story and why now.
61. Kahn | February 21st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
The NYT should no longer be considered a journalism entity and should have their credentials pulled. Ditto NBC for jumping on this. Give their White House and Pentagon briefing seats to the Podunk Gazette.
62. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Kahn,
that’s a completely illogical knee jerk reaction to call for “pulling the credentials” of the entities of the NYT and NBC.
Seriously, you would have to pull those from FOX NEWS if you did that. Those guys have been running a anti-democrat smear campaign since day one down there.
This is something that has just come out. I’d like to hear more from NYT to see their side before considering their journalism to no longer be credible.
63. Dennis | February 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
From Slate.com article:
When accused of skirting ethical standards, [McCain] usually pleads guilty in an embarrassed, hangdog fashion, as the Times anecdote about a political fundraiser held for his 2000 presidential campaign points out. Scores of lobbyists were invited to the Willard Hotel to feed his campaign treasury, but, as the paper reports, “McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called ‘cowardly.’ ” Here, McCain has it three ways: He throws the event, he skips it, he criticizes himself for not attending it. Will the real John McCain please stand up?
….Consider these undisputed points reported by the Times:
McCain flew on the corporate jet of an Iseman client who was seeking the senator’s support. Iseman, who is 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.” The paper also reports that “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.” Two former McCain associates anonymously tell the paper that they confronted McCain over his relationship with Iseman because they thought it was putting his career and campaign at risk. Former top McCain strategist John Weaver sent an e-mail about his Iseman worries.
Where there’s smoke, there’s sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn’t expose a raging blaze isn’t sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him.
64. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 am
Dennis,
Trouble is, one of those anonymous sources came out today and catagorically denied the Times version of the story…so, the Times is lying. There’s no smoke, no fire…just a smear job by the MSM.
65. Christian Wright | February 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm
You can tell the McCain is not a real Republican because his sex scandal involves a woman.
66. Diana Powe | February 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Well, unfortunately for Senator McCain, he’s seems to have responded to this story by blatantly lying about something important. A response issued by the McCain campaign in regard to the New York Times story (emphasis added):
67. Diana Powe | February 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Here’s Senator McCain on 09/25/02 being deposed in regards to litigation arising from the McCain-Feingold bill (emphasis added):
68. Diana Powe | February 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
The response to this clear contradiction from the McCain campaign:
If he was speaking “in shorthand” it was pretty poor shorthand because he went out of his way to add that he had spoken personally to Paxson. Not too good.
69. Faceplant | February 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“By now, you’ve probably heard news of the New York Times smear job against John McCain. It is such a ridiculously poor piece one has to question the motives of the New York Times for even going forward with it.”
Oh, boo fucking hoo. I didn’t hear any of this revulsion when you were all embracing the “Barack is a Evil Muslim!” story. You only care about dirty political tactics when they happen against your party.
70. Faceplant | February 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 pm
“Trouble is, one of those anonymous sources came out today and catagorically denied the Times version of the story…so, the Times is lying. There’s no smoke, no fire…just a smear job by the MSM.”
And several members of the military who served with John Kerry said the swiftboaters were lying. So that must mean they were lying right?
And I’m sure you have the same opinion of the “Obama attended a Madrassa” story? Funny how baseless attacks are perfectly acceptable if they are happening to Democrats.