McCain supporters not happy with the NY Times
-
- February
- 21
As you might expect, today’s New York Times story about John McCain and his relationship — romantic or otherwise — with a female telecommunications lobbyist is not being well received by his local supporters.
“Slander,” said John Fleming, who is executive assistant to Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone and serves on McCain’s New York steering committee. “I think its pretty obvious that the Times should not have gone forward with this because it is all hearsay from anonymous sources.”
Fleming also said the story appeared to come from “disgruntled” former campaign workers. He and other McCain supporters also expressed confidence that the story would not damage the Arizona senator’s efforts to build a better relationship with conservatives.
“It’s an eight year old story and its all allegations and anonymous sources,” said Rockland GOP Chaiman Vincent Reda. “I think it does no damage at all and I think it does discredit to the New York Times.”
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm by Glenn Blain.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Email This
It’s not just McCain supporters who don’t buy
what the Times is trying to peddle. Many of
the liberal talking heads are very dubious of it.
There are no direct accusations, just innuendo.
There are no accusers on the record either.
Unless there is something else, the NY Times of
the disgraced Jayson Blair has done it again.
“All the news that fits, we print.”
FLEMING – UMM OKAY – NOT A GREAT SPOKESPERSON.
Louie, Louie returns. How ya been, Lou?
If anyone sees the latest AP story, you will see
that Bennett says McCain’s campaign gave the
NY Slimes about a dozen instances where McCain
took positions opposite those of this lobbyist
and her client or clients.
But the Slimes didn’t include that data in
its “article.”
Keating five and Carol Shepp
New York Times has lost its integrity over the years everyone knows this, Its nothing but a tabloid newspaper now .. Whats next in the NY Times John McCain seen meeting with space aliens. VOTE McCAIN AND STOP THESE SPECIAL INTREST GROUPS IN THERE TRACKS.
the new york times article should never have been written for the following journalistic reasons.
1. it was based on anonymous sources who were clearly disgrutled former aides (not necessarily campaign aids)
who had an ax to grind
2. it was based not on any independently corroberated
facts about any relationship with the female lobbyist
but rather on “what the aids said they were worried about”
ie what they imagined
3. McCain’s sole act with regard to the lobbyist was to
ask the FCC to decide the matter…which had been left
undecided for 800 days…cases usually get decided in 400
4. The times had the information in December, well before
the primaries and if it thought that the contents were
important why did they not impart the information to the
voters prior to the determinative Feb 5th contests instead
of waiting until Mc Cain had sewn up the nomination
5. The times endorsed John MCCain in the primaries even
though they had the information
6. The introduction of the ancient Keating Five scandal
was not part of this story nor was MCcain ever found
to have committed wrongdoing in connection therewith
as opposed to the other senators involved all of whom
lost their office while MCCain was re-eelcted with a
substantial majority
7. The times was given information by the McCain camp
which would have demonstrated that some of the actions
taken by the senator were against the stated interest
of the client of the lobbyist…none of which was reported
8.The only concern a McCain campaign person had was that
the lobbyist was misrepresenting and overstating her
influence with the senator which was a legitimate
issue upon which to have a conversation with her and
that same person did not address and was not suspicious
of any kind of physical relationship
9. The times rushed to print in order to beat another
publication ie to be first…which brings us to the
conflict of interest that every media outlet
print or tv has….THE PROFIT MOTIVE…..
so if any one violated ethics it is the NEW YORK TIMES
If the story is baseless, why did McCain personally hire Bill Bennett to try to suppress the story back in December, and has since claimed he knew nothing about the allegations? (Because if it had come out in December, Romney’d be the fair-haired boy right now. The National GOP pretty much decided that McCain was their best chance, and threw Romney to the side, because he was coming off as too conservative to appeal to the center.)
BTW, the real story is not about sex, the story is that McCain says stuff like this…
“Too often the special interest lobbyists with the fattest wallets and best access carry the day when issues of public policy are being decided,”
...and then you get one lobbyist bragging all over K Street about her access to McCain. The SAME McCain who has ELEVEN current or former lobbyists on his campaign staff. In contrast, Clinton has 2 or 3, Obama has ZERO.
Straight Talk, my behind.
The dew is off of the lily. John McCain has been the darling of the media and has gotten a free pass. That appears to be changing. Expect to see a more careful examination of McCain’s past activities and relationships with lobbyists.
Regarding the Keating Five – McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for intervening with the banking regulators on behalf of Keating. It was also discovered that McCain and his wife took at least nine trips paid for by Keating including stays at Keating’s luxury retreat in the Bahamas. Only when Keating came under fire did McCain decide it would be a good idea to reimburse Keating for those trips.
Give it a rest, YellowDog, aka 7Curses, aka blah blah. Rabid partisans like yourself offer nothing of substance to the conversation. Nobody takes your posts seriously.
Yes Sara, the only rabid partisans who matter are those on the right. Are you saying that my comments are false? If so, please elaborate as I am open to being corrected. If not, have a nice day you fool.
The Times story is trash. That paper has been going
down in a hurry the last ten years.
New Republic has something out this afternoon,
writing about the in-fighting at
the Times over whether to run this story or not.
That’s what the Times was worried about.
The Times didn’t want to be embarrassed by the
New Republic, so it pulled the trigger…firing blanks.
Maybe McCain will learn a lesson from this. He tried
to cozy up to liberal media like the Times. He
should have known they’d turn on him the first chance
they had. But first, they wanted to make sure Romney was
gone, and that Huckabee was going nowhere.
The Consultant should think about that too, when
he waxes poetic about “progressive” Republicans.
McCain was too polite denying this story. He said
he was “disappointed” in the Times. He could have
kept that measured tone, but used a word like
“disgusted” or “appalled.”
what’s up ethan and walt i know you guys missed me:)
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too little.
YEAH, I DID MISS YA LOU! HOPE YOU’RE DOING OK!
Glenn,
This kind of obvious hatchet job, veiled behind unattributed hearsay, makes me appreciate The Journal News’ policy of not using anonymous sources. I hope that policy continues to be your standard.
David Simpson
Yeah, Lou. Everyone missed you.
To David Simpson, sometimes anonymous sources
are necessary, but not all the time, and certainly
not to do anonymous hatchet jobs on people.
Walt’s premise is incorrect..Bob Bennett, not Bill Bennett was hired to fully cooperate with the Times inquiries and to
supply them with information as requested by their team of
reporters. That information was supplied and there were
at least a dozen examples of Senator McCain acting
contrary to the interest of this particular lobbyist
not one of them appeared in the article….How objective
does that make the story..not one example…just the
implication of a sexual relationship which the times
knows will sell papers..Not only that, but Kellerman
the TImes Editor is a liar..He said that the story came
across his desk on Tuesday and he had to make a decsision
to go with it…But he admits talking to McCain about
the story back in December so he knew about it before
Tuesday…so it could not have just hit his desk
could it…
That’s all true, Consultant. That
liberal “bible” has been losing its
so-called sanctity for at least ten years now.
They also endorsed McCain as their “favorite
Republican” knowing this was in the works.
Do you have a problem with that? I do.
Not only do you and I have a problem with it..but
editors of the chicago tribune, Time Magazine, and others
on talk radio and tv of both the right and the left have
a problem with the New York Times going with an undocumented
speculative story with no independent corroboration on
its front page after the Republican nominee has been chosen
when they had the information well before the primaries
and chose not to go with it then…The Times does not
want a Republican President and they know full well that
McCain can beat either HIllary or Obama…so they
simply made a poltical decision to try and sully his
reputation without for a moment considering whether
or not they could substantiate any of it..it is all
based on whim theory congering fantasy and what others
may have been concerned about not with what can be
empirically demonstrated by hard evidence or sources
that do not hide behind anonymity..
When the Times calls McCain their “favorite Republican, and when they trash him by innuendo with shoddy journalism, they stab him from front and rear. Their Editorial Board and their News Division have each done their best to discredit him. In light of recent events at the Times, it doesn’t surprise the discriminating reader that they would stoop to this kind of blatant character assassination; that they would put it on their front page shows how far they have fallen.