Starting today, I will be releasing 1 of 5 videos that show exactly who Barack Obama really is. Enjoy!
p.s. The video goes kinda fast, so it might be wise to pause when each new paragraph comes up so you will be able to read it completely.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
the geographic affect of John McCains VP choices
By: Tanner Stoker
As the summer rolls on, one thing remains on everybody in the Republican party's mind. Who will John McCain pick for his VP? Will he Choose a conservative and rally the base of the party or will he move to the center and try to gain some independents? What ever the case, it's always interesting to see how much affect each possible VP will have geographically. So, we'll go through each of the top contenders one by one then make a final conclusion. Something to consider is what states are swing states, they are, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Michagan, Ohio Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamphsire, North Dakota, South Dakota
McCain-Lieberman
swing states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Michigan, Ohio, Penn., Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
Lieberman should not even be considered, he will not lock up any swing states.
McCain-Crist
swing states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Ohio, Penn., Virginia, North Carolina, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
States Gained: Florida
Electoral college:
D:200
R:195
Toss up: 143
My theory is, if McCain needs Crist to win Florida, he has no chance.
McCain-Huckabee
Swing states: New Mexico, Iowa,Minn, Ohio, Penn. North Carolina, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
States gained; Virginia, Missouri
States lost: Nevada, Colorado
Electoral College:
D: 214
R: 192
toss up: 132
McCain-Ridge
Who???
McCain-Romney
Swing States: New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Ohio, Penn, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hamphsire
States Gained: Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan
Electoral college:
D:200
R:205
toss up: 133
So, of the candidates reviewed so far, Romney appears to be the best. i will continue reviewing each possible VP choice throughout the week.
As the summer rolls on, one thing remains on everybody in the Republican party's mind. Who will John McCain pick for his VP? Will he Choose a conservative and rally the base of the party or will he move to the center and try to gain some independents? What ever the case, it's always interesting to see how much affect each possible VP will have geographically. So, we'll go through each of the top contenders one by one then make a final conclusion. Something to consider is what states are swing states, they are, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Michagan, Ohio Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamphsire, North Dakota, South Dakota
McCain-Lieberman
swing states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Michigan, Ohio, Penn., Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
Lieberman should not even be considered, he will not lock up any swing states.
McCain-Crist
swing states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Ohio, Penn., Virginia, North Carolina, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
States Gained: Florida
Electoral college:
D:200
R:195
Toss up: 143
My theory is, if McCain needs Crist to win Florida, he has no chance.
McCain-Huckabee
Swing states: New Mexico, Iowa,Minn, Ohio, Penn. North Carolina, New Hamphsire, South Dakota, North Dakota
States gained; Virginia, Missouri
States lost: Nevada, Colorado
Electoral College:
D: 214
R: 192
toss up: 132
McCain-Ridge
Who???
McCain-Romney
Swing States: New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Minn, Ohio, Penn, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hamphsire
States Gained: Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan
Electoral college:
D:200
R:205
toss up: 133
So, of the candidates reviewed so far, Romney appears to be the best. i will continue reviewing each possible VP choice throughout the week.
In Case You Missed It: Obama's Goodie Bag From:From Chicago Sun-Times
From Chicago Sun-Times
By Chris FuscoJuly 17, 2008
PDF Format
Back when Barack Obama was a state senator, the Illinois Legislature offered this perk: You get elected, you get to give out some money.
Like his counterparts, Obama routed this state grant money to parks, libraries and schools during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
He gave money to domestic-violence, job-creation and social-service programs.
He also pumped cash into St. Sabina Catholic parish, the South Side church whose pastor is the Rev. Michael Pfleger, the outspoken supporter whose comments in a May sermon about Obama's former Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, landed the priest in trouble with Cardinal Francis George. St. Sabina got $100,000 to help rebuild its community center.
And a venture capital fund linked to the Rev. Jesse Jackson -- who apologized last week after making a crude remark about the Democratic presidential hopeful -- got $200,000, thanks to Obama.
In all, Obama doled out more than $3.6 million in state grants in just the last half of his state legislative career, records show.
A proposed botanic garden in Englewood got $100,000 from Obama, but the project never was completed because an additional $1 million in funding that Obama had said he'd "work tirelessly" to help obtain never materialized, the Chicago Sun-Times reported last week. That was among the biggest chunks of cash Obama gave out during the 2000-2003 budget years. ...
By Chris FuscoJuly 17, 2008
PDF Format
Back when Barack Obama was a state senator, the Illinois Legislature offered this perk: You get elected, you get to give out some money.
Like his counterparts, Obama routed this state grant money to parks, libraries and schools during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
He gave money to domestic-violence, job-creation and social-service programs.
He also pumped cash into St. Sabina Catholic parish, the South Side church whose pastor is the Rev. Michael Pfleger, the outspoken supporter whose comments in a May sermon about Obama's former Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, landed the priest in trouble with Cardinal Francis George. St. Sabina got $100,000 to help rebuild its community center.
And a venture capital fund linked to the Rev. Jesse Jackson -- who apologized last week after making a crude remark about the Democratic presidential hopeful -- got $200,000, thanks to Obama.
In all, Obama doled out more than $3.6 million in state grants in just the last half of his state legislative career, records show.
A proposed botanic garden in Englewood got $100,000 from Obama, but the project never was completed because an additional $1 million in funding that Obama had said he'd "work tirelessly" to help obtain never materialized, the Chicago Sun-Times reported last week. That was among the biggest chunks of cash Obama gave out during the 2000-2003 budget years. ...
In Case You Missed It: Welcome, Mr Would-Be President BY: The Economist
From The Economist
EditorialJuly 17, 2008
PDF Format
[M]r Obama has not repealed the basic laws of politics. Most obviously, he may not win. Rasmussen, a pollster, rattled the Obama machine this week by showing the two candidates tied, and most other analysts agree that the bounce he enjoyed after seeing off Hillary Clinton has been small and short-lived. ...
[T]here are some disquieting signs of a tendency on Mr Obama's part to tailor his message to whichever audience he is talking to. All politicians do this of course. But Mr Obama's two-steps have become Astaire-like. For instance, in his primary battle with Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama laid out a timetable for a virtually complete withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, specifying a rate of one to two brigades a month. Since starting to campaign in the general election, he has fudged this clear line: he committed to withdrawal again this week (see article), but he has also been careful to give himself wriggle-room on its pace. Similarly, he once talked of negotiating with the Iranian leadership without preconditions: now he talks of the need for "preparations". ...
[M]r Obama recently told the main pro-Israel group in Washington that Jerusalem must never be divided, a position that goes beyond those of the Clinton and Bush administrations (not to mention that of many Israelis). Then he backtracked.
On trade, Mr Obama used to demand the renegotiation of NAFTA; now he stresses his dedication to the cause of free trade. ...
On all these fronts, in fact, there are doubts: doubts as to just what Mr Obama's positions as president would actually be, and doubts over what he could get through Congress. Those doubts will not stop the crowds turning out for him, even if he fails to commandeer the Brandenburg Gate as his backdrop. But the fans should bear in mind that what they see is not precisely what they will get.
EditorialJuly 17, 2008
PDF Format
[M]r Obama has not repealed the basic laws of politics. Most obviously, he may not win. Rasmussen, a pollster, rattled the Obama machine this week by showing the two candidates tied, and most other analysts agree that the bounce he enjoyed after seeing off Hillary Clinton has been small and short-lived. ...
[T]here are some disquieting signs of a tendency on Mr Obama's part to tailor his message to whichever audience he is talking to. All politicians do this of course. But Mr Obama's two-steps have become Astaire-like. For instance, in his primary battle with Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama laid out a timetable for a virtually complete withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, specifying a rate of one to two brigades a month. Since starting to campaign in the general election, he has fudged this clear line: he committed to withdrawal again this week (see article), but he has also been careful to give himself wriggle-room on its pace. Similarly, he once talked of negotiating with the Iranian leadership without preconditions: now he talks of the need for "preparations". ...
[M]r Obama recently told the main pro-Israel group in Washington that Jerusalem must never be divided, a position that goes beyond those of the Clinton and Bush administrations (not to mention that of many Israelis). Then he backtracked.
On trade, Mr Obama used to demand the renegotiation of NAFTA; now he stresses his dedication to the cause of free trade. ...
On all these fronts, in fact, there are doubts: doubts as to just what Mr Obama's positions as president would actually be, and doubts over what he could get through Congress. Those doubts will not stop the crowds turning out for him, even if he fails to commandeer the Brandenburg Gate as his backdrop. But the fans should bear in mind that what they see is not precisely what they will get.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Jay leno speaks out By: unknown
hope you will all read to the end. Jay Leno puts it into perspective and makes us think about the pathetic negativity. That's right, Jay Leno!!
Jay Leno wrote this; it's the Jay Leno we don't often see....
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provides services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens . They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here. I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig. So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?" Jay Leno 2007 Please keep this in circulation. There are so many people that need to read this and grasp the truth of it all.
Jay Leno wrote this; it's the Jay Leno we don't often see....
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provides services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens . They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here. I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig. So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?" Jay Leno 2007 Please keep this in circulation. There are so many people that need to read this and grasp the truth of it all.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Ralph Nader Enters Presidential Race By: HOPE YEN,AP
WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) - Ralph Nader on Sunday announced a fresh bid for the White House, criticizing the top contenders as too close to big business and dismissing the possibility that his third-party candidacy could tip the election to Republicans. The longtime consumer advocate is still loathed by many Democrats who accuse him of costing Al Gore the 2000 election.Nader said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. He also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt."You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts." Nader, who turns 74 later this week, announced his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."In a later interview with The Associated Press, he rejected the notion of himself as a spoiler candidate, saying the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain." He also predicted his campaign would do better than in 2004, when he won just 0.3 percent of the vote as an independent."This time we're ready for them," said Nader of the Democratic Party lawsuits that kept him off the ballot in some states.Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly sought to portray Nader's announcement as having little impact."Obviously, it's not helpful to whomever our Democratic nominee is. But it's a free country," said Clinton, who called Nader's announcement a "passing fancy."Obama dismissed Nader as a perennial presidential campaigner. "He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and eight years later I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about," Obama added.Republican Mike Huckabee welcomed Nader into the race."I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.Nader said Obama's and Clinton's lukewarm response was not surprising given that both political parties typically treat third-party candidates as "second-class citizens." Nader said he will decide in the coming days whether to run as an independent, Green Party candidate or in some other third party.Pointing a finger at Republicans, he described McCain as a candidate for "perpetual war" and said he welcomed the support of Republican conservatives "who don't like the war in Iraq, who don't like taxpayer dollars wasted, and who don't like the Patriot Act and who treasure their rights of privacy.""If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up," Nader added.
Fit to Print? New York Times in Crosshairs for Report on McCain and Female Lobbyist by: Foxnews.com
The New York Times is in the crosshairs after publishing a lengthy and critical profile of John McCain Thursday that suggests — but does not outright say — that McCain had a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist and did favors for her clients from his position as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
The New Republic published a long article Thursday afternoon on its Web site detailing the story behind the story and claiming, “What’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all.”
The New Republic lambasted The New York Times for giving the green light, claiming the piece was “filled with awkward journalistic moves” and that it stepped around the suggested trysts with lobbyist Vicki Iseman by focusing on the debate in the McCain campaign itself about the relationship.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee vehemently refuted the article with his wife, Cindy, by his side.
“I’m very disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” McCain said at a press conference he called in Toledo, Ohio.
The Arizona senator, along with Hillary Clinton, was endorsed by the newspaper before their parties’ respective presidential primaries in New York on Feb. 5.
With only anecdotal descriptions and no evidence of an improper relationship, focus has shifted from suggestions of McCain’s supposed improprieties to questions over whether the Times should have ran the story.
“I don’t think that there is enough acknowledged sourcing for this story,” U.S. News & World Report Publisher Mort Zuckerman told FOX News, saying it is not news that follows the newspaper’s motto of being fit to print. “I really don’t think it rises to that level.”
A blog on The National Review Online said simply, “The Times doesn’t have the goods — at least from what’s in the story — and shouldn’t have run it.”
“The New York Times is giving the National Enquirer a bad name,” said Brent Bozell of the conservative watchdog Media Research Center. “The New York Times story today is all that about a story that is 10 years old. I have never seen anything like it in my life.”
The Times article described how McCain’s campaign aides kept him and Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was Commerce Committee chairman.
The article had been rumored for months after a report on it surfaced on the Drudge Report in December.
The New Republic story reported that the idea for the McCain piece was hatched in November, when four reporters were thrown on the assignment. Over the ensuing months, the magazine reported that the story “pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t.”
The Drudge piece sent the McCain article “into hiding,” but in the end, on Feb. 19, top Times editors and the paper’s attorneys gave the final draft a read-through and decided to publish, The New Republic reported.
“The Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable,” reads The New Republic article.
Keller released a statement Thursday saying, “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself.
“On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it,” he said.
McCain’s aides have defended the Arizona senator in droves from the story. They argue that the newspaper published a deliberate smear under pressure from The New Republic, which two weeks ago called the campaign for comment on the Times story published Thursday.
“The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican,” campaign manager Rick Davis said in an e-mail to supporters, urging them to contribute to the campaign “to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times. “
“All I can conclude is that this is the largest liberal newspaper in America trying to unfairly attack the integrity of the new conservative Republican nominee for president,” said McCain adviser Charlie Black. “There is no other good explanation for it.”
McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt called the report “a smear … it reads like a tabloid gossip sheet.”
“I think this is going to play badly for The New York Times and John McCain is going to be fine,” Schmidt said.
The Republican National Committee even used the story as a fundraising pitch of its own Thursday in an e-mail to donors.
McCain himself lamented that “this whole story is based on anonymous sources,” saying that could encompass any of the more than 100 aides he’s had contact with through the Commerce Committee.
The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000.
A senior McCain adviser said after the magazine article was released that McCain isn’t planning on talking about the Times story any time soon.
“We answered every question they had this morning. That’s enough,” the adviser said.
The New Republic published a long article Thursday afternoon on its Web site detailing the story behind the story and claiming, “What’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all.”
The New Republic lambasted The New York Times for giving the green light, claiming the piece was “filled with awkward journalistic moves” and that it stepped around the suggested trysts with lobbyist Vicki Iseman by focusing on the debate in the McCain campaign itself about the relationship.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee vehemently refuted the article with his wife, Cindy, by his side.
“I’m very disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” McCain said at a press conference he called in Toledo, Ohio.
The Arizona senator, along with Hillary Clinton, was endorsed by the newspaper before their parties’ respective presidential primaries in New York on Feb. 5.
With only anecdotal descriptions and no evidence of an improper relationship, focus has shifted from suggestions of McCain’s supposed improprieties to questions over whether the Times should have ran the story.
“I don’t think that there is enough acknowledged sourcing for this story,” U.S. News & World Report Publisher Mort Zuckerman told FOX News, saying it is not news that follows the newspaper’s motto of being fit to print. “I really don’t think it rises to that level.”
A blog on The National Review Online said simply, “The Times doesn’t have the goods — at least from what’s in the story — and shouldn’t have run it.”
“The New York Times is giving the National Enquirer a bad name,” said Brent Bozell of the conservative watchdog Media Research Center. “The New York Times story today is all that about a story that is 10 years old. I have never seen anything like it in my life.”
The Times article described how McCain’s campaign aides kept him and Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was Commerce Committee chairman.
The article had been rumored for months after a report on it surfaced on the Drudge Report in December.
The New Republic story reported that the idea for the McCain piece was hatched in November, when four reporters were thrown on the assignment. Over the ensuing months, the magazine reported that the story “pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t.”
The Drudge piece sent the McCain article “into hiding,” but in the end, on Feb. 19, top Times editors and the paper’s attorneys gave the final draft a read-through and decided to publish, The New Republic reported.
“The Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable,” reads The New Republic article.
Keller released a statement Thursday saying, “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself.
“On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it,” he said.
McCain’s aides have defended the Arizona senator in droves from the story. They argue that the newspaper published a deliberate smear under pressure from The New Republic, which two weeks ago called the campaign for comment on the Times story published Thursday.
“The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican,” campaign manager Rick Davis said in an e-mail to supporters, urging them to contribute to the campaign “to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times. “
“All I can conclude is that this is the largest liberal newspaper in America trying to unfairly attack the integrity of the new conservative Republican nominee for president,” said McCain adviser Charlie Black. “There is no other good explanation for it.”
McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt called the report “a smear … it reads like a tabloid gossip sheet.”
“I think this is going to play badly for The New York Times and John McCain is going to be fine,” Schmidt said.
The Republican National Committee even used the story as a fundraising pitch of its own Thursday in an e-mail to donors.
McCain himself lamented that “this whole story is based on anonymous sources,” saying that could encompass any of the more than 100 aides he’s had contact with through the Commerce Committee.
The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000.
A senior McCain adviser said after the magazine article was released that McCain isn’t planning on talking about the Times story any time soon.
“We answered every question they had this morning. That’s enough,” the adviser said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)