Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McCain Mistress Bombshell
Minneapolis City Pages ^ | February 20, 2008 | Kevin Hoffman

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]

WASHINGTON

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.citypages.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; adultery; bimboeruption; election; garyhart; gop; huckaboob; iseman; johnmccain; libel; lies; mccain; slander; vickiiseman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: Horns
You are a idiot

Really? Why don't you tell me why?

61 posted on 02/21/2008 8:44:42 PM PST by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
just like the Rather crap.

I forgot about that!
62 posted on 02/21/2008 8:47:36 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Horns
You've posted a grand total of seven times in the past year.

A real FReeper you're not. Idiot.

63 posted on 02/21/2008 8:47:45 PM PST by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

The story is the ‘ratherism’ for this political season. That you want to believe this garbage is more telling of you than John Insane.


64 posted on 02/21/2008 8:51:24 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

We know the guy screwed around on his first wife. That’s enough for me.


65 posted on 02/21/2008 8:52:56 PM PST by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen

Everyone knows about hill’s girlfriend but no reporting of it.


66 posted on 02/21/2008 8:54:59 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
We know the guy screwed around on his first wife. That’s enough for me.

So does that mean you aren't going to date him anymore?
67 posted on 02/21/2008 8:56:34 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
So does that mean you aren't going to date him anymore?

No, it's worse. I'll never vote for him.

68 posted on 02/21/2008 9:03:12 PM PST by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Kurt Evans

A nonstory if I ever saw one.


69 posted on 02/21/2008 9:56:29 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

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…….


70 posted on 02/21/2008 10:01:48 PM PST by Horns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
No, it's worse. I'll never vote for him.

Whew! I was worried I would feel the need to convince you otherwise. Glad I got that out of the way. Thanks.

71 posted on 02/21/2008 11:18:12 PM PST by torchthemummy ("The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed." - Fransam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

really? He said he didn’t try. I don’t believe he would lie at this point. You are joking, aren’t you?


72 posted on 02/21/2008 11:21:57 PM PST by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: devere

Look, everyone should prepare for the possibility that Obama did have sexual relations with that man, whatever his name is.


Good one. Unfortunately, it would just drive his approval numbers up if he did.


73 posted on 02/22/2008 6:52:01 AM PST by CZB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
"They both deny it so it’s probably not true."

Oh, OK. My bad. I didn't think it necessary to include a sarcasm tag.

74 posted on 02/22/2008 9:54:40 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kurt Evans

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?


75 posted on 02/22/2008 11:49:17 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CZB
NYT smear video
76 posted on 02/22/2008 2:15:44 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TBP
>>did the Times run it when they did to get Michelle Obama’s comments off page one?<<


77 posted on 02/22/2008 2:19:17 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Kurt Evans

Close, but no “cigars”.


78 posted on 02/22/2008 2:20:44 PM PST by Gator113 (America just traded away the possibility of a dream, for what is certain to be a nightmare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kurt Evans

>>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.


79 posted on 02/22/2008 2:22:31 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

She’s funny.


80 posted on 02/22/2008 5:43:37 PM PST by CZB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson