Posted on 02/21/2008 6:44:57 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Edited on 02/21/2008 6:49:20 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Really? Why don't you tell me why?
A real FReeper you're not. Idiot.
The story is the ‘ratherism’ for this political season. That you want to believe this garbage is more telling of you than John Insane.
We know the guy screwed around on his first wife. That’s enough for me.
Everyone knows about hill’s girlfriend but no reporting of it.
No, it's worse. I'll never vote for him.
A nonstory if I ever saw one.
I am a freeper who like most, enjoy and sometimes disagree with some on this page. I am not sure why you feel my volume of post’s qualify as someone who is “True Freeper”
I have watched and read for years…….call me a lurker...I have enjoyed and been angered by posts over the years
The reality is I have strong beliefs about the right to have arms, less taxes, border control, our countries security/Military and many other positions that match the conservative party but I really have less conviction about some social issues that honestly don’t fall in line with the status quo.
I know and believe that the vas majority of Americans probably are in my court.
John M is not perfect, but I am just done with with this frankly ultra way push to the right audience.
So if you want Hillary or “O” fine…your call. I Just can’t continue to sit back and hang with the FR group and except what are in “MY” views are ridiculous responses that while may be personal beliefs, ultimately sound and imply ultra-consertative responses that ultimately put he Clintons back in control or the “o” with no qualifications either of which put our children at risk…..
Your call and good by to Free Republic ………………going on 10 yrs…….
Whew! I was worried I would feel the need to convince you otherwise. Glad I got that out of the way. Thanks.
really? He said he didn’t try. I don’t believe he would lie at this point. You are joking, aren’t you?
Look, everyone should prepare for the possibility that Obama did have sexual relations with that man, whatever his name is.
Oh, OK. My bad. I didn't think it necessary to include a sarcasm tag.
http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-york-times-does-hit-piece-on-mccain.html
The New York Times Wednesday night broke a story claiming that aides to John McCain were concerned about an improper relationship he had with lobbyist Vicki Iseman back in 2000. Apparently, the Times had been holding the story since December, apparently feeling that it was not substantial enough, yet with no new evidence, felt compelled to drop this bomb on McCain now that he is the apparent Republican nominee.
The article’s charge that McCain flew around the country in a plane with this lobbyist may not be true, but it wasn’t illegal at the time. The rules are different now, but back then it was legal. (Much like DeLay’s money swap in Texas.)
Anyone who reads this site knows that I dislike John McCain, find him way too liberal, and have posted about why I cannot vote for him, but this story is simply sleaze with an agenda. Fairness requires that all decent people speak out against this journalistic dishonesty.
This isn’t sloppy journalism. It’s malicious journalism. Just as I didn’t believe the Edwards love-child story without evidence and I don’t believe the guy who claims to have snorted coke and had homosexual sex with Obama unless and until I see proof, I don’t believe this story either unless there is a LOT more to it than this — especially since it was in the New York Times. The Times no longer has a shred of credibility. Anything you see in the New York Times should be presumed false until proven otherwise.
However, let’s assume for a moment that all of these are true. If they were true, which would be the biggest scandal? The alleged Obama scandal would be a much bigger story, if true, than anything that McCain is alleged to have done. So why isn’t the Times pursuing that story?
The Times exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth here. This is the New York Times, after all. Fairness is apparently against its principles.
The fact that they talked to McCain himself and his people in December and they gave the Times information about when he had worked against this lobbyist’s interests yet the Times could not be bothered to include that tells you that there was a political agenda here.
But whose?
Was it a Clinton plant? Remember that rumors of affairs were planted against the elder Bush in the ‘92 campaign and against Dole in ‘96, neither of which had any evidence to support it. (The Dole rumor even had him paying for the mistress’s abortion.)
Did Obama’s people plant it to shift attention away from Obama’s radical agenda? (and if so, did the Times run it when they did to get Michelle Obama’s comments off page one?)
Did McCain’s people plant the false story themselves, looking both to embarrass the Times and use the false story to try to get conservatives to rally around Senator McCain?
Any of them is devious enough.
But why did the Times, which Pinchy Sulzberger has told his staff is to promote a liberal-left agenda, endorse McCain if they already had this story in the works? Was it to set him up as the Republican nominee so they could drop this stink bomb on him?
Just as DNCBS damaged itself with its (in my opinion) knowingly false story about Bush and the National Guard, the Times damages itself with this story. Yet another example of blatant liberal media bias. Or is this something worse?
Close, but no “cigars”.
>>Bombshell<<
Bombshell? What a joke. The only people who would not vote for someone they otherwise thought should be President of the United States are already very unlikely to be McCain supporters.
She’s funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.