"Our wives deserve a purple heart for sleeping
with scores of other men over eight years, as a quid pro quo,
just to get this fabricated gotcha-story into print."
Posted on 02/22/2008 12:45:30 AM PST by Froufrou
The New York Times is in the crosshairs after publishing a lengthy and critical profile of John McCain Thursday that suggests that McCain had a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist.
The New Republic published a long article Thursday afternoon on its Web site detailing the story behind the story and claiming, “What’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all.”
The New Republic lambasted The New York Times for giving the green light, claiming the piece was “filled with awkward journalistic moves” and that it stepped around the suggested trysts with lobbyist Vicki Iseman by focusing on the debate in the McCain campaign itself about the relationship.
With only anecdotal descriptions and no evidence of an improper relationship, focus has shifted from suggestions of McCain’s supposed improprieties to questions over whether the Times should have run the story.
The Times article described how McCain’s campaign aides kept him and Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was Commerce Committee chairman.
The New Republic story reported that the idea for the McCain piece was hatched in November, when four reporters were thrown on the assignment. Over the ensuing months, the magazine reported that the story “pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t.”
The Drudge piece sent the McCain article “into hiding,” but in the end, on Feb. 19, top Times editors and the paper’s attorneys gave the final draft a read-through and decided to publish, The New Republic reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at youdecide08.foxnews.com ...
| We should be thinking ahead for 2012 | |
| These candidates all have Rs | |
| at the end of their names | |
|
|
|
| Governor | Steve Beshear |
| Congressman | Earl Blumenauer |
| Congressman | Rick Boucher |
| Senator | Barbara Boxer |
| Senator | Thomas R. Carper |
| Congresswoman | Kathy Castor |
| Congressman | Ben Chandler |
| Congresswoman | Emanuel Cleaver |
| Congressman | Jim Cooper |
| Congressman | Bud Cramer |
| Congressman | Henry Cuellar |
| Governor | Chet Culver |
| Congressman | Sam Farr |
| Congressman | Bob Filner |
| Congressman | Steny Hoyer |
| Congresswoman | Marcy Kaptur |
| Senator | Amy Klobuchar |
| Congressman | Brad Miller |
| Congressman | George Miller |
| Governor | Ruth Ann Minner |
| Congressman | Jerrold Nadler |
| Congressman | James Oberstar |
| Congressman | John Olver |
| Congressman | Ed Pastor |
| Congressman | Ed Perlmutter |
| Senator | Mark L. Pryor |
| Governor | Bill Ritter |
| Senator | John D. Rockefeller |
| Congressman | Dutch Ruppersberger |
| Senator | Ken Salazar |
| Congressman | John Salazar |
| Senator | Charles E. Schumer |
| Governor | Brian Schweitzer |
| Congresswoman | Carol Shea-Porter |
| Congressman | Heath Shuler |
| Congresswoman | Louise Slaughter |
| Congressman | Vic Snyder |
| Governor | Eliot Spitzer |
| Congressman | John Tanner |
| Congresswoman | Ellen Tauscher |
| Congressman | Gene Taylor |
| Senator | Jon Tester |
| Congressman | Anthony Weiner |
| Congressman | Robert Wexler |
I smell a setup.
UR BAD.
I love the smell of a setup in the morning. Especially the Slimes!
...“filled with awkward journalistic moves”...
Is that what they are calling bald faced MSM lies these days?
Pretty much...
I am no McCain fan but I believe in intellectual honesty no matter what or who the subject is.
Taking all the negatives of McCain and his "maverick" ways on global warming, tort reform, campaign finance etc plus his eight year love affair with the MSM and Keating 5 and dumping his first wife for his second etc. etc. and putting them to the side the fact remains that the NYT has clearly engaged in a smear of enormous proportions while displaying all it's pro-democrat bias for all to see.
1 - The NYT took four top investigative reporters and assigned them to look at allegations from 8 and 9 years ago.
2 - The NYT endorses McCain days before the delegate tsunami of Super Tuesday (both helped and hurt)
3 - NYT publishes article based on inuendo and anonymous sources in attempting to claim both immoral and/or illegal activity
4 - McCain campaign publishes 1500-word response that explains not just the legality of any action with regards to companies concern with inactivity that was required by statute (an up or down vote within 300 days) while publicists and allies call the article and the timing a "smear"
5 - The NYT claims today that the McCain campaign is trying to start a "war" with the paper.
So in the end the NYT is trying to say that McCain is picking on them by refuting an anonymous-sourced article with allegations/impressions of an affair and favoritism that was published just as he is securing the nomination and a month after endorsing McCain. Get it?
So again with all feeling aside, even if one thinks it is justifiable payback to McCain and the Republican Party, anyone that denies what it is but a smear (based on the facts presented) is either intellectually challenged or dishonest.
"Our wives deserve a purple heart for sleeping
with scores of other men over eight years, as a quid pro quo,
just to get this fabricated gotcha-story into print."
THE REAL REASON THE NYSLIMES BROKE THE STORY WAS TO GET MICHELLE “FINALLY PROUD” OBAMA OFF THE FRONT PAGE. it worked!
I think that was an added benefit to the timing but the main priority was to muddy the water as early as possible after the nomination seemed statistically secure. Who knows? The timing and the lack of any real evidence a month after endorsing McCain seems so...obvious as to their overall motive.
The NYT claims that they were not satisfied with the story until Tuesday. My question to the NYT would be "what were the final pieces that fell into place within the last few days that allowed you to feel confident the story was ready to go to press?" They can't answer that because the story had been long since completed and it was just a question of when to drop the smear.
Steve Beshear has a (D) next to his, unless he has switched parties overnight.
As most of FR knows, I'm absolutely no McCain fan. But this was a well-timed Clinton hit-piece, pure and simple. It was designed to do two things: 1) deflect attention from Hillary's floundering, and 2) smear McCain just after he ties down the GOP nomination.
Despite my strong feelings against McCain, this is despicable, and have no doubt that either McCauliffe or Ickes were the ones who called up the Slimes and told them to run with the story.
Anybody else catch this piece of return BS?
I can’t discount any of your sentiments, not one. And I did not notice the strategically placed ‘conservative’ nominee!
Like you, I am no fan of McCain, but I darn sure will vote for him if he is, in fact, the nominee. Until then, I’m voting for Huckabee.
I believe Dick Morris when he says the attempts to derail Obama by voting for Hillary are a gross mistake.
If they slept with that many men, I don't think it would be their hearts that would be purple.
There’s a sarcasm tag at the end. I was confused at first, as well.
And in MY confusion failed to look past Beshear’s name. The coffee kicked in too late.
Here, let me pour you another cuppa Joe. I’m not awake until cup number three. :)
LOL
And John McCain sold out the Republican party for the last ten years. Cry me a river...
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.