I believe the NYT has more on McCainiac

[cali]

I heard someone mention this last night, and it makes sense to me. I don't believe that the NYT would publish this story if they didn't have more to come; specifics that are more about favors for business than about sex.

I think this is just the beginning of this story.

[vi5]

1. This will die on the vine...

Unless there's some evidence of the sex aspect, this story is going nowhere. The general perception by gullible voters of McCain as some sort of straight talking maverick who stands up for righteousness against corruption in washington are so based on vague generalities perpetrated by the media that when they're forced to connect the dots and rationalize to themselves why this is a big deal they're going to tune out and not give a shit. And since it requires some degree of nuanced explanation on the part of the media.....yeah, I think we know what they usually do when that's required.

[cali]

2. I don't think so.

McCain is holding a presser this morning to address it. That in itself keeps it going for another news cycle. And it really doesn't require nuanced explanation. Sex + favors for big business is a pretty simple equation. It sows some doubt for some voters about McCain- and there are more than a few out there who have a basic distrust of McCain to begin with.

[vi5]

7. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

We'll see. I'm far to cynical and bitter to expect much.

[MADem]

3. Just remember, it was the NYT that told us Saddam had WMD.

Courtesy of Judy Miller.

The hardline GOP doesn't LIKE McCain. They don't like Huckabee either. Maybe they're hoping for a brokered convention, where some batshit crazy rightie comes out of a smoke-free room to take the nom.

It could be they're hoping that the frantic Penis Police will turn away from him on this. I'm guessing he'll continue, no matter what, to deny it, the woman will continue, no matter what, to deny it, he will accuse "dark forces" of trying to smear and derail him, and everyone will snicker behind their hand -- the GOP will have their OWN "Big Dawg" and he'll be praised, in that "locker room" way, for being an Old Bastard With a Big Bamboo who was "smart enough" to cover his ass.

Don't always believe the NYT. They aren't infallible, and they haven't been the "paper of record" for awhile--more like the "paper with an agenda." They made a number of errors of fact in their biographical coverage of Obama, as well.

[cali]

4. Yes, yes we all know about Judy Miller

and of course the NYT isn't infallible. Nevertheless, they ARE still the paper of record and they still retain a certain amount of clout. And it looks like you're guessing wrong from what I'm hearing; some influential wingnuts are already going after him on this.

[MADem]

5. I didn't say that they weren't going after him.

I said they might not succeed. I also said this event could cause a brokered convention.

You really don't read, do you? EVER?

:eyes:

[JoDog]

6. Chances are good

This story will die, unless they can either come up with solid evidence that there was a sexual relationship, or that Vicki Iseman's clients got some sort of special consideration other companies did not.

Even if there was no sexual relationship, the McCain staffers' concerns are understandable, considering the senator's history with the Keating 5.

What I find more interesting is the timing of the story. Apparently, the NYT had the story in December--before the primaries began. Had it published then, it still could have damaged or even ended McCain's run. Now that most of the other candidates have dropped out, the damage to McCain's position as the presumptive nominee will be minimal. McCain will still be the nominee, if for no other reason than no one else has the delegates, and the GOP does not have a superdelegate system.

Therefore, if I was to see a media conspiracy in this, it was a conspiracy to help John McCain get the nomination. Unless of course, there was a conspiracy to allow a clay-footed candidate to take the GOP lead, then torpedo him to the benefit of the Dem candidates.

I want to know why the NYT held the story. Where they waiting for more evidence?

[moondust]

8. Waiting for the pictures.

I doubt it's just a drive-by smear job as McBush claims.

[underpants]

9. Just read it-looks like a complete history on him and it is not good

McCain either forgets that he shouldn't have done something or backs off it after he has done it.


This article is a good read to know the full story on McCain's political career.

[DainBramaged]

10. Gramps (breakfast barf warning)

Boy, these Reich wingers have some testosterone levels. Oh, and if you think I am prejudging him, I am. He's going to pull a Larry Craig and hope it goes away.

[lonestarnot]

12. ackety! Post a warning!

[DainBramaged]

13. Done

yum pancakes, bet ya Gramps is having double dose of Metamucil today!

[lonestarnot]

14. mmmm. yummmmmm! Thanks.

[KharmaTrain]

11. They Need To....

Already I'm hearing the right wing buttmunches scream about the nasty, dirty, librul New York Times and how this is all a fabricated smear. One would think Keller would know this as well before he gave the OK to go to press. Josh Marshall believes this as well...and thinks the Times story was "lawyered" to cover their asses. Also that other papers were onto this story as well and the Times pulled the trigger first.

Here's hoping McCain and the GOOP call the out the Times and they respond by dumping the real smoking gun. I would think there's some documentation behind this to warrant the Page One treatment...standing by if someone tries to yell "bullshit".

Stay tuned...this story could bring us hours of entertainment.

Ironically, the loser here will not be McCain, but Hillary as the media will clamor around this story and "suck the air" away from her trying to be the top story.