1 posted on
02/23/2008 4:02:54 AM PST by
Clive
To: Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; Cannoneer No. 4; ...
2 posted on
02/23/2008 4:03:17 AM PST by
Clive
To: Clive
I don’t like McCain, but I hate the NY slimes. This is good news!
3 posted on
02/23/2008 4:06:21 AM PST by
crghill
(Jacob Harmenszoon is no friend of mine!)
To: Clive
Still won’t vote for him. He’s Democrat Lite.
4 posted on
02/23/2008 4:12:17 AM PST by
kjo
To: Clive
The feeling among a growing number of Republicans skeptical about McCain, is that if the New York Times is so intent on wrecking his chances to be president, he can't be all bad. Maybe even worth supporting.I want to know two things.
1:Why THIS story?
2:Why release it now?
This conservative will never support, nor vote for McPainintheass, ever. What part of fantasy land is this author from?
5 posted on
02/23/2008 4:20:10 AM PST by
sirchtruth
(No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
To: Clive
There’s no basis for the title. Campaign’s attempt to get contributions based on the NYT story does not necessarily mean that the story has caused a flood of contributions or any at all. We’ll know that when contributions are reported sometime in the future unless the campaign lets it be known sooner.
So far I don’t think the campaign has said anything in that regard one way or the other. The story broke only about two days ago after all.
To: Clive
Glenn Beck was saying this last Thursday. I don’t agree. Many people have their minds made up already, the NY Times article didn’t make a difference one way or the other, IMO.
.
7 posted on
02/23/2008 4:41:43 AM PST by
madison10
To: Clive
So far Hillary has spent about $106 million "on a campaign that is spluttering." Just think what she could do if she got a hold on the federal budget!
8 posted on
02/23/2008 4:50:32 AM PST by
glorgau
To: Clive
an honourable journalistic careerLike he was always a straight arrow before.
9 posted on
02/23/2008 4:53:15 AM PST by
arthurus
To: Clive
The NYT did McCain a favor. Question is the timing and who benefits the most in the end?
I have my own theory on that.
10 posted on
02/23/2008 4:58:32 AM PST by
dforest
To: Clive
For a newspaper to criticize another paper over inaccuracies then you would think they could get their story correct. President Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard, not the National Reserve.
13 posted on
02/23/2008 5:26:34 AM PST by
ops33
To: Clive
It's put-up or shut-up time for the Times... What the New York Times seems not to understand is that every day is "put-up or shut-up" - every article too. Credibility is easy to throw away...
14 posted on
02/23/2008 5:31:25 AM PST by
GOPJ
(Do the editors of the L.A. Times realize that illegal immigration is, you know, illegal? Patterico)
To: Clive
"...the allegations have not only been scaled down, but are even being used as a fundraiser for McCain among conservatives."
Once, just once, I would like to see a newspaper reporting on democrats say something like, "but are even being used as a fundraiser among liberals." Is that asking so much?
25 posted on
02/23/2008 9:30:02 AM PST by
modhom
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson