McCain's Past Comes Back To Light

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Feb 21, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

    Would it fair to ask, where was the NY Times and this story at 3 months ago?

    Now this from Drudge:

    MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY
    Thu Dec 20 2007 10:49:27 ET


    Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

    McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

    The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.

    The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

    MORE

    http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm
     
  2. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    They could have broke the story before the general election.......That could have been worse.....now he's got months to defend himself. He might even look good if he can clear himself. I believe the NY Times ran with the story cause the Drudge Report was going to run with it soon also. I've heard she was by his side for many events that his staff had to tell McClain enough is enough. Seperate yourself from this women and stop inviting her on your corperate jet. If it's true, I gotta hand it to McClain, 72 and still spunky.You go boy.....although I more concern with his pandering with the lobbist !
     
  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Actually D, if you look at the dateline of the Drudge part, it's date/timestamped on 12/20/07' so you could ask, what was Drudge waiting on if your theory is considered.

    I don't have the answer to either one but I do wonder why the story stayed out of sight until now that the nomination is secure.

    Uh-On! I just remembered about that time in Dec. was when the deal that Bill Kristol was on board the NYT and the true Neo-Con candidate is McCain so do we have conspiracy and intrigue at hand?

    Someone call Fox Mulder and crank up the X-Files music as a trip to Area 51 is in order!

    FIELD TRIP!

    :rofl:
     
  4. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

  5. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Ok, here's the story I'm quoting from one of my un-named sources...lol

    It started with Drudge. He was the one who broke the story that there was a story back on December 20, with this post.
    Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!
    The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation…The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain…
    (Jim) Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday, sources reveal, but editor (Bill) Keller expressed serious reservations about journalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election.
    If they were so concerned about it being so close to an election in December, why not now, when it’s even closer and McCain is the nominee-apparent?
    The Drudge report was followed on December 21 by a story in the Washington Post with the added news that McCain had hired Washington attorney Bob Bennett (the Democratic brother of Bill):
    Bennett said he sent prepared answers yesterday to written questions submitted by New York Times reporters who have spent weeks investigating questions about whether the senator did favors for a Washington lobbyist or her clients.
    The story behind the story is that The New Republic has been working on a story about the New York Times not publishing the McCain story. Here’s how The New Republic responded:
    But we can say this: TNR correspondent Gabe Sherman is working on a piece about the Times’ foot-dragging on the McCain story, and the back-and-forth within the paper about whether to publish it. Gabe’s story will be online tomorrow.
    Gabe’s story, The Long Run-Up is here.
    New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller gives this explanation for the timing of the story:
    “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready.
    “‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats.
    “This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it.”
    But Mark Salter, senior McCain campaign aide, probably has it right when he tells Time:
    “They did this because the The New Republic was going to run a story that looked back at the infighting there,” Salter said, “the Judy Miller-type power struggles — they decided that they would rather smear McCain than suffer a story that made the New York Times newsroom look bad.”
    Conservatives hate the New York Times even more than they hate McCain, and so this could even help him, as Charles Dunn of Regent University said to WNYC’s Brian Lehrer. Dunn neatly summed it up (via fishbowlny)
    ”If The New York Times does a follow-up story and names the two sources, then McCain will have a problem … If The New York Times doesn’t name the two anonymous sources, this story will have a short shelf life.”
    And now the story is, is there a story?
     
  6. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Typical Liberal nonsense and propaganda. There is no proof, yet, the Liberal whackos over at the NY Times reports this as factual information. Keep up the good work. This is just more proof that that Liberal media has gotten out of control. It's bad enough that they try and scare all the gullible people in the country by lying and saying there is a recession and now they are reporting speculation as facts to damage a man's reputation. I thought the purpose of the the news was to report factual information?
     
  7. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    I know it's not true.

    If it was true, the National Enquirer & The Globe would've been first to print it.

    They have reliable sources because they've been sued so much in the past.

    Now, if you read it in the rags, then maybe it's true.
     
  8. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Re: the New York Enquirer

    Thank you, More! If ever a story belonged in the National Enquirer, this is it.
    The NY Times offered zero proof. Anonymous sources, give me a break! They couldn't even show any evidence that McCain had voted to support her issues, much less that they had had a romantic relationship.

    Isn't it odd that the NY Times did not list all the times McCain had voted against her issues, even though his campaign provided the Times with this info?

    It was a hit job, pure and simple.

    I wonder if there are any true journalists at the Times, and how they feel about this.