mr_genius

They can run negative stories form now until Nov (which I'm sure they will) for all I care, the NY Times isn't exactly a trusted news source for GOP voters. Why did they run the McCain story now? because they didn't want the New Republic story to scoop them. Let me guess, the New Republic is unbiased too. Also, I'm sure they plan on running pro-Obmam, anti-McCain stuff during the entire election. Why not start with this piece of crap story? Doesn't matter, nothing will ever convince you that NY Times has a bias. Honestly, thats fine with me. And I read that Newsweek article, if this is your guys big scandal on McCain I say lol

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 23, 2008 -> 07:51 PM) I'm not defending the story at all. I'm just asking how valid a bias claim is when the article is allegedly withheld throughout the political process until it won't affect the nomination process. Wouldn't it make sense, if this was a bias hit piece to print it when it might actually have an effect on the process - say at convention time or a couple weeks before the general? And wasn't this the same New York Times that allowed Jon Corzine's ex-wife pen an Op-Ed piece the weekend before the election that basically said because he was a horrible husband, that he'd be a horrible governor? The truth is that there are plenty of hit pieces that run on Page 1 about the Dems in the NY Times too. It's just Democrats don't cry bias every time a bit of negative news hits their side. No way, like I said before, they run way more GOP hit jobs in their news pages and editorials. Just because you can name one time they ran a negative story on a Dem is in no way proof they do not have a political bias. By your theory, if Bill O'reilly says one bad thing about a republican then 100 about democrats he is totally non biased because of the one, discounting the 100. I would suggest that no matter who won the GOP nomination, a political hit job was going to be on page one about that candidate. I'm sure they had Huckabee, Thompson, Guiliani, and Romney hit pieces ready to roll.

Best: Signing Alexei Ramirez Worst: Garland trade

But some Dems will defend it, because it's their political paper. It can do no wrong in their eyes. The big story isn't even the McCain scandal. It's the New Yorks times and how they are basically becoming the National Enquirer.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 22, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) Does the bias charge work so well here? Word on the street is that the NY Times held the story off throughout the early primary season and it didn't see the light of day until this week, when he had secured the nomination. The story is breaking 9 months before the next moment that matters for McCain, so it would hardly have a legitimate effect on the general election either, if the story amounts to nothing. Yes the bias charge works here. They rarely, if ever, run stories like this on Democrats. GOP hit jobs are a mainstay of the paper. They decided to run this article when they did because the New Republic was going to run the story. They weren't doing McCain any favors. They were probably going to wait until October to run it, when it would really 'hit' their political opponent. The article shouldn't have been printed at all, it's journalism at it's worst. It was a political attack ad masquerading as a story. But hey, keep defending it, even though it's obvious what this story was.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 03:49 PM) Yeah that sounds to be very rediculous, I didn't see it though. i wish i didn't either.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 04:52 PM) FWIW, there is now at least one former McCain staffer on record by name confirming a key part of the NY Times report...that McCain's staffers approached him in 1999 and complained about his relationship with that lobbyist, and McCain confirmed that there was something improper going on. uh, I read that... and if thats all they got lol

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 03:25 PM) And yet some people still wonder why others have a hard time taking Fox News seriously. they are the GOP's version of the New York Times.

on FOX news right now: expert explaining that bad weather and natural disasters are God punishing us for having gay people and stuff. Seriously, this is a real segment on Neal Cavuto show. He's had like a 15 minute segment. lol edit: the guy ended with saying it was the apocolypse and that he is going to be saved. Cuvuto: "thank you reverend, fascinating stuff. " C'mon FOX, this is just getting stupid.

I think the German embassy got trashed too. So if the Dems get in the white house they going to start bombing Kosovo again?

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) Also, off the top my head I know Obama-Coburn was successful in bringing unprecedented public transparency for Congressional earmarks by mandating the OMB release them to the public. In addition, Lugar-Obama secured lose nuclear weapons in Asia after the two were sent out on behalf of the Foreign Relations Committee to get that job done. I understand that you want to diminish the guy. That is quite alright with me. I've never pretended he's the most successful legislator running for higher office. It is a lie to label him as an unaccomplished Senator or some guy who merely throws out oratory. I would be hard-pressed to find a more prolific Senator in their first three years in office. Regarding McCain, can you name any of his legislative accomplishments in the last three years? four? The most recent one I can think of is McCain-Feingold, which you find illicit under the 1st Amendment. And the Federal Courts have been ruling parts of that legislation unconstitutional over the last few years. Well, I was like 12 back in the early McCain years in the Senate. Wasn't really into politics much, so I don't remember anything about that stuff I agree about the Feingold / McCain legislation, it sucks. Doesn't Obama support it ? Sorry, but I'm not buying that Obama secured any loose nuclear weapons. IMO McCain has been much more dedicated to removing ear marks than Obama.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) But we can't have decent health care for all Americans we also need free house care, free car care, and free 54' HD tv care.don't leave out that stuff. But seriously, health care costs need to be lower. Too bad a big government will likely make it more expensive.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 08:23 AM) And just think, people said it couldn't be done. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613 that is badass. but they can't even shoot missles in the rain. those losers.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 07:53 PM) The more I read this article, the more I have to think that the editors at the NYT just wouldn't have approved this article at all if they didn't honestly believe there was an actual "relationship" between McCain and that lobbyist. There must be more than they're writing here. Thehy're putting themselves in Drudge's attempted smear on Kerry territory otherwise, and they'd have to know that. We'll see, I suppose that is possible. But I think if they had the goods on this, why not include it in the article? Maybe they are just getting desperate and think going the Drudge route could help boost sales. Even if they believe the story, they still need something substancial (which the article did not contain). Hell, Dan Rather was even sure his GW report was right, even after getting busted going on air with forged documents. It was almost like he never really understood why it was such a big deal, because he truly believed what he was reporting. Thing is, even if it IS true, you still can't just go with a big story like this with no proof or false evidence. What a HUGE shot to the Times credibility if they got busted in a Dan Rather like scandal.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 12:29 AM) I don't know, I think the times has to worry about libel in a time like this. Any expensive lawsuits like that would be can really hurt a paper now that they are all strapped financially I wouldn't be surprised if the NYT sat on the story because their lawyers warned them they could be liable if they have no proof, but the paper didn't want to get scooped on it's own story.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:51 PM) It's a left leaning blog, but I think this analysis of the McCain story and its initial impact is a good one. Key points...1. The Times still ran the story and made the affair with a lobbyist allegation in the first few paragraphs. They must believe they have something. 2. The reason it reads like such a bouncing around piece of trash is that the McCain camp's lawyers have been challenging the NYT to prevent publication for at least 2 months now. Which means that most of the claims were probably stronger, but the NYT knew that they could only push so far based on what they had. 3. Other publications were in the hunt on this story, which is why the NYT ran it now, to get it out first, even if they couldn't put out the strongest article possible because of the lawyering. 4. The McCain response, as I noted...is all bluster, but doesn't directly address the substance of the article at all, and this is worth noting. There is no "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in the initial response from the McCain campaign. 5. This won't be the last we hear of this piece. The article is complete trash reporting, more fit for the national enquirer than a premier newspaper. There are no facts to back up the articles opening statement that McCain cheated on his wife. Where are the sources, NYT? I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have any. I read nothing into McCain's statement not containing anything about the supposed 'relationship'. He has already denied it, as has the supposed mistress. Of course McCain's lawyers warned the Times, if this article is a fraud, they could take legal action.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 06:51 PM) UH OH! Did McCain and Lobbyist have a Romantic Relationship? meh, just another NY times hatchet job. Who cares. Looks as if Jayson Blair working as a news content consultant.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 06:24 PM) Except it is not at all like that analogy. He wasn't just demanding things get better, he was able to get Nicholson, then VA Sec. to Illinois to face people in Illinois who wanted answers to problems that had been building way the hell before Obama was even a candidate for U.S. Senate. As a result of these meetings, conditions for Ill. Vets improved dramatically, specifically in the area of PTSD screening. I'm glad the situation has improved and Obama did the right thing. If reading an article in the paper, then sending a guy out to solve problems that obviously needed attention is one of his big accomplishments, his campaign should be bragging about it.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 05:58 PM) Who cares about that? Walter Reed thingy didn't get reported on until only last year. It only matters then. Sounds good to me. So how did this end? Did he follow through? have things greatly improved because of Obama? And it seems like he was responding to a Sun-Times article, not the other way around. If he was just "demanding action be taken", then claiming this is a major accomplishment is like someone who was governor seeing an article in the newspaper that there was a murderer on the loose and "demand they be captured" then say it is a major accomplishment to recognize criminals should be arrested.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 05:26 PM) I never actually thought it was impossible. I just think that it was idiotic to move the system to deployment more than a decade before it was ready. Remember, there are 3 criteria for whether or not a missile defense system is worth the money it takes to deploy it. 1. It must be highly effective under all scenarios - if an enemy thinks they can beat the system by launching when the system is inoperative, then it's useless. 2. It must be cost effective compared with the cost of an ICBM. If it costs $1 billion an interceptor and $20 million an ICBM, then all your enemy has to do is build more ICBM's and your defense system is rendered useless because you will run out of money before them. 3. It must be able to overcome countermeasures. A common technique, for example, would be to wrap the actual warhead in a mylar bubble, and place several other decoy bubbles in the same warhead, so that the interceptor loses the ability to distinguish between the real bomb and an empty bubble using visual detection. At the time of deployment, and it seems still...the current system, which we've spent tens of billions of dollars deploying, seems like it can't do any of those. A missile defense shield is a fine idea in principle. The current system is not up to the task it's been given. It should still be in the research phase. I'm sure it's still being worked on, and will be for some time. Also, I think the program is further along than I would know about. A missile defense system isn't really the type of thing that you would give out the blueprints too and give exact details as to how far along it is. Technological details on how to overcome counter measures is another thing I wouldn't expect the gov to just give out to the general public.

Just saw a guy from the Obama campaign giving an interview. He was asked to give one Obama accomplishment, the guy just blabbed about change or something stupid... interviewer said "No, give me a specific accomplishment". Guy from Obama campaign was like "we can't really give anything specific".

Some democrat said that about Obama yuppies at a campaign event. edit: Oh, and he was a invited speaker, not just some guy in the audience.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) Well the thing is it's a hell of a strategy. Remember, this was made back in december, so if he dropped out of the race, he would've been paying off the debts with public funding. Obviously it paid off, but I mean this is the guy that created the campaign finance reform, if anything this just kind of proves it's not a reality. They are just going to circumvent it. Has any change really happened? the races have become more expensive at just as high a rate. That campaign finance reform deal does suck. The worst part, IMO, is it violates free speech.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 12:33 PM) (You can probably guess who said that). I guessed Sean Hannity. Close enough.

He didn't break any of the regulations, but somehow this is a scandal? Seriously, you guys are really stretching on this issue. If thats all the major "scandal" with McCain, he is in good shape.