http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
"some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself "
Other than that sentence, this is not that big of a deal. But the thought of our Commander in Chief needing protection from himself gives one pause.
http://drudgereport.com/
She's hotter than Monica.
Don't forget about the Keating 5....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEED81F3CF93BA15753C1A966958260 (//%22http://%22)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five (//%22http://%22)
The manipulation of the story by the NYT is pathetic. They must have feared Mitt or Huck to wait until now to release this piece. Tells you something about what's going down in ink these days. It just makes the NYT look silly that they had to break the "non" story before someone else did. The Times litmus test has become sensationalism and marketability where it once was relevancy and accuracy.
Could it be he is being swiftboated by the radical wing of the republican party?
Who knows how many lobbyists have been hit by McCain's love missile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKQD5OEXNjY
"Turn up your radars, Republicans; and your sexism radars. These rumors, smears and exaggerated mischaracterizations are a tried and true,left-wing, divide and conquer strategy. Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in emails and internet talk boards,news print, or in the airwaves,as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is."
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
"Turn up your radars, Republicans; and your sexism radars. These rumors, smears and exaggerated mischaracterizations are a tried and true,left-wing, divide and conquer strategy. Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in emails and internet talk boards,news print, or in the airwaves,as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is."
"The conservative tabloid that helped sink Rudy by covering his Judith Nathan affair doesn't think the story is going away... and they're right. Just a smattering this am:"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/9859/34894/628/461092
Heee Heeee....turnabout is fair play while heading down a one way street the wrong way is foul play.
And according to the Wiki article, Dennis DeConcini was appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation after his retirement from the Senate.
As I recall not one of the Senators was indicted, nor censured over this.
As much as FOTD likes to sharpen his fangs, It's sounding more like the NYT got this one wrong. Even some big Dems were saying as much last night on various talk programs.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
And according to the Wiki article, Dennis DeConcini was appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation after his retirement from the Senate.
As I recall not one of the Senators was indicted, nor censured over this.
As much as FOTD likes to sharpen his fangs, It's sounding more like the NYT got this one wrong. Even some big Dems were saying as much last night on various talk programs.
Yeah, now there's now an investigation into NYT because they've been sitting on this for months. Someone instructed them to run it now.
Gee, I wonder who that could be? [:o)]
Kind of like sitting on the Mark Foley story until September '06 when everyone knew about him months in advance of that.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
And according to the Wiki article, Dennis DeConcini was appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation after his retirement from the Senate.
As I recall not one of the Senators was indicted, nor censured over this.
As much as FOTD likes to sharpen his fangs, It's sounding more like the NYT got this one wrong. Even some big Dems were saying as much last night on various talk programs.
Yeah, now there's now an investigation into NYT because they've been sitting on this for months. Someone instructed them to run it now.
Gee, I wonder who that could be? [:o)]
I understand the suspicion, but now doesn't really seem to be an advantageous time to run anything, if one was inclined to get max value from it. I mean, he's pretty much locked up the nomination now, and the general is months away. What would this achieve at this point?
Bar Room speculation I've heard is it was the deflection for Michelle Obama being proud to be an American for the first time in her adult life.
It'll get a lot nastier before it's all over.
The race is shifting gears from Clinton V. Obama to Obama V. McCain.
All the talking heads are saying Hillary is toast. Personally, I see it going all the way to the convention just like Kennedy and Carter in 1980 and Hillary will throw a huge temper-tantrum. It's her turn remember?
Personally, I'm proud to be a member of TulsaNow for the first time in my adult life. [:o)]
I am also curious as to why they waited so long to run this considering that the NYT endorsed McCain in this run. But if this is true, and currently there is no actual evidence to prove one way or the other, it would not be his first time to stray.
http://ktar.net/blogs/dankarlo/2008/02/21/mccain-affairs-lobbyists-oh-my/ (//%22http://%22)
(Darrell Ankarlo is a conservative talk show host here that has filled in for Glenn Beck from time to time.)
His current wifes family owns the Anheuser Busch distribution for most of the state of Arizona. (Gee, kinda sounds like John Kerry and the ketchup empire)
So NYT times made printed a article based on no supporting evidence what so ever to back up their claims?Talk about yellow journalism.
Since they like printing stories with basis in fact other than he said she said here is a story they might to print.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
So NYT times made printed a article based on no supporting evidence what so ever to back up their claims?Talk about yellow journalism.
Since they like printing stories with basis in fact other than he said she said here is a story they might to print.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
MODERATOR!
Soooo...if it turns out that McCain really did have sex with this woman and lied about it, can we impeach him BEFORE the election?
It only seems fair.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Soooo...if it turns out that McCain really did have sex with this woman and lied about it, can we impeach him BEFORE the election?
It only seems fair.
No he was just trying to achieve an equal footing with Bill and Hillary.......[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
So NYT times made printed a article based on no supporting evidence what so ever to back up their claims?Talk about yellow journalism.
Since they like printing stories with basis in fact other than he said she said here is a story they might to print.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
Hey.... Jimmy... chill they were just trying to emulate Bill O.........
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/BillO.jpg)
I just realized that if this is true, it's probably going to make a bunch of Clinton supporters vote for him!
I think even the far right is becoming less disappointed with marital infidelity in the GOP ranks.
Even the media analyst groups are starting to say this was gutter journalism.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
So NYT times made printed a article based on no supporting evidence what so ever to back up their claims?Talk about yellow journalism.
Since they like printing stories with basis in fact other than he said she said here is a story they might to print.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
MODERATOR!
Looks like Obama might get Lewinskied.....This dude might have a cumberbun with Obama's DNA on it.....Pun intended.....
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
So NYT times made printed a article based on no supporting evidence what so ever to back up their claims?Talk about yellow journalism.
Since they like printing stories with basis in fact other than he said she said here is a story they might to print.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
"Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in emails and internet talk boards (anonymous), or in the airwaves (dominated by conservative infrastructure), as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is."
Time timing does seem suspect. FOTD's theory that they didn't want Huck or Romney to benefit from this seems plausible. They actually praised Mccain and endorsed him before this - Now that Huc & Romney are out of the way, they run with the hit piece. But are they just trying to take out the Republican, or are they trying to set up a 3rd party opportunity (Republican nominee destroyed as soon as the results are finalizing) - Attacking now instead of in October makes me wonder if that is not the case: Opening the door for either a Bloomberg, or a strong conservative figure to run 3rd party.
Another idea I've had, which is a little more far-fetched, is that bringing this dirt up right now is actually a calculated move to get the talk radio wannabe conservatives rallying around Mccain again. I couldn't believe my ears today hearing Hannity defending Mccain like someone had questioned his own mother's honor. The evil liberal newspaper is putting out false slander! This is ridiculous! Mccain is a saint!!!! That seemed to be the gist of it. I know it was inevitable, but this just sped up the hypocrasy and rallied them back around Mccain all the sooner.
We'll just have to sit back and see who benefits
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
So NYT times made printed a article based on no supporting evidence what so ever to back up their claims?Talk about yellow journalism.
Since they like printing stories with basis in fact other than he said she said here is a story they might to print.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
Here's another good one:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=c_wRb8J_bjM&feature=related
I think the republicans are actually happy for this McCain sex/lobbyist scandal. First, it involved an attractive woman. The republican scandals lately have involved mostly pedophiles and gay sex.
Secondly, it involved flights on airplanes and public appearances. These are way better than airport bathrooms.
Lastly, she was a lobbyist. It was all about doing business.
Really I think this Larry Sinclair fellow would be the perfect Democrat candidate.
At least he's honest about his gayness and drug use, unlike the fellow he's accusing of such behavior.
Truth from a Democrat, now that would be refreshing.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Really I think this Larry Sinclair fellow would be the perfect Democrat candidate.
At least he's honest about his gayness and drug use, unlike the fellow he's accusing of such behavior.
Truth from a Democrat, now that would be refreshing.
ANOTHER REPUBLIJERK.....GOP the party of hypocrits and crooks:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/22/renzi.indictment/
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
So NYT times made printed a article based on no supporting evidence what so ever to back up their claims?Talk about yellow journalism.
Since they like printing stories with basis in fact other than he said she said here is a story they might to print.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
Here's another good one:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=c_wRb8J_bjM&feature=related
try this http://pabloonpolitics.com/mistress.htm
and these are funny! http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/77361/
"He stepped down from the House Intelligence Committee in April after the raid."
At least Renzi showed some measure of responsibility unlike our Democrap State Auditor Jeff McMahan who refuses to step down even though it's pretty well proven he's deep in the pockets with the Prince Of Darkness. Lloyd Fields is next....
BTW- I prefer the term "Repug" far better than "Republijerk".
I do find it interesting how headlines are cobbled together. They could have just as easily said "House Member Renzi Indicted..." I guarantee there was some guilt by association that played into that editor's headline since Renzi is from Arizona. Got people to read it because they want to see if McCain had something to do with a scandal. No amount of free Grateful Dead tickets would convince me otherwise.
Obama & Sinclair '08!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Really I think this Larry Sinclair fellow would be the perfect Democrat candidate.
At least he's honest about his gayness and drug use, unlike the fellow he's accusing of such behavior.
Truth from a Democrat, now that would be refreshing.
Truth? You can't handle the truth... [}:)]
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/26482/thumbs/s-SINCLAIR-large.jpg)
Obama accuser has long rap sheet
By BEN SMITH | 6/18/08 7:58 AM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html
WhiteHouse.com Larry Sinclair Polygraph Press Conference at National Press Club June 18 at 4:00 PM
http://whitehouse.com/
Obama Accuser Larry Sinclair Holds Stupefying Press Conference
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/obama-accuser-larry-sincl_n_107900.html
And pay Sinclair did -- for the venue and its microphone, as well as for a kilted lawyer (with a suspended license) named Montgomery Blair Sibley, who informed those assembled that his preferences in dress were arrived at as a way to secure comfort for his unusually large sexual organs. "I don't know why men wear pants," he said with a poker face. "It's a function of male genitalia. If you're size normal or smaller, you're probably comfortable with [pants]. ... Those at the other end of the spectrum find them quite confining."
"I asked him to wear a suit and tie," Mr. Sinclair said ruefully. Then, he admitted to suffering from a brain tumor.
Only slightly less mystifying were the several dozen assembled journalists who seemed to grant Mr. Sinclair some modicum of respect with their questions. They cross-examined his statement regarding his supposed meetings with the Illinois Democrat with a vigor and small-bore attention to detail that prosecutors reserve strictly for witnesses who are sane. Imagine if you were to encounter someone who had lit himself on fire, and then proceeded to ask which brand of gasoline he favored.
I gots to get me one of them kilts.
No c untry for old men.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Kind of like sitting on the Mark Foley story until September '06 when everyone knew about him months in advance of that.
You've got to be kidding me. The House GOP leadership were made aware (whether they chose to acknowledge it is another thing) about Foley's shenanigans as far back as 1997. (PM me if you want the timeline) They allowed a perv like Foley to flourish in their ranks all in the name of keeping their majority. I hope all you GOPers fondly remember your 12 years in the majority because it will be a while before you ever hold another one.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I gots to get me one of them kilts.
Kilts are the new black.
quote:
Originally posted by StanOU
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Kind of like sitting on the Mark Foley story until September '06 when everyone knew about him months in advance of that.
You've got to be kidding me. The House GOP leadership were made aware (whether they chose to acknowledge it is another thing) about Foley's shenanigans as far back as 1997. (PM me if you want the timeline) They allowed a perv like Foley to flourish in their ranks all in the name of keeping their majority. I hope all you GOPers fondly remember your 12 years in the majority because it will be a while before you ever hold another one.
Why don't you try reading all the posts leading up to my comment to put a four month old quote you bumped into perspective?
Great folks, we've got another Aox.
It ain't me Conehead.....devils don't use Cloraox when it comes to cleaning up after repiglicans.[:P]
OU!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by StanOU
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Kind of like sitting on the Mark Foley story until September '06 when everyone knew about him months in advance of that.
You've got to be kidding me. The House GOP leadership were made aware (whether they chose to acknowledge it is another thing) about Foley's shenanigans as far back as 1997. (PM me if you want the timeline) They allowed a perv like Foley to flourish in their ranks all in the name of keeping their majority. I hope all you GOPers fondly remember your 12 years in the majority because it will be a while before you ever hold another one.
Why don't you try reading all the posts leading up to my comment to put a four month old quote you bumped into perspective?
Great folks, we've got another Aox.
I actually did. Weak comparison, Conan.
Next.