Letters to the Editor
-
Speaking of Phonies...
Did anyone else feel nauseated at the manipulativeness of Clinton's final Texas debate answer? The studio audience couldn't see her up close, but it sure came off over television...
Actually, it reminded me of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHGAxGZts8M
-
republicans
These pols make me sick to my stomach with their hypocrisy and hubris, there’s not one among them who would still have their liberty had they been working in the private sector, yes politics is a dirty game, but these people are criminals and should be sent up to the hill for trial by their peers, they have used fear and intimidation to thwart the will of the people and to a larger measure to oppress the press, the only thing remarkable about this expose is that it was printed at all, where are your records mister bush.
-
The "Newspaper of Record" Becomes the National Enquirer...That's the Real Story
1. Without the sexual element, the NYTimes would not have had an article to publish.
2. This article (Conason's) presupposes that a lobbyist is per force a dishonest scumbag and therefore anyone surrounding himself with them--even if they are working in a nominally different capacity--is himself a character of questionable ethics.
3. Lobbyists are paid advocates serving clients' agendas. Attorneys are paid advocates serving clients' agendas. Advertising people are paid advocates serving clients' agendas. Professional political consultants are paid advocates, as are Public Relations people.
4. If McCain had surrounded himself with any of the "professionals" cited above, would that be a news story?
I have been a NTTimes reader since I was able to read and I cannot recall the "newspaper of record" publishing as vacuous and sleazy a story as 'Blondie & Johnny' ever before.
There's no story without the sex angle, and even that angle consists of mere innuendo, rumour and gossip.
If McCain's a crook, say so...and prove it.
If not, leave this garbage to the National Enquirer.
-
Malthust
Gee, was that your voice on that video?...yuk, yuk, yuk. Now THAT was nauseating.
Sounds like a troll, talks like a troll, probably walks like a troll, too! Wow! You ARE a troll! Yuk, yuk, yuk.
-
no issue for democrats
At least concerning the affair. Why? Because of Bill Clinton. Dems were more than willing to ignore Bill's multiple affairs, and they should not care about McCains. If there are ethics issues attached, then we should be concerned. But to fake outrage over an affair would be tremendously hypocritical of the Democrats. Bill Clinton not only lied under oath, he all but enlisted supporters in his denial. He promised the nation the charges were not true, and people believed him. That is easily as bad as McCain, so unless something more serious comes out in all of this, I won't care.
-
Not voting for McCain -- who cares who he boinks
The American obsession of who a politician boinks borders on retarded. I mean, isn't there other stuff to worry about?
The only irony I see here is that the so-called liberal NYT just gave the far right X-ian fundies a hand job. Lets hope the fundies run with this and plunder McCain and the GOP in the process.
-
Question
Is what McCain did illegal, or just unseemly? I have no idea what the rules are where lobbyists are concerned. Thanks!
-
Phony
I don't often read other comments about articles in Salon, but needed a bit of inspiration, or disinspiration this time.
What people tend to do is look at things on a surface level of meaning. Thus we get angry responses about "sensationalism" and "sleaze."
Actually, this probably spells the end of McCain's candidacy. He had the nomination sewed up, much to the dismay of the "Republican" hierarchy. He was pretty much a guaranteed loser, but there wasn't much they could do about it. Now, it all unravels.
It's not likely that this story doesn't have legs, so to speak. The New York Times may have had no problem passing on the Bush criminal regime's lies about "Iraq," but on something like this, the editors would have to have a pretty good case before going to print. The sound in McCain's voice when he denied it sounded pretty deflated. I actually felt sorry for him, but glad too. He's as fake as any other "Republican."
One thing that is certain to come back to the fore is the "Keating Five" scandal. That is, if McCain is still in the race. McCain has been able to bury it as an aberration, but now it appears to be part of a pattern. In the coming days, more is likely to come out about his other curious friendships and associations.
The only real question is this: Who had it in for McCain? Who is behind this story? Actually, it's an old question. The late Mike Royko, columnist for the Chicago Daily News, Sun Times, and Tribune, often said that was his first question. If Joe Conason were a little funnier, he could be considered heir to the legacy.
-
Blond, Blond, my love is Blond...
Doo-Doo-Doo-Doo, Doo-Doo-Doo-Doo-Doooooo...
-
@damnthatxanadu
No, it's not my voice. I actually agree with you that the voiceover goes too far. I simply put up the first video of this event that came up on youtube- I didn't realize that this one had the "yuk, yuks" on it. I did not mean to be a troll but clearly have been one.
Nonetheless, my point is that it is an established pattern of political manipulation on the part of the Clintons. I actually prefer the Senator to her husband and was upset to see what I would say is a similar side of her on display tonight.
Again, apologies for the specific link and for the trollish-ness.
-
It's not my problem
Normally his sex life would not be any of my business except for the fact he represents the party that is predicated upon so-called "morality." So yeah, he does owe us an explanation.
Of course, I find it revolting that the alleged mistress looks like both his wife AND daughter. Creepy!!
-
@hlc3333
Oh give me a break. Republicans are falling all over themselves right now to feign righteous indignation at how outrageous it is that McCain's extramarital activities should even be mentioned, let alone considered as a political issue. Oh, woe is us! This is DIRTY POLITICS! To publicly discuss private matters between man and wife, which have no bearing on his candidacy or his ability to do his job... why, it's DISGUSTING!!
For once, we're in agreement. Too bad you didn't feel the same way when you were dragging Bill Clinton through the mud for years on end (well, it hasn't really ended) for something that was between him and his wife, and no one else. Funny how you guys only think it's wrong when it's your own at the wrong end of the slop bucket.
Everyone needs to just stay out of other people's bedrooms... and if you can't manage that, don't act all indignant when it's done right back to you.