• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McCain's Lobbyist girlfriend?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: loki8481
can I put on my tinfoil hat and make a baseless speculation?

what if the McCain camp put this story out there themselves, knowing it wouldn't do any damage this far before the election, but giving the rabid base cover to support him via attacking the liberal media/nytimes?
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me especially since everyone involved is denying this ever occured.
The New York Times has gone out on a limb and before this is over will look very stupid and biased.
 
Someone suggested this story is useful to McCain to make him seem less old and more virile. I don't know if anyone mentioned this here yet.
 
Originally posted by: superstition
Someone suggested this story is useful to McCain to make him seem less old and more virile. I don't know if anyone mentioned this here yet.
Click to expand...

Indeed, from my point of view, he at least scores some man points for this. Could hurt, could help.. I am leaning towards it helping him more than hurting.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
The NEWS department is very neutral, competent and very much only concerned with reporting on stories that they can verify
Click to expand...

so discounting unnamed sources, what information does this article really present?
Click to expand...

Lot of issues here.

The NYT had this story back in December, yet chose to endorse McCain. Why?

Why release the story now instead of earlier before the primaries?

They have a couple of unnamed sources. They also know that most other McCain former aides are disputing the story. They were provided exculpatory evidence by McCain's attorney and chose not to mention it in their article.

Mort Zuckerman, a highly respected editor and moderate liberal has come out and denounced the NYT for publishing this. He says "it's not news fit to print". That the story doesn't have enough evidence/substantiation to be published.

It's been noted that similar stories about (Dem) candidates were deemed not fit to print by the NYT. Remember the John Edwards story of his getting some woman pregnant?

The NYT now seems more the focus of this "story' than McCain. They better be able to come up with something more, as Pat Buchanon suggest, or I think they may be in for a "hurting".

Again, timing is an odd choice. It's still rather far from Nov for this to damage McCain too much (unless proven true). He has plenty of time to counter it. Unlike stories breaking just before an election (like GWB's drunk driving conviction story).

Who is primarily helped here?

IMO, it's Hillary.

Obama is already beating McCain by a good margin in all the national polls. He needs no help.

She is not.

If she's gonna be successful in her efforts to get the national will of Dem voters overturned by the super delegates, she's gonna have to first demonstrate she can win in national polling (and therefore the election).

Fern
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't care for McCain at all but this story seems like a tempest in a teapot. Unless someone can show he had hot monkey love with this woman it really seems like a non-starter. I mean - a lobbyist has a politician's ear? Is that supposed to be some kind of shocker?
Click to expand...


You got to be kiddin' me, GOP only does the hot monkey thing with their own species.
I really don't care which Stepford Clone Mac hangs with, they all look like they are a genetic experiment.


Not that McCain would ever have had a hand in some pesky little thing like influence peddling, or favors to a contributer or lobbist



SofaKingdom

 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: loki8481
The NEWS department is very neutral, competent and very much only concerned with reporting on stories that they can verify
Click to expand...

so discounting unnamed sources, what information does this article really present?
Click to expand...

Lot of issues here.

The NYT had this story back in December, yet chose to endorse McCain. Why?

Why release the story now instead of earlier before the primaries?

They have a couple of unnamed sources. They also know that most other McCain former aides are disputing the story. They were provided exculpatory evidence by McCain's attorney and chose not to mention it in their article.

Mort Zuckerman, a highly respected editor and moderate liberal has come out and denounced the NYT for publishing this. He says "it's not news fit to print". That the story doesn't have enough evidence/substantiation to be published.

It's been noted that similar stories about (Dem) candidates were deemed not fit to print by the NYT. Remember the John Edwards story of his getting some woman pregnant?

The NYT now seems more the focus of this "story' than McCain. They better be able to come up with something more, as Pat Buchanon suggest, or I think they may be in for a "hurting".

Again, timing is an odd choice. It's still rather far from Nov for this to damage McCain too much (unless proven true). He has plenty of time to counter it. Unlike stories breaking just before an election (like GWB's drunk driving conviction story).

Who is primarily helped here?

IMO, it's Hillary.

Obama is already beating McCain by a good margin in all the national polls. He needs no help.

She is not.

If she's gonna be successful in her efforts to get the national will of Dem voters overturned by the super delegates, she's gonna have to first demonstrate she can win in national polling (and therefore the election).

Fern
Click to expand...

I think the premise that the NYT is printing this to attack McCain is super thin. If you read the NYT regularly, particularly this primary season, they have had articles about similar controversies for nearly all of the candidates. The idea that the NYT is trying to use attack articles to help Hillary also seems incredibly suspect. I see no evidence for this whatsoever.

As far as the NYT endorsing McCain despite having this info... well... look at who their choices were. In fact if you read their editorial where they endorse McCain they pretty much say "he's awful, but the other guys are so incredibly terrible that he's the best of a bad lot".

As far as releasing the story now, they probably did it because they DIDN'T want to influence the primaries. The NYT is so large and so influential that no matter when they released this story they would be accused of trying to influence things one way or the other. Honestly if they wanted to attack McCain this is the worst possible time to do it. He's already secured the nomination and this story will be long gone. So, the "the NYT is attacking McCain" angle doesn't seem to hold water.
 
Controversy like this can never be good for a campaign.

John Kerry's campaign was hurt by a far less serious charge (swiftboat).

The NYT chose the best strategic time to release the story. If they released it before Super Tuesday, McCain would have never gained the lead he did over Romney/Huckabee, and the story wouldn't have mattered. If they waited any longer, they would have been accused of holding onto the story too long before printing it.

BTW, this is the Times that we're talking about. It's the single most important, most iconic source of news worldwide. They have resources that would embarrass most other news agencies. Believe me, this story got worked to the bone, and scrutinized closely several times over before the paper would risk their credibility by printing it. The story will hold, McCain's denials will not.

Now McCain has reporters and news agencies worldwide digging through his committee work. The article has put his recent lawmaking career under a huge magnifying glass.
 
I thought Wonkette's coverage of this was pretty damn humorous:

John McCain Rides Sexy New Surge Of Popularity

This forbidden-lobbyist-love scandal is a stroke of good fortune for John McCain. Revelations that he may have landed a sizzling hot blonde half his age have brought a new aura of virility and sex appeal to the Spanish-American war hero?s ancient carcass. He is also being hailed by Christian conservatives for having the good taste to conduct a heterosexual extramarital affair. And now we learn the scandal has brought conservative talk radio?s most lovable personalities flocking to his bosom. According to Politico, ?they have a common enemy? now. Meaning, of course, the terrorists. At the New York Times.

?This is what you get when you walk across the aisle and try to make these people your friends. I?m not surprised in the least that the NYT would try to take out John McCain,? Limbaugh wrote in an email.

And Laura Ingraham, who just recently was bitching at CPAC about what a hedonist immigrant-loving jackass John McCain was, now finds him just another tragic victim of the LSD freaks at the Times:

?You wait until it?s pretty much beyond a doubt that he?s going to be the Republican nominee, and then you let it drop ? drop some acid in the pool, contaminate the whole pool.?

This is why you can never invite a Democrat to a party: when they aren?t busy shitting in the pool, they?re dropping acid in it. WE HOPE MR. MCCAIN HAS LEARNED HIS LESSON.
Click to expand...

http://wonkette.com/359265/joh...ew-surge-of-popularity
 
I haven't waded through all this thread, but several of the later posters seem to be assuming that the NY Times deliberately sat on this story, and set forth various conspiracy theories (usually involving not affecting Super Tuesday primaries).

Is there any evidence at all that the paper sat on this story for more than a few days (in order to verify sources, etc)? If so, please post a link. Frankly, in my view a paper sitting on a bona fide and verified news story for political reasons would be highly damaging to that paper's reputation (unless there were issues of national security or the like involved).

I think people are far too quick to spot conspiracies, especially among the so-called liberal media.

As an aside, for what it's worth, I briefly watched Faux News tonight and they were spinning the story hard, trying to discredit the NY Times and show McCain is pure. I guess the official GOP stance is now that McCain is the only game in town, defend him to the hilt.

Frankly, to me-at this point at least-I'm taking this story with a huge dose of skepticism. It sounds like a lot of sour grapes, and the typical lobbyist bragging about how influential they are.
 
In other news, water is wet.

This is a non starter. Remember Drudge saying Kerry had an affair?
To be fair, NYT didn't say affair, but improper behavior. Quid pro quos more like it. Would I be surprised? Nope because lobbies own the politicians. That's one reason I want Obama. I believe "inexperienced" means not around enough to be thoroughly owned by these types.
 
If you ask me, they better start coming up with some facts and some sources. The blowback right now looks pretty grim. The dems and the NY times have unwittingly energized the Republican base behind McCain......
 
What is the NY Times up to? Ask yourself... why? Why endorse McCain only to attack him with this rubbish? Why try to trash him now instead of just before the general election, when it might do some damage? Surely the truth will come out and this will be forgotten by then.

Here's my take... it's a pretty good conspiracy theory with a twist.

Obama is riding an unstoppable wave. Unless he does something really stupid, which is unlikely, he is going to ride that wave all the way into the White House. Republicans have prepared for Hillary for years but are not ready for this. It seems to me, the only hope they have is that somehow Hillary breaks the wave (again unlikely) and they get back to beating her.

What does this have to do with the NY Times? Well perhaps some strategists have decided that the only way anyone might stop Obama is if Texas Republicans vote defense in the primary (Texas has open primaries). Republicans voting for Hillary could help break the Obama wave and, at the very least, keep Hillary and Obama fighting long enough to further divide the Dems or even insure a battle against Hillary in November. This story, at this time, puts Republicans in damage control mode instead of thinking big picture strategy. It also helps to rally Republicans to defend McCain by coming out to vote for him when he doesn't need them. Let's face it, he's got the lock on the Republican nomination and this story won't hurt him in the long run. Hillary's loss to Obama will hurt McCain if this Obama cult wave keeps going.

I know it would be torture for a republican to cast a vote for Hillary but, like our fine military folks, sometimes a few have to bear the burden for the greater good. Rally up the Republicans in Texas to "CHANGE" the Obama momentum and keep "HOPE" alive!

Look here for a list of upcoming open primaries http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801
 
"BTW, this is the Times that we're talking about. It's the single most important, most iconic source of news worldwide. They have resources that would embarrass most other news agencies. Believe me, this story got worked to the bone, and scrutinized closely several times over before the paper would risk their credibility by printing it. The story will hold, McCain's denials will not. "


The Times is well known for this sort of "journalism".

The story is crap and the Times is nothing but a fishwrapper, like it's been for years now.

The story would be crap if it were about Obama, or Hillary, or anyone else.

It's unsupported and the Times knew it and their sales will suffer even more.

 
I like to peruse the forums over the Freep, just for laughs. These guys have been attacking McCain daily like a pack of hyenas, and many of them actually took seriously Ann Coulter's call to back Hillary instead of McCain. People have gotten banned there just for posting pro-McCain articles in the past. Today though, they're coming out heavily in support of McCain, perhaps for the first time ever. It goes without saying that there's not many things conservatives hate more than the NYT, and that the fact that they've come out against him with this hatchet piece that's weak on actual facts tells them that he must be doing something right.
 
Ruh-roh, more bad news for McCain:

Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November.

Citing the loan agreement, Mason wrote: "We note that in your letter, you state that neither you nor your (presidential campaign) committee has pledged the certification of matching payment funds as security for private financing. In preparation for commission consideration of your request upon establishment of a quorum, we invite you to expand on the rationale for that conclusion."
Click to expand...
 
Looks like McCain has a thing for Blondes....

And to John McCain- If your Going to come out and Deny charges as False, Could you maybe work on your facial expressions and your Blinking a bit. It makes it hard for us to believe you when your a twitching-blinking mess.


Anyway, Im just waiting for the Us attorneys office to drop some Rico Charges On Tony RezKo real close to November.

I imagine charges will also be filed against Obama or his wife also. Thats whay that Stroy really hasnt Moved anywhere. The Justice Department is political and will hold this until the time is right.


 
I assume because noone has responded in approximeately ten hours that there is not the scintilla of evidence that the NY Times delayed or timed this story for any sort of political advantage. That makes the "conservatives'" charges against the Times far less severe.
 
The worst part is that this has apparently begun to unite Rush, Hannity, et al. and McCain ... they're now seeking to defend him from the big, bad NY Times.

I'll be the first to admit NYT is heavily biased. They're a far-left leaning newspaper. And I have no doubt they held on to this story and probably a few other juicy tidbits to use against him once he was the Nominee.

BUT...No good can come out of 'going to war' with the NYT, as McCain puts it. He's lending creedence to the story and encouraging speculation.

McCain 'Turns Tables' On New York Times
 
To me, the worst to McCain is not the exposure of the potential affair (in the end, this is a private matter & in any event he has a better eye than Bill did) but it exposes the extent to which McCain is indebted to lobbyists. His campaign staff is riddled with them. This will also probably cause a revisit of the whole Keating scandal, which I'm sure he would rather have had forgotten. Coupled with his potential public campaign financing problems, he is going to go through a rough patch. Talk about a brief (nay, nonexistent) honeymoon.

If nothing else, this shows how much the experience argument is BS, and greatly tarnishes the essence of his reputation, as a straight shooter, man of the people.

I disagree vehemently with the usual rightwing tripe that the NY Times is a far-left leaning paper. 99% of the people that parrot that line have never even read it.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
I disagree vehemently with the usual rightwing tripe that the NY Times is a far-left leaning paper. 99% of the people that parrot that line have never even read it.
Click to expand...

I've been a subscriber to NYT for almost a decade. 😉

I absolutely love the Times Reader software.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Hey Guys,

Good job on attacking the messagers! But I would want to know if someone who could be president did something illegal wouldn't you?

Are these attacks on the newspapers for printing these articles an example of hypocrisy:

The media reporting damaging information on my opponent is good.

The media reporting damaging information on my guy they are the LIBERAL MEDIA ATTACKING CONSERVATIVES!!!! or SMEAR CAMPAIGN!!!!
Click to expand...

1. Um, they published a seriously damaging article in an election year, after holding onto it months after they acquired the info (so McCain could get the nomination first?) and cite to anonymous sources. The NY Times reputation will carry its stories far, but not that far. I think we have a right to know who is making these accusations.

2. If he didn't grant her lobby any special favors, I could care less if she polished his viagra laden pole. Good for him.
Click to expand...

At least it's nice to know - after a long time - a Republican politician is accused of having an affair with a woman!!😀 :evil:



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top