Anyone else think McCain’s camp might have started this scandal themselves, to prove that he’s not too old after all?
Nobody in their right minds could have thought starting this rumor would help McCain’s enemies in any way. The story is goofy on its face.
And the alleged affair was ten years ago.
Chris Matthews is full of shit. He is either lying or never reads the Times because he can’t make out the big words they use.
The Times clearly stated policy is to prefer named sources (and there was one in the article,) and that when anonymous sources are used the reason they wish to remain anonymous is given, along with background showing possible bias. About half the political stories in the Times have anonymous sources.
Those rules were followed in the story.
Right, that misses the point. There’s no reason to doubt that the story comes from two real former McCain staffers. The problem is that they didn’t have any good, factual reason to believe there was an affair going on, only that they had some suspicions that other staffers pointedly dismissed. And even if it happened, it’s nobody else’s business.
This “story” (yes, I read it) was crap - belonged on Drudge, not the nation’s “newspaper of record”. One focused instead on his record of what we can call “constituent services”, including his attempted use of influence as the story mentioned on the side, might have been useful.
The Times story only touched on their reasons - that she traveled with him, that she was always around. But it clearly gave it as their opinion. Who knows if they had other reasons not mentioned. 99.8% of the story was about his interaction with lobbyists, which is a significant news story. She came up because she was a lobbyist who seemed to have particularly good access to him. Do you think the Times should have not run that one line (which helped explain why she was told to buzz off) or not run the full article?
It would be nice if people’s possible sexual activities were kept out of the news, but that horse is out of the barn. Whether there was an affair, or she just batted her eyes at him as part of her job, or there was nothing at all, the aides were worried and wanted to protect him. Isn’t it better to have this come out now than when he is in office - especially if there is something to it?
If they did, it was the Times’ obligation to pass them on. They were keeping their anonymity, so there would be no reason to withhold any information that would support their credibility.
The affair topic, sure - it wasn’t based on anything, just scandalmongering. Certainly the editors must have known that’s what would get the attention nationally, but they just didn’t have a story.
Influence-peddling is a legitimate and necessary topic, but that too needed to be based on not only facts but on a relative comparison with the conduct of other high-seniority members. But it wasn’t. It would have been newsworthy to show that McCain is either dirtier *or * cleaner than average, or that matter just typical. We were not presented any such information, though.
It only works because so many people are willing to *let * it work. We have the power to make that stop.
Isn’t it better yet *not * to have this (whatever it is) come out, especially if there is *not * something to it? :dubious:
Looks like McCain’s denial might be beginning to unravel:
From the deposition transcript:
Anyone notice how much better looking McCain’s conquests are than Clinton’s?
Not without a second source. What if one of the people said that he saw them nuzzle? What if he said he thought they went to a hotel together? If there was no confirmation, it might support the contention, but the Times shouldn’t print those particular accusations. The two aides who said this did so independently, and other parts of their stories were independently confirmed.
Scandal mongering by former aides? We have the main story, in which this woman gets told my McCain’s staff to back off. She is around all of the time, but I bet lots of lobbyists visit often. Why would she get special attention? The belief of the aides gives a reason. Otherwise there is a big hole in the story. That they had this belief was supported - the Times never said that there was any reason to think it true. Whether true or not, it led to this interesting interaction with her. Your gripe is with the aides, not the Times.
McCain has based a lot of his image on being clean, so it makes sense for him to be scrutinized more than someone who doesn’t pretend to be against lobbyists. That’s why Barney Frank screwing some guy isn’t news while Larry Craig doing it is.
Good luck in getting every blogger in the country to play along.
Funny you should mention that. I did notice that she was pretty hot, but keep in mind that Monica wasn’t the only Clinton dalliance. Jenifer Flowers probably looked pretty good, back in the day, and that *Highlander *chick was Miss Arkansas (or some other state).
Huh? The entire affair story had no second source. Get real.
And this particular part was independently *denied * - even by fellow staffers.
No, by the Times.
Didn’t you just get finished saying the main story was about iinfluence peddling? I believe you said “99.8 percent”? :dubious:
There’s a sliding scale: more money = more access. How much was Paxson paying McCain? And for what?
Both actually, but the *former * aides can be ignored as pathetic story-peddlers. The Times is expected to know better and act accordingly, for one thing, and for another they have the power to spread a story while the former aides do not, not without the media’s collaboration.
Of course. That’s why I agreed with your earlier statements that the story should have been only about influence-peddling, not scandalmongering.
You have the names reversed. Frank got in trouble mainly for allowing a hooker to work out of his home, Craig mainly for being hypocritical about his moralizing.
The bloggers only matter because there are people willing to read them. That’s who has the power to make this shit go away.
Whose aren’t? That’s what disappointed me most about Clinton’s conduct - he actually *preferred * swine. Seems you can take the horndog out of the trailer park, but …
Apparently every candidate deserves the benefit of extreme doubt except Obama, who can be dismissed for one off-hand comment during one debate.
And that has what, exactly, to do with the McCain lobbyist story? :dubious:
Just keeping you honest.
Either you’re missing a smiley there or you are simply cluttering up the board with petty personal spite.
Either stay on topic or change to an appropriate thread, m’kay, amigo?
http://www.alternet.org/election08/77496/ Lobbyists ,lobbyists we have lots and lots of lobbyists. His campaign is run by lobbyists.
Sadly who can run without lobby money when you have to waste over a billion dollars to run for president.
I can wonder in this one about your baffling lack of consistency.
Bill Keller, Executive Editor of The Times, and other editors and reporters on the story, have put out a detailed responses to the questions raised here.
So we have McCain’s own court deposition, and the word of the guy he claimed he didn’t talk with, versus McCain’s own statement yesterday.
Is straight now a synonym for crooked?