Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

furrlessgerbil — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:02:55 GMT

As one of those Centrist Democrats that McCain might swing I was not too offended by the NY times article. It gave me more insight into John McCain the Ethics reformer. The NY times even ended the article with the McCain camp's response. This was no smear article, rather it was a insightful look into a politician who has made mistakes. Just because a man writes a letter to a governmental regulator or goes on a flight with a lobbiest doesnt mean I wont vote for him. I am more concerned with his Vice Presidential choice and his general election platform than what happened eight years ago. He still has my vote over a third Clinton term.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

geromer — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:00:54 GMT

I still think that McCain is a strong candidate. He has the experience needed to lead this country unlike Huckabee who seems to be in the race so that he can further his book deals.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

hillplus — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:14:42 GMT

McCain has proved that he is an affairs kind of guy. Best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

We certainly wouldn't have had to worry about affairs if Romney was the nominee.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

hillplus — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:15:15 GMT

* proven. oops

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Johnsonium — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:16:27 GMT

The article wasn't a smear. It seemed pretty balanced to me. It's just sad that just about every politician has to cozy up to the lobbyists to get elected. We need real lobbying reform.

My question for McCain would be, "If you never swing your vote for a lobbyist, then why do they bother courting your favor? Wouldn't they move on to a different politician if you truly weren't giving them favors?"

I, as a citizen, can ask that question with a straight face. You see, I don't have any lobbyists taking me out to dinner or paying for private jet flights. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Clinton or Obama can make the same charge without coming off as hypocritical.

Go Obama!

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

quetzl — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:16:31 GMT

The Times always slimes in 4/4 time; such is the behavior quotient of a sinister, muck-raking slug. As staunch independents who were not always that pleased by some of Senator McCain's positions, we have been shoved, pushed, and keel hauled into flat out support for this American Hero as a direct and proximate result of this smear attempt. As professional family of seven members, each with substantial income and significant regional public influence, we elected this very morning to support the Senator financially and to vote for him in the general election. Concerning the awakening of a sleeping giant, that is soon to be determined. What the New York Slimes has done is to place a noose around the donkey's neck.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

mexed — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:18:59 GMT

I am not concerned about any possible romantic attraction that never went anywhere. I am concerned about the repeated efforts to ensure that all things appear correct even though some actions may have been on the edge of inpropriety concerning all sorts of favors and means to get services, flights, and the dependance on weathly contributers who also looked for government interventions in their investments. It appears that no laws were broken but, especially considering his public stance, the efforts seem more to be for appearance rather than being right or wrong.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Portle 44 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:31:08 GMT

It certainly didn't take long for the house organ of the Democratic Party to swing into action.Fortunately for McCain, the credibility of the NYT is typified by Jason Blair these days.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

SurferGirl — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:36:33 GMT

Noose!...What Noose?

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

NewsWkDickG — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:47:24 GMT

We can question the NYT's motivation, including their timing, but that can't eliminate the reality of questionable ethics and of hypocritical behavior impacting Senator McCain's credibility. After reading the NYT's article it would seem very apparent that there is sufficent merit to scurtinize Senator McCain's performance and to question the validity of his 'highly ethical' claim. And that is without ever being concerned over there being any romantic envolvement with the lobyist, which without better substantiation should be strictly an issue between Senator McCain and his wife. With the rest of his performance there simply is enough smoke to check and see if there really is a fire and to double check his claim of purity.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

snazzycar — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:17:03 GMT

Why is it okay for McCain to be accused of sexual escapades and lobbyist abuse(which will probably turn out to be true) and it is okay? Clinton did the sexual crap and we will never hear the end of it. If thereis any truth to the story, he should step out of the race. He is an embarrassment to politics and his party. His would also be a liar and a hypocrite. Get off of Clinton and go after McCain.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Core Democrat in Texas — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:20:17 GMT

I'm offended by the article, not the content. There are some things you just shouldn't talk about. I'm a prude and I don't want to hear about politician's sexual activities.

I'm a strong Hillary supporter, but if she doesn't get the nomination, I'll probably vote for McCain. I don't like many of his positions, esp his warmongering, but at least he has some experience in getting bipartisan legislation passed in the Senate, and he sounds rational, so I figure he won't cause total chaos.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

jayaramkr — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:20:44 GMT

If the Gray Lady is as sinister as alleged, why did they come out with the story now? Why not in October, when it would have been more damaging? People should consider that before pointing fingers at the Times. They endorsed McCain, they didn't say that McCain was the best possible Republican candidate or the best possible conservative candidate. They just said that among the flock, McCain was a good choice, and an easy choice. When someone claims to have had a long record in DC, it is fair that contradictory aspects of the record are reviewed. And I somehow felt that the Times went out of its way to be positive. They characterized his behavior to be "imprudent" rather than "malicious"

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Captain Philadelphia — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:22:23 GMT

Previously, I fwlt that McCain was always a man of integrity. However, over the past few years I began to doubt this position as he became closer to Dubya. When McCain's nose approached the rear of Bush, his alleged straight talk became suspect. When this story broke I was not totally surprised. While there may be insufficient evidence presently to link mcCain to dubious conduct , I feel the Times must have much more or it would never have broken the story. However, such a tale will probably give McCain a much needed boost in the nutcake conservative wing of the Republican party.Since it does not appear they will have Hillary to kick around much longer, the Times will serve as a surrogate to rally against.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

clikdawg — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:28:18 GMT

At last! A chance to use my very favorite self-righteous Republican catch-phrase:

"No smoke without fire!!!"

God, that felt good ...

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

citizen123 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:37:03 GMT

I am totally unaffected by the article one way or another.

I will probably vote for McCain; because I know the sheer damage that will occur to this country if an Obama or Hillary is allowed to become President, is too much for this country to bear.

That does not mean I will stop pushing or leaning on McCain to "see the light" on a couple of his most wayward issues. like illegal immigration. He needs to change his policy to that of "attrition through enforcement" so that all Americans can again be the best middle-class they can be.

The New York Times just cemented themselves to be a more “snooty” type of Enquirer magazine……no substance, as usual.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Tommypie — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:44:16 GMT

This is a perfect and calculated timing by the New York Time to realease these trumped up charges against Mr. McCain. Or so they think. They were lurking in the weeds like a tiger for the most opportune time ready to pounce on its victim. The far left wing media loonies finally stepped over the line. They have absolutely nothing at all to prove that McCain is immoral or provided special favors to lobbyists. I can hardly image McCain romping in the hay with some lobbyist. He is not that stupid. Clinton was that stupid, but Mr. Macain has a little more sense and integrity than the old Billygoat. But sowing seeds of doubt has its intended effect on its readers. And that's all the New York times wanted. They have tarnished Mr. McCain's reputation now, and unfortunately I believe they will continue to succeed in that unsavory endeavor.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

HolyRoller — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:49:57 GMT

Just wait until the attak dogs of the GOP go after Barak Hussein Obama. NY Times will try and ridicule the accusations of course, but Obama has never had to play defence. This is going to be very entertaining to watch. As will the potentially destructive Dem. Natl. Conv. violence.

American Hero vs Islamic sympathizer

NOBAMA!

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

paulte — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:53:59 GMT

I think the story will backlash on TNYT. The fact of Rush coming to the defense of McCain shows this to be true. TNYT is trying to drive a wedge between the right and McCain. That is the only way Hillary or Obama can be elected. And for life of me I can't understand why they endorsed someone in each party in the first place!

They endorse McCain and then they attack him. They endorse Hillary when they really want Obama! I'm sure this NYT piece on McCain is actually to help Obama win the election. TNYT sees the writing on the wall as far as Hillary goes. Polling results now have McCain beating Hillary. Theoretically, TNYT should be neutral since they endorsed each one! This whole thing is getting kind of confusing to this white guy!

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

smugamer — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:05:14 GMT

Once again, Holyroller is posting his blatant lies.

Barack Obama is a Christian, and has never supported radical Islam. He took his vow of office on a Bible, and has been a member of a Christian church for 20 years.

Holyroller, you need to get your facts straight.

Also, on the McCain 'scandal'--who cares? What he did or did not do with a lobbyist has NOTHING to do with his ability to run this country. It's completely irrelevant.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

knowledgeispower — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:13:14 GMT

HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYTHING MORE FROM THE *********KEATING 5 ********

HAVE ALL OF YOU FORGOTTEN

AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE AFFAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Phong Nguyen — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:09:35 GMT

The voters knew very little about Senator Obama's private life except his admission to use drugs during his young days in his book. He seems to be too perfect but one thing I know for sure is that saints do not get involved in politics! Senator Obama seems too charismatic to be spared by other ladies!

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

kamakiriad — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:16:27 GMT

I read the NYT article,, and honestly it is not a "hit piece" in any way. They go out of their way to praise McCain numerous times and point out his legislative accomplishments while also pointing out he has has a few ethical conflicts. That's the primary subject of the article. As for the whole "having a romantic relationship" thing, it's just false. The closest the article comes to making that claim is saying that in 2000 some of McCain's aids feared he may or might have an affair with this lobbiest. There is no attack piece. There is no unwarranted attack. It's actually a pretty balanced piece of journalism. Rush should actually try reading something he blathers on about some time.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Lady Snowbird — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:23:38 GMT

Don't under estimate the Moderate Republicans who have carried McCain through the Primaries. There are a lot of us who left the Republican party because the Conservatives took over the party and the party no longer represented us. We will come back to vote FOR McCain. We will be there for him.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

mph1950 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:23:51 GMT

Shouldn't if be "awakened"...rather than awoken a sleeping giant?

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

mph1950 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:27:49 GMT

awoken? ....should it be awakened.... "awakened the sleeping giant."

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

geoff2112 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:10:17 GMT

i think it is just democrat guilt for Bill Clinton

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Peaceful Warrior — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:36:06 GMT

If John McCain at age 63 has it in him to have a flirtation with a lobbyist, good for him!! If there was any substance to this article, one might find reason to be a little concerned. However, the allegations or inuendos made were lacked credibility, so---don't see this as a huge hurdle for John McCain. He has other issues which will come to light over the next several months which will be probably more distracting and damaging. Yet, neither of the democratic candidates are without "sin" and this mud slinging or gotcha mentality is exactly why truly honorable people do not run for the office of presidency. Even presidents who we dearly admired such as John Kennedy or Ike Eisenhower had their side interests. Would it be accurate to say that the biggest "SIN" for all is sex or the desire of???? Good grief---What about leaders who approve of abortion or turn their heads and refuse to acknowledge poverty right here within our own borders. What about leaders who lack the strength of character to protect the country or compromise their own values to garner the power of the presidency??? So many worse things can a man or woman have than the "weakness" of engaging in a relationship or "friendship" outside of their marriage vows. Priorities, priorities, priorities!!!!!!!!!

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

RU with me on this? — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:44:31 GMT

Look it does not matter who gets in to the White house anyway. Let Obama have it. Jesus is coming back soon. And while those of us Christians are taken to Heaven in the Rapture - Obama can stay here and take the non-believers through the Great Tribulation time!

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

tc125231 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:23:08 GMT

You know, I don't think a lot of you people in the press "get it". Perhaps,that's because you are all relatively tone-deaf on the matter of personal integrity, which is what allowed you all to keep calling this clown Mr. Straight Talk long after it became clear that he had reverted to the days of Keating 5, and become a self fueling machine for pander.

A lot of us voted for McCain in 2000 because we perceived him to be honest. How do you think we feel, now that he has proved that he is NOT....honest. The first Mayor Daley of Chicago supposed to have described an honest politician as one who stayed bought.

McCain is the inverse of an honest politician. He makes a BIG deal about his principles, but he is completely incapable of sticking to them --except for Iraq --when it would cost them. He pases a statute against toryure, and then doesn't say a thing when Bush's shameful signing statement relieves the president from having to obey it. Then he votes against the next bill against torture.

He cares about the vets, but does nothing to ensure they get the treatment they are entitled to under statute. He hates special interests, but lets lobbyists run his campaign. He can't add --he wants endless war, without being willing to come up with some way to pay for it.

This associates him the with the most despicable ficture in Victorian fiction --the wastrel patriarch.

Many of us who voted for him in 2000 will not only support him now, we will work VERY hard to see such a serial liar comes nowhere near the White House. Let him go hang out with his old chum Chuck Keating.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

burbank — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:24:30 GMT

So the Times editor Bill Keller says that he's confident in the "substance" of the McCain story. In the same way CBS was confident of the substance of the Dan Rather story on President Bush. Perhaps we should look a little bit closer at the integrity of the reporters who cover the news and print stories based on rumors and inuendo.It seems that for all their puff and fluff, today's reporters and journalists are nothing more than modern day emperor's who wear no clothes; dancing naked before America and the world, covered in nothing in nothing but their hypocrisy.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Mwalimu — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:57:08 GMT

I really don't understand why the right wing is angry at the New York Times. Just before the war in Iraq, the New York Times stopped short of selling tickets to promote the war- especially with downright false news reports by Judith Miller. They recently included gas bag Bill Kristol as one of their columnists - in spite of the fact that the entire Iraq fiasco is Kristol's idea. Some people are never happy.

As far as McCain's so-called "romance" - I could care less. Basically, McCain is a tool of the super-rich any way, a member of the country club who claims to straight talk to the American people - while taking away their Medicare. He pledges no new taxes but promises we'll be in Iraq for 50 or 100 years at 2 or 3 billion dollars a day. How does he plan to finance this venture. Is that straight talk, for real?

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

luvinit — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:33:59 GMT

its deja vu 2004; bush vs kerry (cbs, dan rather, mary mapes)....only the names have changed: mc cain vs clinton or obama (nyt, bill keller, et al).....a word to the wise at the nyt....cbs news has not recovered from the low dan rather ratings: rather has been disgraced (on par with his nemesis richard nixon) and the last i heard about 3 years ago, mapes was suing, or writing a book...times have changed...more and more americans (the new generation) are not looking to or taking the the word of the old bias media stalwarts (nytimes, etc) as gospel.....we have the internet and cable news. for rebuttal..it was the bloggers that exposed the cbs/rather malicious attempt to decide the 2004 presidental election....it appears to me that the ny times article erred on the mc cain story by listening to some disguntled former staffers who wish to remain anonymous.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

lamm01 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:46:11 GMT

Personally, if that's all the Times can come up with on John McCain, it's perfectly fine. If Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for McCain anyway.

However, I would suggest you stop interogating and investigating some fluff like a romantic involvement involving Sen. McCain and set your sights on revealing the "true" Obama. I think the American voting public has the right to know about his past drug use and trafficking, obsession with the Muslim faith, dirty dealings with the "slumlord", questionable campaign finances and his racist writings regarding his "mother's people". Additionally, I am distressed that the mass media did not pick up Mayor Wilder's (Richmond, VA) comments promoting racial rioting in the streets if Senator Obama does not get the nomination. As far as I'm concerned that's political blackmail and a threat to all of non-African Americans. For the sake of the future of this country, start doing your work. You owe a duty tot he citizens of this country and should not be promoting your own agenda. Shame on you.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

ayiorgo — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:22:08 GMT

i am a registered democrat and a frequent NY Times reader. I am also an admirer of Mr. McCain and the article has done nothing to detract from that. In the end, i may not vote for him but it will have nothing to do wiht the NY TImes article even if the gentleman had an affair. I am more concerned about his view of American foreign policy and in particular the Iraq war. Come on, let's be real. We have two war fronts in which tens of people (some of them our very own Anerican young) are dying and here we are worrying about an affair eight years ago that may or may not have happened.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

llevine777 — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:00:37 GMT

The content and timing of the letters is more interesting than the, probably false, sexual innuendo. It seems McCain personally asked each member of the committee to support a precedent setting vote, which further compromised the integrity of the media. Why are the "conservatives" not concerned with this compromise of the free press.

Also, I did not hear any denials about our Senator McCain's private jet flights with the lobbyist, only his sexual innocense. What would Rush L. have to say if Obama had done the same?

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

David Rosenberg — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:00:16 GMT

Step 1. Read the bio of both McCain and Mrs. Beercan his wife.

Step 2 Accept that McCain is a mediocre man in terms of capacity, character and intellegence.

Step 3. It is highly unlikely that the NYT has this story wrong.

Does this story sound a little bit like Roger Clemens?

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Karenn1 — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:15:21 GMT

When the dirt comes out, Conservative unite. The dope additct will even support you,as long you are dirty.Just lost his co-chairman, going to jail. A another reason to support him by conservative. Wet start McCain is on a roll.

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

Karenn1 — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:15:21 GMT

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

miamiman — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:23:14 GMT

he already has my vote. the article attempts to cast a cloud of doubt but it appears to have unified the republican opposition to the Obama challenge which is a good thing in my opinion. at least I know that Mccain speaks intellegently on matters of the economy and foreign policy and inspires confidence that he can handle a crisis.

The article also made only vague allegations and was a fishing expedition to try to bring out negatives and taint the mans reputation. kind af backhanded in my opinion but the media in general is as such. It harkens back to the Hearst era of journalism using negative news(even contrived news)to sell papers and increase circulation/veiwership. the National Enquirer seems to have as much credibility....sad...so sad

re: Has the Times 'Awoken a Sleeping Giant' with the McCain Story?

miamiman — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:31:03 GMT

The media needs to do a story on the Obama donor/mansion at a discount/questionable land deal affair. I still dont understand this as it seemed to be quiclkly and quietly swept under the media rug.

it seemed far more inappropriate than anything in the Mccain story which seemed more about the regular issues dealt with by congressmen in general. Obama has even acknowledged this as a mistake.

can anyone clarify the Obama/illegal donor story?