the Slimes just doing what it does best... but this time it slimed itself.This may very well backfire on the MSM.
The Al Qaeda Times has published so much BS in the past half century that even TV listings, sports scores and lottery numbers from that rag should be verified with an actual news source.
When you throw mud, you lose ground.
Sheesh. How bad is it when the SAN FRANSICKO CHRONIC calls you sleazy?
the Slimes just doing what it does best... but this time it slimed itself. Au contraire.
Quote of the Day:
Schnur noted, “John McCain can win a Republican primary against the New York Times.”
Sullied? The NY Times? How can anybody tell—there isn’t a clean spot left on this rag...
they’ve got soooooooooooo much momentum in barkabamo. why did they need to reduce themselves to....oh, wait, nevermind. pigs, mud, etc.
They sat on this story for years. I’m just surprised that they didn’t sit on it until October. Guess the nominated Republican offered too much temptation.
Most newsmen are supporting the Times, probably out of fear.
Why should they be saddened? The NY Times abandoned its journalistic standards 70 years ago in favor of a left-wing agenda. It took a long time for the public to figure it out.
The “Kill the Times” backlash continues across the MSM spectrum. This may be the biggest “Dinosaur DeathWatch” event of the new century.
McCain needs to bury this one.
I’m no fan of McCain – but it seems obvious that this is either purely sloppy journalism on the part of the NYT (not likely since it stewed for several months), or perhaps this is the most visible example of Hillary’s campaign doing some early battlefield preparation.
I assume the underlying suggestion of an extramarital relationship is not true – but I can’t say that I have a lot of reason to believe that. It seemed awkward when McCain started out with the remarks about how “Disappointed” they were with this story. Were I in that position I would be screaming from the rooftops, the veins would be bulging in my forehead and I would be ripping mad at the NYT. Somehow, given how forceful he has been in some of his past speeches – he didn’t seem to express the proper level if indignation, especially standing there with his wife.
Assuming the suggestion of an inappropriate relationship is untrue, by suggestion to McCain is this:
Offer to undergo a polygraph examination along with the lobbyist, conducted by a polygrapher of certain credentials (years of experience with FBI, professional credentials, etc.), selected by one of the NYT journalists (sic) responsible for Wednesday’s story, on 5 or 10 questions which establish the truth or falsity of his (and her) denial. Then take the exams, publish the results (which would vindicate both of them) and start beating the NYT like a rented car for the rest of the campaign.
This is a BIG mainstream media story, and one in which even other journalists are distancing themselves from the offending publication.
Maybe one of the companies she was a lobbyst for was Viagra. That would explain a lot.
If new york times had anything else up their sleeves they would have put it out 8 years ago when they first brought that story out. this is stupid
set out to shine a spotlight on McCain's ethics, but it ended up turning a harsh light on its own ethical lapses. - 
I guess leaking national security information isn’t as bad as outing a RINO.