Comments on: In McCain Saga, Newspaper Becomes A Story

After Story Suggesting Romantic Relationship Between John McCain And Lobbyist, Critics Question New York Times' Motivation

[lilvinnyb]

So the times whoe story is about something that "MAY" have happened. I cant believe this....throw the accusation out and let him deny it. Is this what news has become.

Whats to stop them from printing a story that says "Obama MAY have robbed a bank".

[boatdocster]

dogsoul

To be fair, Newt Gingrich, who crucified Clinton, was doing the very same things (or more) with his female aide while his wife was in the hospital will an illnesses. Busting Bill in public while working his aide in private! LOL

Perhaps what you meant to say is almost all politicians break the rules while touting family values and religion, regardless of party affiliation... You could count the clean ones on 1 hand!

[j-whitman]

Waterbord him

[hamiltongrad]

So obviously biased.
...............It will galvanize the Repubicans to back McCain.
The NYT is disgusting.

[fuzzybear9]

Hello America

Fuzzy did you hear the News ? please Fuzzy what should we do ?

A man is innocent until proven guilty.
A senator is always Guilty until proven innocent.
and then there is the no lo contendor grey area.

If this was chapiquitic we all would have no doubts
as to the veracity of the Accusations,
If this was the Mens restroom in the Minneapolis Airport we would have No Lo Contender.

Let me just say that the New York Times is a very respectible Newspaper of many years of dedicated Journalism, professional editorial selection with few errors in their publication.
as well as the Washington Post that has our utmost
respect.

Now as to Ms. Vicki Iseman she sounds like a very real person, with very real motives as a Lobbyist.
Iseman is that Jewish ?
anyway
now you say Fuzzy who shall we pick a reformed cocaine addict Senator or a Moral Majority Senator ?

let me just say rather than pointing fingers
lets just say that integrity in our goverment seems to be constantly wayning ,
Wayning?
anyway
let us be more careful in the future at the selection
of good people to represent us.
A man that is unfaithful to his Wife would think nothing of betraying his country. so this is not just a small indescretion, but a matter of High Crimes and Misdimenors.
Thats a Fuzzy Quote you can publish that in the Readers Digest if you Like.

Sincerely your allwise and Merciful Bear
Fuzzy,
ps. note I didn`t make any vulgar inuendo`s
I think I did good.

[jumkey]

And ON CUE the conservative apologist and liar Infidel_US arrives to dismiss the same story that he screamed from the rooftops made Clinton unfit to be president.

Brilliant.

[jumkey]

Yeah, because Republicans were so concerned when it was Bill Clinton being attacked by the press.

What hypocrites conservatives are.

Is the story true? Seems to be to me.
Is it pertinent? Ask Bill Clinton. That was enough for McCain had his friends to impeach him.

Conservatives ALWAYS attack the messenger when caught. Always.

[infidel_us]

OMG....not the NYT''s motivation!?!!? Why, everyone with half a brain knows they are objective, unbiased journalists! BAARF!

[samthetvcat]

lol - good points razzl

[samthetvcat]

It''s almost impossible to not lose respect for anybody who''s focusing their ire on the NYT''s role in running this story rather than trying to figure out who''s the unnamed informant.

How do you argue that you stand for denouncing rushing to judgment when that whole line of argument rushes to the judgment that the story is false?

That''s a totally self-serving angle trying to be passed as principle when it is anything but. An objective criticism would add a caveat that it may be true and it may not be, and that based on the evidence it looks like there might have been something there but without more you can''t say for sure so therefore they choose to give McCain the benefit of the doubt out of loyalty as a republican. Repubs are free to stand by their guy, but claiming they''re acting in then name of truth and integrity makes me puke.

[Razzl]

We know that the right-wing propaganda machine was going to gear up against any story by the Times, so a lot of the criticism is just the usual noise from places we aren''t obligated to listen to. And the public has created a new standard for politicians since the Lewinsky scandal where their personal lives aren''t hypocritically examined for impurity on personal issues that ought to be private, so the public is reading all this superficially and thinking it crosses that line. It doesn''t, however, since the issue isn''t the affair, but the possible use of influence to help the lobbyist, as well as the Times'' obligation to report the story when the right facts line up.

If McCain is smart in reading the reactions he''ll deny the influence rather than deny the affair, unless it didn''t really happen, which I''m not believing at this point. The public has carved out a wide latitude for personal marital behavior for the post-Clinton world that will save him if he doesn''t overreach plausible deniability. And the Times should take a chapter from Obama''s book and not even acknowledge a problem since their readership trusts them and that''s all that matters when your enemies lack the power to materially hurt you...