Very old news, and IMO, nothing wrong was done and this was dealt with back in 2000 for Christ sakes!
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!
This is a cheap NYT smear hack job!
Back on track!
Again, I am surprised and proud at the thoughful reader comments at the NYT:
Quote:
The McCain lobbyist story is now generating troubling rumors.
Serious “sources” are saying the NYTimes has been holding the McCain/lobbyist story for some time. Now you are running it.
The same “sources” are saying that the Times has information that President Clinton may have been or has been been maritally unfaithful or sexually inappropriate.
Indeed there are rumors that President Clinton has spoken with NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger. Is this true?
Is the paper holding President Clinton to the same standards as Senator McCain?
The Times has a moral responsibility for the presumption of innocence. Rumors can destroy lives. What about privacy? However, marital infidelity would have to be a public concern because:
• There is a past public record of inappropriate sexual behaviour. It led to the impeachment of the president.
• The role of President Clinton in a Hillary Clinton presidency is already a matter of public concern.
• Unreported inappropriate sexual relationships under these circumstnaces would subject the US national security to blackmail
What do we need to know about how the Times handles these stories. At this very moment, Pat Buchanan is commenting on MSNBC that the Times held the McCain story until after key primaries. Nor did the Times report that this story has been circulating on the Drudge Report.
With great respect and a commitment to ethical standards, these are deeply troubling questions …circulating as rumors. We deeply appreciate the Times seriousness on such matters.
— Posted by paul
— paul, amherst, ma
If McCain said anything that wasn’t true during the press conference, he will be in very deep do-do. The NYT will be joined by the rest of the MSM in taking McCain down. Most Americans have no idea what the Keating Five was all about. You can be assured that they will learn about it in great detail. We will learn soon enough if we have a deeply flawed presumptive nominee. Thankfully, it will be before the convention.