Of course, major news outlets like the New York Times would never touch a story like this. Can you imagine a distinguished paper like that putting speculation and innuendo about a Presidential candidate and an extramarital affair on the front page without any corroborating evidence?
Oh, wait.
6 comments:
HA! I was just reading about that over at Gawker. Crazy media world we live in.
True, true. The NYT only reports on Republican infidelities leading up to an election.
Oh wait...
Mike, I'm not seeing in that article where the Times just goes ahead and suggests there was an affair even though there is no evidence, like the cheap tabloid-level newspaper it has become.
And Dave, again, you fail to read the article you prop up as evidence, which also includes this:
"Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office."
You wrote in June:
"And given McCain's actual record of fighting against earmarks and other pork barrel, I will take him over Obama."
No opinions, no fights. Just pointing out inconsistencies.
Why choose sides? Can't we all agree that the NYT blows AND that McCain totally fucked that chick?
And Mike, your own argument does not follow any logic. From the same article:
>>After the Republican takeover of the Senate in 1994, Mr. McCain decided to try to put some of the lessons he had learned into law. He started by attacking earmarks, the pet projects that individual lawmakers could insert anonymously into the fine print of giant spending bills, a recipe for corruption. But he quickly moved on to other targets, most notably political fund-raising.<<
Go read the quote you muster a little more carefully and you will see that it does not contradict my comment from an earlier post. They aren't even talking about the same thing.
The quote you chose says (a) he resigned from a nonproft group because it was taking money from corporations and (b) he has lobbyists in his campaign. I'm not seeing where there is anything about McCain's support for pork barrel, which is what the quotation from my post says.
Go look up McCain's actual voting record. He is regularly ranked in the top three or four in the Senate in his opposition to pork barrel spending by groups like Citizens Against Government Waste. (BTW, Obama, even though he is only a freshman Senator, ranked in the bottom 10%). He has a long-standing and well known policy against pork barrel spending.
So, no, you haven't shown any inconsistency that I can see. Your quote talks about lobbyists. My quote talks about McCain's actual voting record against pork barrel spending. Where's the inconsistency?
Post a Comment