http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Long story short, unsubstantiated report about a his interaction with a female lobbyist. Fox News tried to substantiate by contacting witnesses but to no avail and decided not to run the report.


NY Times endorsed McCain... loved McCain... now that he's all but gotten the nomination... time to spit him out.

Alienating the Republican base is going to hurt because the same independents and liberals who praised McCain certainly won't be voting for him in November.


Result: Landslide. Thanks McCain.

2/21/2008 8:58:45 AM

tww is not a blog.

2/21/2008 9:22:16 AM

The article really isn't all that bad. It says that McCain has fucked up in the past, has made efforts to correct himself, but has made some questionable deals on the side and points out several examples. It actually highlights a lot of the change he has pushed forward and -I thought- makes McCain look pretty good, if not flawed at the same time.

2/21/2008 9:23:59 AM

OMG McCain possibly had an affair!!!

screw his political positions i can not support a candidate that desecrated the sanctity of marriage

honestly who gives a fuck. For all i care McCain can have a harem in the white house as long as he is doing a good job running this country.
The christian right wants any reason they can to discredit McCain but the irony is if it had been Romney or HuckaFuck winning the nomination they most likely would have hillary or obama as president.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 9:36 AM. Reason : a]

2/21/2008 9:35:04 AM

Actually 3.5 of the 4 pages were about campaign finance and ethics reform. The thing about the woman was only part of it because she was a lobbyist.

2/21/2008 9:37:53 AM

The big thing is it's an unsubstantiated report.

You may not care that he may have had an extramarital affair, but republicans do... that's what the NYT is trying to do. Destroy McCain.

This would be a resume booster if McCain were a democrat, which he almost is.

2/21/2008 9:40:34 AM

Quote :

"This would be a resume booster if McCain were a democrat, which he almost is."

That's quite possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever seen written on TSB. Sometimes you rival hooksaw on sheer stupidity with these kinds of statements.

2/21/2008 9:42:45 AM

Seriously. That is unbelievably stupid.

2/21/2008 9:47:17 AM

I hope the NYT ruins McCain, and Obama will have to do nothing but ride on the wave of momentum he created earlier this year straight into the White House.

2/21/2008 9:48:05 AM

Aint it obvious that they are trying to ruin his reputation so that Obama can win? The NY times is about as far left as you can get so they'll do anything to keep a republican out of office.

2/21/2008 9:53:25 AM

I mean, all this independent and democratic adoration... when it comes down to it... who would they rather have? A republican they can stomach, or a border-line socialist like hillary?

2/21/2008 10:00:09 AM

There is not any hard evidence here. Just wiffs that might have possibly done something wrong.
Example, when talking about McCain's Reform Institute, they do not say that he actually set it up as a way to get around his own ban on soft-money. Instead, they say it "seemed self-contradictory".

Same deal with the Keating scandal, the affair, the entire article. Nothing rock-solid, just the appearance of wrong-doing or shady dealing. And if there is anything this campaign is about, it's appearances.

Now, of course, let's see how they handle a similar situation Obama had with Tony Rezko.

Quote :

"There is no sign that Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, did anything improper."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html

Granted, there is no sign that McCain did anything improper. But you won't find a journalist saying that. Not this election anyways. Instead, they'll talk about the APPEARANCES of wrong-doing.

Uggg. Sometimes I see why people hate the NYT.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 10:05 AM. Reason : fuck fuck fuck]

2/21/2008 10:03:23 AM

Post one more caps lock beasted thread title again and see if I don't troll you to the stone age.

2/21/2008 10:04:18 AM

McCain got his peeny cut off in Hanoi. An affair is impossible. This is definately fake.

2/21/2008 10:04:19 AM

I mean, on journalistic standards alone, this shouldn't have been published because NO ONE can corroborate wrong doing... only guessing of wrong doing.


It's a hitjob.

2/21/2008 10:05:02 AM

^ Exactly! It makes so mad I could scream! Not once does the journalist document a case of wrong doing. He just has a list of things that might look bad in the press.

Arrrrr fuck fuck fuck.
At least I'm not the only one pissed off by the media this year.
I think they're still trying to make up for kissing Bush's ass for 7 years.

2/21/2008 10:08:09 AM

I don't even like McCain. But this pisses me off.

2/21/2008 10:12:33 AM

^^it wasn't published for a long time. apparently The New Republic was about to run a story about how the NYT was dragging their feet about running a story on their boy McCain. There was apparently a lot of division among the political staff at the NYT about this. i personally think they probably should have sat on this until they had more evidence (or until they got permission to name their sources). but they did have some outside forces at work.

2/21/2008 10:36:16 AM

ohhh scathing words from the New Republic sure would move the mighty New York Times to action.


That makes absolutely no sense.


From what I heard the New Republic was going to run the story and the NYT wanted to "break" the news themselves... This seems likely as the NYT has been premature to run "stories" before.

2/21/2008 10:41:04 AM

hey i'm not saying it's not premature. but look it up. TNR was going to run a story about the NYT not running their story on mccain.

2/21/2008 10:42:09 AM

I'm saying is if what you're saying is true, the NYT forewent journalistic integrity to appease another news outlet??

That's even worse.

2/21/2008 10:43:25 AM

more like there was already conflict within their newsroom on whether to print it or not.

2/21/2008 10:45:18 AM

^^^Yea but you'd think then the NYT would be able to say "we didn't run it because we have no proof" and then they could have turned it back on TNR.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ffffff]

2/21/2008 10:45:39 AM

the nyt wanted to run it. It is no mystery where their agenda lies.

2/21/2008 11:03:40 AM

yeah probably.

2/21/2008 11:49:06 AM

Quote :

"This would be a resume booster if McCain were a democrat, which he almost is."

How exactly is McCain considered SOO liberal

I did not know most democrats were...

pro life
big supporters of the war in iraq
against universal health care
supportive of school vouchers

I guess since McCain is not a tool for the neo-con Bush administration machine then OBVIOUSLY he is not truely a good conservative

Surely emphasizing fiscal responsibility by supporting a reduction in spending before just creating a bunch of tax cuts is part of the liberal agenda. So is anyone who is not on the war horn about illegal immigration.

People are pretty fed up with the way the current administration has run things the last 8 years. I do not see why conservatives are not happy about having a front runner candidate who might be able to give the GOP the white house even after Bush's fuck ups by bridging the moderate gap. Last year I did not think their was anyway i'd vote republican. Today with McCain as their main man I might be pulling the GOP lever in Nov.



[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM. Reason : a]

2/21/2008 12:10:18 PM

immigration
water boarding
huge restrictions on the 1st amendment
top 3 bills: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Liebermann
Gang of 13 bullshit to stop filibustering against judicial nominees (still pissed about that)

I could go on.

2/21/2008 12:29:03 PM

i like how being opposed to waterboarding means you're a liberal.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2008 12:30:10 PM

it is mostly an issue that democrats take up. They want to outlaw waterboarding at the expense of being able to extract dire information.

Most conservatives patently disagree with that.

2/21/2008 12:33:13 PM

The saddest part is all the people in this country who lack any critical reading skills will believe this as fact. So basically everyone.

2/21/2008 12:33:42 PM

I am not against waterboarding, but I think McCain has a MUCH closer and more intimate experience with torture, and if he said he wanted it gone, I would support that. Instead of just some feel good bullshit that a liberal may be promoting, he's very likely gone through it, and much worse, and has a fucking conscience.

2/21/2008 12:41:59 PM

I think there is some sort of document we signed quite some time ago that made it illegal for us to torture people.

Maybe I just dreamed that up...

2/21/2008 12:42:12 PM

and we also put japanese soldiers to death after WWII for water boarding american troops.

2/21/2008 12:43:15 PM

we're against other country's bombing us, therefore, we should not bomb them.


That is retarded logic.

2/21/2008 12:44:59 PM

Quote :

"The saddest part is all the people in this country who lack any critical reading skills will believe this as fact. So basically everyone."

It must be hard being smarter than everyone else in the world.

2/21/2008 12:45:03 PM

Quote :

"we're against other country's bombing us, therefore, we should not bomb them. That is retarded logic. "

No, that is retarded analogy

2/21/2008 12:57:00 PM

It is pretty tough, but I get by just knowing that I can come to the Soap Box on TWW and learn how I am supposed to feel about John McCain and Obama from imposing minds, among others from someone named nutsmackr

and if you really believe that most people that read that article have the skill to recognize that article lacks any substance, then you probably fall into the group of people that I was talking about.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 1:00 PM. Reason : dsf]

2/21/2008 12:59:06 PM

she kinda looks like his wife, so he probably made an honest mistake.....

2/21/2008 12:59:07 PM

Quote :

"water boarding"

I like how torture has turned into a partisan issue. Whoever does not support torture must be one of those liberals!

While I do hold some michaelivilian ideas and think sometimes the ends justify the means wherein in an extreme circumstance extreme measures might need to be taken; i can not nod my head and condone our gov't discretionary use of water boarding (torture) as they deem fit

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 5:49 PM. Reason : a]

2/21/2008 5:46:26 PM

Who said water boarding was torture? The problem is it hasn't been defined as torture except maybe subjectively. This is a legal issue.

Furthermore, where in the fuck do you guys get that it is a partisan issue? McCain is leading the charge against waterboarding. He has certainly done more than anyone else in DC.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 5:52 PM. Reason : sdf]

2/21/2008 5:48:54 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, where in the fuck do you guys get that it is a partisan issue?"

Oeuvre refuted my argument on McCains liberalism with

Quote :

"immigration water boarding huge restrictions on the 1st amendment top 3 bills: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Liebermann"

Quote :

"Who said water boarding was torture?"

haha, what is it then??? intense negotiation. What do you describe as torture??

btw i do not see why people on the GOP side take such offense at McCain crossing the aisle and making compromises in order to get stuff done in congress. I see this as a valuable trait in a president as we can see from the current situation on the problems when we have a stubborn president and a congress controlled by the opposite party.

As a ex-POW i think McCain has more credibility then any other candidate and DuBya to define the US policy on waterboarding

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : a]

2/21/2008 5:54:36 PM

I call water boarding what everyone who has any clue about the issue calls it, undefined.

Bush Administration and the Department of Justice believe that water boarding is "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" which was excluded when we signed the Convention Against Torture. It is not a part of 18 USC 2340.

There was no law against it in this country concerning the conduct of US officials outside the US. McCain tried to close this loophole when the Military Commissions Act was passed which condemned "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" but couldn't get any support, Democrat or Republic, to attach criminal sanctions.


McCain is actually walking the walk.



[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 6:03 PM. Reason : toning down]

2/21/2008 6:01:52 PM

wow.

so bush says and passed into law waterboarding is NOT torture therefore it must be true. Kinda like how Saddam was working with Osama and had WMDs according to Bush; thus it MUST be also true.

I might give you the argument of protecting agents who committed water boarding outside the US were it might NOT be illegal. This does not mean that i should also condone or support a president that uses it.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 6:31 PM. Reason : a]

2/21/2008 6:29:44 PM

Quote :

"i like how being opposed to waterboarding means you're a liberal. "

seriously. it's asinine, and I can't believe that we, as a country, are even having to argue this. Furthermore, I can't believe that anyone actually has the nerve to argue against John Fucking McCain on this issue.

Quote :

"Who said water boarding was torture? The problem is it hasn't been defined as torture except maybe subjectively. This is a legal issue."

No, it's a common sense issue. Tell you what...I'm moving back to NC in a few months. I'll be there for a few months before I leave for Iraq. If you want, we can try a little experiment while I'm there, and see how long it takes for me to convince you that waterboarding is inarguably torture.

Quote :

"Furthermore, where in the fuck do you guys get that it is a partisan issue? McCain is leading the charge against waterboarding."

Yes, and TAKING A PARTISAN BEATING BECAUSE OF IT.




I mean, if we decide that there are a handful of very unusual circumstances where we would do whatever it takes to get whatever information we can, then fine. I'm not opposed to that. Let's be real, though--waterboarding is torture, and it should be outlawed unless explicitely authorized for a last-ditch attempt at extracting specific information.

2/21/2008 8:04:22 PM

Wow.

You have no idea what you are talking about. At all. The convention against torture was ratified and came into force in 1987, and Bush doesn't pass laws. In 1987, a Bush was president, but it certainly the one that you hate for reasons that I am sure are unarticuable to someone like you.

Are you seriously this misinformed and uneducated on how our system of government works?

You might think that a lot of things should be legal that aren't and think that a lot of things that aren't illegal should be. Your opinion on the law means nothing to anyone on the planet.

What you should do is understand the Convention Against Torture and what it means for the US. I can tell you to get you started that it was a non-self executing treaty and that our reservation and understandings that we submitted are important to your not continuing to sound like the raging liberal idiot that you did in your last post.

Then, if you can read and understand what it means, then you should turn the the August 1, 2002 Memorandum from U.S. Department of Justice on Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §2340-2340(A) to Alberto Gonzales and the Memo that replaced it in 2004.

If you need help interpreting this data, then let me know.

After reading the memos it is important to understand the Military Commissions Act, the Torture Victims Prevention Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

After that, if you can wrap your head around the problem of water boarding and how it applies to this country, then we can talk. But it is obvious at this point all you are doing is the typical Democrat "BUSH IS EVAL YALL" schpeal. Yes, this administration is probably breaking the law, but you can't say that for sure and neither can anyone else. Hell, people were fighting with Mukasey for weeks about it. It's not because he had a vested interest in supporting Bush, it's because it's a murky subject.

But please continue on your rants about how awful the Bush administration is based solely on what rawstory.com feeds you.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM. Reason : zgrzd]

2/21/2008 8:20:44 PM

McCain isn't charismatic enough to get away with an affair and high approval ratings.

2/21/2008 8:36:03 PM

Quote :

"theDuke866: let's be real, though--waterboarding is torture, and it should be outlawed"

I'm so glad to see an active member of the armed services state as much so clearly.

I disagree about its authorization _under ANY circumstances_ out of respect for the 6th Amendment and conscious of the jeopardy it puts other servicemen in if they are captured abroad, but can fully respect anyone that will state clearly: waterboarding is torture

The fact that debate on this matter exists at all disgusts me.

Bravo, tho, Duke.

2/21/2008 8:36:06 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, I can't believe that anyone actually has the nerve to argue against John Fucking McCain on this issue."

That's what gets me. I'm no fan of the guy, but harassing a torture victim for opposing the practice makes my head spin.

2/21/2008 8:38:44 PM

Quote :

"i like how being opposed to waterboarding means you're a liberal."

Just look who the people supporting it are.

2/21/2008 8:48:04 PM

Quote :

"waterboarding is torture The fact that debate on this matter exists at all disgusts me. "

I agree that we should not be engaged in the practice. A country as advanced as us concerning surveillance, we should not have to resort to this practice. But to state subjective opinions about water boarding, especially if you have ever read any cases decided Internationally (England and Israel among others before the ICJ) about what does not consitute torture, then it is hard to at least not see the gray area.

There is a reason why it has been debated so much recently and its not because Bush is the only presidential administration to allow the CIA to utilize questionable techniques. In fact, there is strong evidence that every administration since the Vietnam War have allowed the CIA to use water boarding.

The problem is that Bush decided to ask the Department of Justice if it was legal and has allowed it to be used more commonly than before.

2/21/2008 8:55:45 PM