So, this changes from time to time. I try something, I fail, I try something else, I fail.
Someday, something will not fail.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
McCain and the Lovely Lobbyist.
Damn. Let's see how the conservatives deal with this one...
Personally, I don't care at all...but it definitely is going to be interesting to watch. And unless I'm entirely tone deaf, this is gonna be quite a slap in the face.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Its interesting that the story’s lurid details come from “two blind quotes”. National Enquirer type stuff. Pair that up with the Keating scandal, and boom you have a story. Interestingly, this story was originally supposed to be published in December, but the Times squashed after an interview with McCain in which he answered questions about Iseman and his alleged “betrayal of the public trust”. It wasn’t until the Times learned that The New Republic’s Gabe Sherman was doing an article about why the Times didn’t publish the article, that the Times decided to go ahead with it. McCain’s campaign manager has denied that he spoke to McCain about banning Ms. Iseman, and that the McCain campaign will soon be releasing statements from the dozens of people interviewed in the times for the story, who denied many of the facts alleged, including Ms. Iseman’s frequent presence in McCain’s Senate office. The New York Times has stooped to a new low. The lobbyist didn’t “accompany” McCain to fund raisers, she attended McCain fundraisers. This article doesn’t reflect on McCain, it reflects on the New York Times which, in competition with The New Republic, decided to release a story that would smear McCain rather than make the New York Times newsroom look bad. Look for Gabe Sherman’s story to be released in less than a day.
Pick through my post about this and tell me at which point I "took a shot at your guy".
I think at this point we basically don't know anything at all, and we're going to start finding out more details as time goes on...at which point I may have an opinion. I don't know where you have gotten all of your facts from suddenly on the day of publication. But in the end, the facts will come out one way or the other...and facts are facts, and I'm just not interested in leaping to battle to win it when anything is so far from established.
Which is why I find all the anti-NYTimes sentiment so annoying at this point. This could have been timed in a much much worse way. It could have happened before Iowa, New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, the general election cycle, or any other critical time. Instead, it comes out after McCain has already solidified his lead in the primaries.
I don't think I have any objection to standing up for McCain, it's just that your post is so laced with what I can only describe as (leaving the McCain issue aside) O'Reillean, Hannitean, Limbaughian flairs, loaded words, and borderline ad hominem attacks that it generally pushes me to a point where I can't take it seriously.
More importantly, none of this matters because I have steaks coming in a couple of days and I have to figure out how I can eat as many as I can in the span of a week.
The very title of your post “McCain and the Lovely Lobbyist” takes a shot at my guy. I did my research and checked the story before posting my thoughts. You didn’t, and just posted away. Presuming I’m being all neo-con and inflammatory, I’ll play ball and quote the Bible. Check the Book of Acts, chapter 17, verse 11. Now, why do you have to eat all the steaks in a week?
She is a young, pretty blonde lobbyist. My post consisted of 1) "hey, here's the link" and 2) I wonder what the conservatives that hate McCain will say?
What facts was I supposed to check so that the post was accurate?
6 comments:
Its interesting that the story’s lurid details come from “two blind quotes”. National Enquirer type stuff. Pair that up with the Keating scandal, and boom you have a story. Interestingly, this story was originally supposed to be published in December, but the Times squashed after an interview with McCain in which he answered questions about Iseman and his alleged “betrayal of the public trust”.
It wasn’t until the Times learned that The New Republic’s Gabe Sherman was doing an article about why the Times didn’t publish the article, that the Times decided to go ahead with it. McCain’s campaign manager has denied that he spoke to McCain about banning Ms. Iseman, and that the McCain campaign will soon be releasing statements from the dozens of people interviewed in the times for the story, who denied many of the facts alleged, including Ms. Iseman’s frequent presence in McCain’s Senate office.
The New York Times has stooped to a new low. The lobbyist didn’t “accompany” McCain to fund raisers, she attended McCain fundraisers. This article doesn’t reflect on McCain, it reflects on the New York Times which, in competition with The New Republic, decided to release a story that would smear McCain rather than make the New York Times newsroom look bad. Look for Gabe Sherman’s story to be released in less than a day.
RS
Wah.
P.S. Why are you so consistently annoying?
If you take a shot at my guy, don't you think I'm going to fight back. McCain's speech on the issue was pretty good.
RS
Pick through my post about this and tell me at which point I "took a shot at your guy".
I think at this point we basically don't know anything at all, and we're going to start finding out more details as time goes on...at which point I may have an opinion. I don't know where you have gotten all of your facts from suddenly on the day of publication. But in the end, the facts will come out one way or the other...and facts are facts, and I'm just not interested in leaping to battle to win it when anything is so far from established.
Which is why I find all the anti-NYTimes sentiment so annoying at this point. This could have been timed in a much much worse way. It could have happened before Iowa, New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, the general election cycle, or any other critical time. Instead, it comes out after McCain has already solidified his lead in the primaries.
I don't think I have any objection to standing up for McCain, it's just that your post is so laced with what I can only describe as (leaving the McCain issue aside) O'Reillean, Hannitean, Limbaughian flairs, loaded words, and borderline ad hominem attacks that it generally pushes me to a point where I can't take it seriously.
More importantly, none of this matters because I have steaks coming in a couple of days and I have to figure out how I can eat as many as I can in the span of a week.
Dude,
The very title of your post “McCain and the Lovely Lobbyist” takes a shot at my guy. I did my research and checked the story before posting my thoughts. You didn’t, and just posted away. Presuming I’m being all neo-con and inflammatory, I’ll play ball and quote the Bible. Check the Book of Acts, chapter 17, verse 11.
Now, why do you have to eat all the steaks in a week?
RS
She is a young, pretty blonde lobbyist. My post consisted of 1) "hey, here's the link" and 2) I wonder what the conservatives that hate McCain will say?
What facts was I supposed to check so that the post was accurate?
Post a Comment