Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 It's a left leaning blog, but I think this analysis of the McCain story and its initial impact is a good one. Key points...1. The Times still ran the story and made the affair with a lobbyist allegation in the first few paragraphs. They must believe they have something. 2. The reason it reads like such a bouncing around piece of trash is that the McCain camp's lawyers have been challenging the NYT to prevent publication for at least 2 months now. Which means that most of the claims were probably stronger, but the NYT knew that they could only push so far based on what they had. 3. Other publications were in the hunt on this story, which is why the NYT ran it now, to get it out first, even if they couldn't put out the strongest article possible because of the lawyering. 4. The McCain response, as I noted...is all bluster, but doesn't directly address the substance of the article at all, and this is worth noting. There is no "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in the initial response from the McCain campaign. 5. This won't be the last we hear of this piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 11:03 PM) Just saw a guy from the Obama campaign giving an interview. He was asked to give one Obama accomplishment, the guy just blabbed about change or something stupid... interviewer said "No, give me a specific accomplishment". Guy from Obama campaign was like "we can't really give anything specific". actually, I believe you are talking about the chris matthews interview with a TX state sen. and former mayor of Austin? Yeah he actually wrote an apology on his web site for that. He said he froze up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) What a great time for the New York Times to have this come out now. Supposively they've had this story for a while. Hey if a couple of Democrat presidents have had relationships with others in office, why not a Republican hopeful 8 years before. I'm not condoning any of this one bit though. Edited February 21, 2008 by WilliamTell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 06:03 AM) What a great time for the New York Times to have this come out now. Supposively they've had this story for a while. Hey if a couple of Democrat presidents have had relationships with others in office, why not a Republican hopeful 8 years before. I'm not condoning any of this one bit though. I don't know, I think the times has to worry about libel in a time like this. Any expensive lawsuits like that would be can really hurt a paper now that they are all strapped financially Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:51 PM) It's a left leaning blog, but I think this analysis of the McCain story and its initial impact is a good one. Key points...1. The Times still ran the story and made the affair with a lobbyist allegation in the first few paragraphs. They must believe they have something. 2. The reason it reads like such a bouncing around piece of trash is that the McCain camp's lawyers have been challenging the NYT to prevent publication for at least 2 months now. Which means that most of the claims were probably stronger, but the NYT knew that they could only push so far based on what they had. 3. Other publications were in the hunt on this story, which is why the NYT ran it now, to get it out first, even if they couldn't put out the strongest article possible because of the lawyering. 4. The McCain response, as I noted...is all bluster, but doesn't directly address the substance of the article at all, and this is worth noting. There is no "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in the initial response from the McCain campaign. 5. This won't be the last we hear of this piece. The article is complete trash reporting, more fit for the national enquirer than a premier newspaper. There are no facts to back up the articles opening statement that McCain cheated on his wife. Where are the sources, NYT? I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have any. I read nothing into McCain's statement not containing anything about the supposed 'relationship'. He has already denied it, as has the supposed mistress. Of course McCain's lawyers warned the Times, if this article is a fraud, they could take legal action. Edited February 21, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 12:29 AM) I don't know, I think the times has to worry about libel in a time like this. Any expensive lawsuits like that would be can really hurt a paper now that they are all strapped financially I wouldn't be surprised if the NYT sat on the story because their lawyers warned them they could be liable if they have no proof, but the paper didn't want to get scooped on it's own story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 07:53 PM) The more I read this article, the more I have to think that the editors at the NYT just wouldn't have approved this article at all if they didn't honestly believe there was an actual "relationship" between McCain and that lobbyist. There must be more than they're writing here. Thehy're putting themselves in Drudge's attempted smear on Kerry territory otherwise, and they'd have to know that. We'll see, I suppose that is possible. But I think if they had the goods on this, why not include it in the article? Maybe they are just getting desperate and think going the Drudge route could help boost sales. Even if they believe the story, they still need something substancial (which the article did not contain). Hell, Dan Rather was even sure his GW report was right, even after getting busted going on air with forged documents. It was almost like he never really understood why it was such a big deal, because he truly believed what he was reporting. Thing is, even if it IS true, you still can't just go with a big story like this with no proof or false evidence. What a HUGE shot to the Times credibility if they got busted in a Dan Rather like scandal. Edited February 21, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 06:57 AM) We'll see, I suppose that is possible. But I think if they had the goods on this, why not include it in the article? Maybe they are just getting desperate and think going the Drudge route could help boost sales. Even if they believe the story, they still need something substancial (which the article did not contain). Hell, Dan Rather was even sure his GW report was right, even after getting busted going on air with forged documents. It was almost like he never really understood why it was such a big deal, because he truly believed what he was reporting. Thing is, even if it IS true, you still can't just go with a big story like this with no proof or false evidence. What a HUGE shot to the Times credibility if they got busted in a Dan Rather like scandal. the rather story was pushed by the 60 minutes producers who have since been fired. I've read that the producers sat on some info questioning it but didn't act despite resistance in the mail room. And the thing is, it says his aides "fearing a sexual rel'ship", not explicitly saying he's having one. That's a tap dance around libel, but even so, the suit is still expensive as hell. I bet they have something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 The New Republic has pushed out its story on the deliberations at the NYT over running the McCain story, which is supposedly the article that pushed the NYT to publish today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Lemon Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 06:31 PM) I'm glad the situation has improved and Obama did the right thing. If reading an article in the paper, then sending a guy out to solve problems that obviously needed attention is one of his big accomplishments, his campaign should be bragging about it. Also, off the top my head I know Obama-Coburn was successful in bringing unprecedented public transparency for Congressional earmarks by mandating the OMB release them to the public. In addition, Lugar-Obama secured lose nuclear weapons in Asia after the two were sent out on behalf of the Foreign Relations Committee to get that job done. I understand that you want to diminish the guy. That is quite alright with me. I've never pretended he's the most successful legislator running for higher office. It is a lie to label him as an unaccomplished Senator or some guy who merely throws out oratory. I would be hard-pressed to find a more prolific Senator in their first three years in office. Regarding McCain, can you name any of his legislative accomplishments in the last three years? four? The most recent one I can think of is McCain-Feingold, which you find illicit under the 1st Amendment. And the Federal Courts have been ruling parts of that legislation unconstitutional over the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) Also, off the top my head I know Obama-Coburn was successful in bringing unprecedented public transparency for Congressional earmarks by mandating the OMB release them to the public. In addition, Lugar-Obama secured lose nuclear weapons in Asia after the two were sent out on behalf of the Foreign Relations Committee to get that job done. I understand that you want to diminish the guy. That is quite alright with me. I've never pretended he's the most successful legislator running for higher office. It is a lie to label him as an unaccomplished Senator or some guy who merely throws out oratory. I would be hard-pressed to find a more prolific Senator in their first three years in office. Regarding McCain, can you name any of his legislative accomplishments in the last three years? four? The most recent one I can think of is McCain-Feingold, which you find illicit under the 1st Amendment. And the Federal Courts have been ruling parts of that legislation unconstitutional over the last few years. Well, I was like 12 back in the early McCain years in the Senate. Wasn't really into politics much, so I don't remember anything about that stuff I agree about the Feingold / McCain legislation, it sucks. Doesn't Obama support it ? Sorry, but I'm not buying that Obama secured any loose nuclear weapons. IMO McCain has been much more dedicated to removing ear marks than Obama. Edited February 21, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) on FOX news right now: expert explaining that bad weather and natural disasters are God punishing us for having gay people and stuff. Seriously, this is a real segment on Neal Cavuto show. He's had like a 15 minute segment. lol edit: the guy ended with saying it was the apocolypse and that he is going to be saved. Cuvuto: "thank you reverend, fascinating stuff. " C'mon FOX, this is just getting stupid. Edited February 21, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 03:24 PM) on FOX news right now: expert explaining that bad weather and natural disasters are God punishing us for having gay people and stuff. Seriously, this is a real segment on Neal Cavuto show. He's had like a 15 minute segment. lol And yet some people still wonder why others have a hard time taking Fox News seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 03:25 PM) And yet some people still wonder why others have a hard time taking Fox News seriously. they are the GOP's version of the New York Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 03:24 PM) on FOX news right now: expert explaining that bad weather and natural disasters are God punishing us for having gay people and stuff. Seriously, this is a real segment on Neal Cavuto show. He's had like a 15 minute segment. lol edit: the guy ended with saying it was the apocolypse and that he is going to be saved. Cuvuto: "thank you reverend, fascinating stuff. " C'mon FOX, this is just getting stupid. Yeah that sounds to be very rediculous, I didn't see it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 FWIW, there is now at least one former McCain staffer on record by name confirming a key part of the NY Times report...that McCain's staffers approached him in 1999 and complained about his relationship with that lobbyist, and McCain confirmed that there was something improper going on. John Weaver, who was McCain's closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year, said he met with Vicki Iseman at the Center Cafe at Union Station and urged her to stay away from McCain. Association with a lobbyist would undermine his image as an opponent of special interests, aides had concluded. Members of the senator's small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly, according to sources, warning him that his continued ties to a lobbyist who had business before the powerful commerce committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions. Appearing before reporters this morning in Toledo, Ohio, McCain flatly denied receiving such warnings from his aides and said he had no knowledge that Weaver or anyone else on his staff had told Iseman to keep her distance. He also denied that he and Iseman had been romantically involved, despite a report in the New York Times that his aides were concerned that such a relationship existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Wow he screwed around on his wife... So he's just like 80 % of the rest of the males in America. I'm shocked! WHO GIVES A DAMN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 04:52 PM) FWIW, there is now at least one former McCain staffer on record by name confirming a key part of the NY Times report...that McCain's staffers approached him in 1999 and complained about his relationship with that lobbyist, and McCain confirmed that there was something improper going on. uh, I read that... and if thats all they got lol Edited February 21, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 05:29 PM) Wow he screwed around on his wife... So he's just like 80 % of the rest of the males in America. I'm shocked! WHO GIVES A DAMN! Apparently you do: AngelasDaddy0427 Today, 05:25 PM So we might as well welcome President John "I screwed around on my wife like everyone else" McCain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 03:49 PM) Yeah that sounds to be very rediculous, I didn't see it though. i wish i didn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 11:38 PM) uh, I read that... and if thats all they got lol yeah, I'm shocked. TPM has basically confirmed that there is nothing else the Times has. And what they have ain't much. The New York Times has had an awful decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 So sex matters again for the Democrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2008 -> 08:18 AM) So sex matters again for the Democrats? When it's on the other side, sure it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Clinton accused of raping woman. NY Times= No front page coverage. NANCY REAGAN alleged to have cheated on her husband with Franky. NY Times= Front page headline with attribution to Kitty Kelly's book. John McCain ? Ny Times = Front page story attributed to two staffers. Not McCain staffers, two staffers. Could they be Democratic staffers? Maybe. But the article doesn't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) So sex matters again for the Democrats? This was less about the sex, more about the favors for her company in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts