Story true ??

[Deerhunter]

NY Post is reporting McCain hit a lobbyist 8 yrs ago, behind his wife's back. These types of stories I believe are very difficult to prove. Unless you saw him actually inside her, nobody can say for sure what happened, whenever, and wherever. Even if, and I don't know that it is alleged, they got a hotel room together, one can only assume something occurred. Unless she, or he actually admits they engaged in an affair, I am reluctant to believe the story. Could it have occurred ? Sure, but I can't say for sure without some "hard" evidence.

[run4it]

... I can't say for sure without some "hard" evidence.

BOOOOOOO!!!!!

I find it hard to believe that McCain would make the poor choice to nail a lobbyist in the middle of a Presidential campaign. Of course, that's what I thought about Clinton and Lewinski as well...

This isn't the first time rumors of McCain messing around have come up. Not that I particularly do or don't believe any of them. I'm less worried about the messing around part than I am about the "favors" part. That's gotten him into trouble before (Keating).

[raoul duke]

Unless she, or he actually admits they engaged in an affair, I am reluctant to believe the story. Could it have occurred ? Sure, but I can't say for sure without some "hard" evidence.

Yeah, how could it be true? It's not like he's never cheated on his wife befo. . . Oh wait, he has? Nevermind.

I'm less worried about the messing around part than I am about the "favors" part. That's gotten him into trouble before (Keating).

Exactly. Let's hope the public gets a fair airing of "teh maverick™" and his real history. Not that it's any more sorid than a lot of other politician's, but he's running for president, so I hope he's prepared. If not, I hope the Democrats clobber him with this (though I suspect some of the Republicans might beat them to the punch.)

My friends, please pardon my shadenfruede.

[run4it]

My friends, please pardon my shadenfruede.

That's a pretty damn unattractive way to be. But you've built up some good will and credit in the past....

[PaulJonson]

Didn't the Times run this same story in 2000?

[run4it]

Didn't the Times run this same story in 2000?

Not that I know of...they may have mentioned something about a supposed illegitimate Vietnamese child...or maybe something about his first marriage. But this is a new one.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

No the times started the story way back then.

Almost ran with the story in December, but held back. Some say because of lack of facts.

The New Republic was starting on a story about the Times, this story and the "reason" for it being run almost 8 year after the supposed events. Once the times knew that all of that work would be beat to press by the New Republic, they posted it last night on their website. Not waiting for it to go to print this morning. Which is strange.

Nothing but a hit and run. The story should be vetted but nothing will come of it.

Some people are saying that the Times has an agenda, which at times I think they do, but not on this story. If they really wanted to hurt McCain, they would have waited. The only reason they ran it was because of the pressure from the New Republic breaking a "story" that they had 4 reporters working on and off for almost 8 years.

[raoul duke]

Nothing but a hit and run.

I dunno about that. The whole illicit affair thing? Yeah, it's salacious and will sell newspapers. But McCain as a philanderer, is not "new" news, per se.

The influence peddling that, it appears, he did on behalf of this lobbyist is news, however. Especially since he has spent years crafting, and currently running on, an image that is just the opposite of what has allegedly transgressed.

My question is: Who dropped a dime? I doubt it was a Democrat. They're a little tied up at the moment and timing-wise it makes no sense. Which makes me wonder if the Republicans are trying to knee-cap him much like the Democrats did to McGovern in 1972.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I dunno about that. The whole illicit affair thing? Yeah, it's salacious and will sell newspapers. But McCain as a philanderer, is not "new" news, per se.

The influence peddling that, it appears, he did on behalf of this lobbyist is news, however. Especially since he has spent years crafting, and currently running on, an image that is just the opposite of what has allegedly transgressed.

My question is: Who dropped a dime? I doubt it was a Democrat. They're a little tied up at the moment and timing-wise it makes no sense. Which makes me wonder if the Republicans are trying to knee-cap him much like the Democrats did to McGovern in 1972.

I think the story started from someone close to his camp in 2000.

Like I said, the thing that has me questioning the story is the timing of the story.

The only thing that has changed from December, when the Times decided to not run the story, is the article from the New Republic. Which was about the story but how the Times managed the story. More of an inside piece into the turmoil at the Times.

I think this needs to be explored as vetting is a must. However, I do not think the Times would have ran with it if the New Republic was not about to run a story on their end.

[raoul duke]

Not to be a cynic, but it wouldn't be the first time in recent history where the NYT sat on a story that was damaging to a Republican until they almost got scooped. I cannot think of a Democratic example, at the moment.

[FisherRd]

Not to be a cynic, but it wouldn't be the first time in recent history where the NYT sat on a story that was damaging to a Republican until they almost got scooped. I cannot think of a Democratic example, at the moment.

Because they don't do hit pieces on Dems, so there's no way to sit on them...

[raoul duke]

Because they don't do hit pieces on Dems, so there's no way to sit on them...

Yeah, try again. All those vapid pieces about John Edwards' haircut or Hillary's laugh or the credibility given to the outright lies propogated by groups like the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, were just puff pieces in dusguise.

[FisherRd]

Yeah, try again. All those vapid pieces about John Edwards' haircut or Hillary's laugh or the credibility given to the outright lies propogated by groups like the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, were just puff pieces in dusguise.

I left the "..." there as an indicator of sarcasm. Although I don't believe Dems are immune to criticism by the NYT, one would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not know the NYT is a liberal rag of the highest order. They make Fox News look fair and unbalanced.

[FisherRd]

Raoul,
I should clarify that I'm not poking at you, or "liberals". Although I tend to bang on Liberals, I am really aiming specifically at the far left (truthers, code pink, berkeley, etc..)

[raoul duke]

I left the "..." there as an indicator of sarcasm. Although I don't believe Dems are immune to criticism by the NYT, one would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not know the NYT is a liberal rag of the highest order. They make Fox News look fair and unbalanced.

Yeah. I forgot about all that stellar water carrying they've done for liberal causes. the Iraq war, the 2004 elections. . . heh.

Please, show me where the liberal slant is? (Really, I'm not trying to be snarky.) It's very easy to say this is liberal or this is conservative (and the Op-Ed boards could very well be), but as far as reporting? I don't see it. In fact I think Bill Keller and the NYT have been some of the worst media enablers (second to FOX, perhaps) of the mess we're currently in. Though, I don't think it's as much a liberal/conservative thing as it is elite/non-elite.