WWTBAM Bored

Imagine I'm looking for conservatives to vote for me. Aside from magically, retroactively, changing my voting record, I could get some votes (just out of sympathy) by getting broadsided by the New York Times. And this is a paper that ENDORSED him.

Let's see, in the past month the Times has run articles based on Obama's 1995 admission that he used cocaine in college, and on 8-year-old rumors about McCain's dating habits. The Newspaper of Record has become the History Channel.[/i]

The NYT doesn't accuse McCain of anything. It reports that some of his staffers were worried that his relationship with a lobbyist might appear inappropriate.

Apparently, the Times had this story back in December but McCain's people were able to spike it then. Needless to say, it would have been far more damaging to him if it had been released in December rather than now, when it is more of an embarrassment than anything else.

Even if the two were having an affair and the Times can prove it, there's only a tiny fraction of this country's electorate who will hold a heterosexual affair against a married man, Republican or not. Those few conservatives who do feel strongly about it aren't voting Democratic anyway.

The blowback on this story seems to be far more about the Times for engaging in tabloid style journalism than against McCain for having the affair. This may prove problematic for the Times and for Obama, who has been able to keep his Rezko relationship out of the mainstream press for the most part. Rezko goes on trial in a week and the Times will now be in a very difficult situation if it doesn't devote substantial coverage to it. Plus, if Obama does have any skeletons in his own personal closet (and I've heard some ugly rumors to this effect), the chances of their getting mainstream coverage have expanded substantially.

My own view is that the myth of the "liberal" media in the year 2008 is pretty much just that, a myth. It arose because the Times, Post and the three networks devoted a lot of time to covering Vietnam and Watergate. Their anti-Vietnam coverage was as much anti-LBJ as it became anti-Nixon. While a number of the TImes' editorial board are no doubt liberal, they try to be fair. However, by claiming "liberal media" at the drop of a hat, the right wing noise machine is able to force the mainstream media into covering a number of stories of otherwise dubious merit, simply because Fox News chooses to cover them.

Even if the implication of this story is that McCain tried to help this woman's clients politically in return for favors in bed, it's less damaging than what the Rezko story has to offer, because Obama took hundreds of thousands in cash from a far less attractive (in a number of ways) individual. And that story will be much harder for Obama to spike in the future.

silverscreenselect wrote: Even if the two were having an affair and the Times can prove it, there's only a tiny fraction of this country's electorate who will hold a heterosexual affair against a married man, Republican or not. Those few conservatives who do feel strongly about it aren't voting Democratic anyway.

The idea of anyone having sex with McCain is icky!

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Even if the two were having an affair and the Times can prove it, there's only a tiny fraction of this country's electorate who will hold a heterosexual affair against a married man, Republican or not. Those few conservatives who do feel strongly about it aren't voting Democratic anyway.

The idea of anyone having sex with McCain is icky!

I would liken sex with McCain to sex with a robot.

Tocqueville3 wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Even if the two were having an affair and the Times can prove it, there's only a tiny fraction of this country's electorate who will hold a heterosexual affair against a married man, Republican or not. Those few conservatives who do feel strongly about it aren't voting Democratic anyway.

The idea of anyone having sex with McCain is icky!

I would liken sex with McCain to sex with a robot.

Androids need love too!

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote: The idea of anyone having sex with McCain is icky!

You could probably say that about thousands of rich and powerful men who have no shortage of women willing to hop into bed with them.

silverscreenselect wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote: The idea of anyone having sex with McCain is icky!

You could probably say that about thousands of rich and powerful men who have no shortage of women willing to hop into bed with them.

Yeah, remember Henry Kissinger? Ugh!

McCain may be too old to cut the mustard, but he can still lick the lid.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Even if the two were having an affair and the Times can prove it, there's only a tiny fraction of this country's electorate who will hold a heterosexual affair against a married man, Republican or not. Those few conservatives who do feel strongly about it aren't voting Democratic anyway.

The idea of anyone having sex with McCain is icky!

And yet he keeps attracting younger women...

nitrah55 wrote:Imagine I'm looking for conservatives to vote for me. Aside from magically, retroactively, changing my voting record, I could get some votes (just out of sympathy) by getting broadsided by the New York Times. And this is a paper that ENDORSED him.

Hmmm... Now where is that post I made several weeks ago stating that it was just a matter of time before they turn on McCain once he got the nomination.

Let's face it folks. The NY Times is no better fishwrap than The Inquirer except that it has a sports section and crossword puzzle.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:McCain may be too old to cut the mustard, but he can still lick the lid.

Ewwwwwwww!

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:McCain may be too old to cut the mustard, but he can still lick the lid.

Ewwwwwwww!

I told you - you didn't want to read it.

I told you.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

nitrah55 wrote:Imagine I'm looking for conservatives to vote for me. Aside from magically, retroactively, changing my voting record, I could get some votes (just out of sympathy) by getting broadsided by the New York Times. And this is a paper that ENDORSED him.

Hmmm... Now where is that post I made several weeks ago stating that it was just a matter of time before they turn on McCain once he got the nomination.

Let's face it folks. The NY Times is no better fishwrap than The Inquirer except that it has a sports section and crossword puzzle.

The Times also loses points because it has no comics. Aside from William Kristol, of course.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Tocqueville3 wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote: The idea of anyone having sex with McCain is icky!

I would liken sex with McCain to sex with a robot.

Androids need love too!

What was it that Data said to Tasha Yar? Something about being programmed with knowledge about thousands of ways to produce sexual gratification?

I will give McCain credit for one thing: At least he had a (supposed) relationship with a consenting female... unlike a certain legislator from a certain northwest state.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I will give McCain credit for one thing: At least he had a (supposed) relationship with a consenting female... unlike a certain legislator from a certain northwest state.

HEY! I heard that!

Hey, Larry "wide stance" Craig.....were you the center on your football team? I know you weren't the tight end.

ulysses5019 wrote:Hey, Larry "wide stance" Craig.....were you the center on your football team? I know you weren't the tight end.

I was never on a football team. I was on a baseball team. I was the catcher.

Putting this article in context, it is one of 32 backgrounders on the various candidates so far. It is the second on McCain. The first discussed his family life over four decades, and noted he has two young sons serving in active duty. One (at least then), in Iraq.


If any of the articles have been damaging, those on dear Rudy, and on dearer Hillary probably have been the most important, especially that on Hillary which skewered her claim to "experience".

The grey lady needs lots of words to fill the spaces between the ads. You can find whatever you want, if you look.

ulysses5019 wrote:Hey, Larry "wide stance" Craig.....were you the center on your football team? I know you weren't the tight end.

That's nasty. Funny, but nasty.

I would liken sex with McCain to sex with a robot.

Can't say I ever really thought about it!

I'm too busy looking at his wife & thinking Holy Crap -- it's one of the kids from Village of the Damned, all growed up

I think they're tinted contacts (since her eyes don't look like that in older pix) -- but yeesh! Those pale, pale orbs are NOT a good look.

VAdame wrote:I'm too busy looking at his wife & thinking Holy Crap -- it's one of the kids from Village of the Damned, all growed up

I think they're tinted contacts (since her eyes don't look like that in older pix) -- but yeesh! Those pale, pale orbs are NOT a good look.

Did you ever watch a TV show from the mid-'80s called "V"? You know how the aliens had to wear special human-like eyes in order to mask their natural alien eyes? I think Cindy McCain forgot to put on her special eyes.

Sure -- the Lizard People! I remember one of the human women giving birth to twins -- one looked like a lizard; the other looked human but had a lizard tongue I remember wondering if the lizard-baby had a human tongue?

She still looks more like a Village of the Damned kid to me though:

I think she's kinda pretty.

I think she should tone down her hair a little. Maybe go for a more honey colored hair instead of white blonde.