Message Boards » General Topics » News and Views

Thread: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?


Reply to this Thread Reply to this Thread Search Forum Search Forum Back to Thread List Back to Thread List

Permlink Replies: 72 - Last Post: Mar 1, 2008 10:49 AM Last Post By: Einar
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 8:42 AM
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Say it isn't so John....
Character matters.... right?

Mr McCain you are in my prayers.

manitou8
opto86

Posts: 767
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 10:00 AM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
What is at stake is the NY Times credibility reporting on the Republican's race to the White House. This is a scandal at the Times and is a smear attack that is not justified.

The Times had endorsed McCain prior to the Super Tuesday primaries in New York Feb. 5.
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 10:11 AM   in response to: opto86 in response to: opto86
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Yes....
Thanks, I too was aware of that.
Are you saying for certain that this report is NOT true? Whom should we believe, the candidate or the press?
Stay tuned, I suspect other things may come to light...

[b]As I said, John McCain is in my prayers[/b], as he may end up as our next president.

Our nation needs a good moral leader...

Amen,
Come Lord Jesus!

manitou8
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 10:21 AM   in response to: opto86 in response to: opto86
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The NYT never says there was a romantic relationship, merely that McCain staffers (some of whom are quoted) were concerned about appearances and took steps in response. I'm not sure how that qualifies as a "smear".

If you ignore the alleged romantic overtones, the behavior McCain allegedly engaged in certainly calls into question the "straight talk" McCain likes to give about cleaning up the political system.

Message was edited by: Sean
evrysoul


Posts: 1,526
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 1:54 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
From the NYT,

[i]In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.[/i]

So what do you figure they meant by "behaving inappropriately"??
guest
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 2:03 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
"[i]The NYT [u]never[/u] says there was a [u]romantic[/u] [u]relationship[/u], ... If you ignore the [u]alleged[/u] [u]romantic[/u] [u]overtones[/u] ... "[/i] Underlining mine

Now doesn't Sean admit it all ... innuendo has taken the place of real journalism at the New York Times. We'll see if there is real smoke here or not, but it does call into very serious question exactly what the Times bases its endorsements on. They had been working on this story well before their endorsement of McCain, yet endorsed him anyway. Apparently such matters aren't important in the eyes of the Times ... quite telling. And we further learn today that the Times only released the story today when the New Repblic learned that the Times was sitting on the story ... was the Times waiting for an "October surprise"?

Too bad that the Times has become the National Inquirer of the major newspapers. It's new motto: "All the gossip fit to print."
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 2:55 PM   in response to: guest in response to: guest
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[i]Too bad that the Times has become the [b]National Inquirer [/b]of the major newspapers. It's new motto: "All the gossip fit to print." [/i]

oopsie sir... The New York Times Is still the newspaper of Record, despite what you and the talk radio bloviators may contend. I suspect you might favor the Dickie Scaife Rag that can't even sell enough subscriptions and is heavily subsidized by his personal fortune..

I personally have no familiarity with the National [b]Inquirer[/b] although the National Enquirer has broken some major news stories recently....


manitou7+1

Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 3:03 PM   in response to: guest in response to: guest
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
We'll see if there is real smoke here or not, but it
does call into very serious question exactly what the
Times bases its endorsements on. They had been
working on this story well before their endorsement
of McCain, yet endorsed him anyway. Apparently such
matters aren't important in the eyes of the Times ...
quite telling.

The editorial and news operations of major newspapers are separate operations. One need only read the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post to realize that, as both say things in their editorials that are frequently directly contradicted by the reporting from their news operarions.

And we further learn today that the
Times only released the story today when the New
Repblic learned that the Times was sitting on the
story ... was the Times waiting for an "October
surprise"?

If you're familiar with the TNR story, the writers on the story had been trying to get it published since December. Considering the time the NYT has spent on the story and the fact they've discussed it with McCain's lawyers, they must feel pretty confident of what they have -- otherwise they wouldn't risk legal action by publishing the story.

Too bad that the Times has become the National
Inquirer of the major newspapers. It's new motto:
"All the gossip fit to print."

I think the hints of a possible romantic relationship obscure the other parts of the story. In fact, the story may have been stronger without it. What you do see in the rest of the story is that McCain had very tight relations with Iseman's lobbying firm and its client (the CEO was a major donor to his 2000 campaign and let McCain use the company jet for campaigning). McCain wrote to the FCC on the client's behalf at a sensitive time -- after receiving more than $20,000 in donations -- in the hearings prompting an unusual response from then-FCC Chairman William Kennard -- who complained that McCain's request "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" and "could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties."

And it should also be pointed out that McCain routinely accepted private jet travel from folks like Rupert Murdoch and Mike Bloomberg before the practice was outlawed. McCain sits on the Commerce Committee and routinely dealt with issues related to those businessmen.

Message was edited by: Sean
guest
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 4:58 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
"[i]The editorial and news operations of major newspapers are separate operations. One need only read the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post to realize that, as both say things in their editorials that are frequently directly contradicted by the reporting from their news operations."[/i]

Nice try, Sean, but do you [u]really[/u] believe that before making an endorsement, the editorial board for any reputable newspaper doesn't [u]fully[/u] investigate all available sources, including its own newsroom? My father worked for the Detroit Free Press, and that was [u]standard[/u] [u]operating[/u] [u]procedure[/u]. Nothing like making an endorsement only to find that your newsroom is about to break the story that your candidate has committed a major crime, is a child molester, etc., to really look incompetent! It's bad enough if that happens well after the fact, but understandable. Concurrently? Not with any [u]reputable[/u] newspaper.

"If you're familiar with the TNR story, ... "

Quite, Sean. Here's what TNR has to say: "Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair."

Further, "It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't."

Oops, there's goes your argument of the separation of editorial and newsgroup!

And further, " 'They did this because The New Republic was going to run a story that looked back at the infighting there, the Judy Miller-type power struggles -- they decided that they would rather smear McCain than suffer a story that made The New York Times newsroom look bad,' Salter told reporters last night in Toledo, Ohio."

Now there's journalistic [u]integrity[/u] at its finest!

"Some observers say that the piece, published today, was not ready to roll. On Wednesday evening, much of the cable news commentary focused on the Times' heavy use of innuendo and circumstantial evidence. This morning, Time magazine managing editor Rick Stengel told MSNBC that he wouldn't have published such a piece."

"[i]I think the hints of a possible romantic relationship obscure the other parts of the story."[/i]

So that was the "lead"? Read the story again, Sean. Look at the title of this thread. Again, nice try. Even as I'm writing this, the NYT is being excoriated by a number of reputable journalists, including Mitch Albom and a round table of national journalists, for "sinking to new depths" of shoddy, incompetent journalism.

Maybe I should retract my comparison to the Inquirer ... [u]they[/u] might be insulted by the comparison.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 8:03 PM   in response to: guest in response to: guest
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Quite, Sean. Here's what TNR has to say: "Beyond its
revelations, however, what's most remarkable about
the article is that it appeared in the paper at all:
The new information it reveals focuses on the private
matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the
anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to
justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal
elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is
filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece
contains a collection of decade-old stories about
McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and
concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator
shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs
from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one
point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she
began showing up so frequently in his offices and at
campaign events that staff members took notice. One
recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the
absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and
Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps
around purported romance and instead reports on the
debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged
affair."

Nary a conservative blinked an eye when David Broder suggested in the Washington Post last year that Bill Clinton was having an affair with Belinda Stronach without providing a single shred of evidence. I dare say that conservatives don't have any problem with any evidence-free gossip about the Clintons.

Here, we have admissions from staffers that there were concerns about McCain's relationship with this woman, and a senior staffer went on the record to say that he met with her and told her to "get lost". If it were Bill Clinton and not John McCain, you would have precisely zero problem with this story.

Further, "It pitted the reporters investigating the
story, who believed they had nailed it, against
executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they
hadn't."

Oops, there's goes your argument of the separation of
editorial and newsgroup!


Bill Keller isn't on the editorial board of the newspaper. Oops!

And further, " 'They did this because The New
Republic was going to run a story that looked back at
the infighting there, the Judy Miller-type power
struggles -- they decided that they would rather
smear McCain than suffer a story that made The New
York Times newsroom look bad,' Salter told reporters
last night in Toledo, Ohio."

Now there's journalistic [u]integrity[/u] at its
finest!


And Salter is an unbiased observer? Right...

"Some observers say that the piece, published today,
was not ready to roll. On Wednesday evening, much of
the cable news commentary focused on the Times' heavy
use of innuendo and circumstantial evidence. This
morning, Time magazine managing editor Rick Stengel
told MSNBC that he wouldn't have published such a
piece."

Rick Stengel ain't exactly the paragon of journalistic virtue himself.
perelandra


Posts: 3,193
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 8:13 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Sean, I hadn't heard of that story. But if what you say is true, then it's every bit as reprehensible as what the Times has done in the past.
I don't play favorites. I can't stand sloppy reporting, even if it's me doing it! So I hope that everyone here will continue to call me out if I get my facts crooked.
guest
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 10:24 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Interesting how, Sean, you are now trying to shift the focus [u]away[/u] from your defence of the NYT. But, then, what is there to defend? They have shown what they have become ... nothing more than a self-serving and unreliable shadow of a once great paper.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 8:02 AM   in response to: guest in response to: guest
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Interesting how, Sean, you are now trying to shift
the focus [u]away[/u] from your defence of the NYT.

I don't think there's much more to say about it. The story speaks for itself. You have McCain -- the advocate of clean government -- in a very close relationship with a lobbyist. The relationship was sufficiently close that some of his staffers throught it might be romantic. And McCain showed a record of taking actions on behalf of the lobbyist's clients -- some of which were called into question by the head of the FCC. To me, that's news.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 2:54 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And now it appears McCain was not being entirely candid in his press conference yesterday:

[i]A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff┐and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue┐an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named┐"I'm sure I spoke to Paxson." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"┐even though McCain denied doing anything improper.[/i]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 3:54 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
That doesn't appear to be out of order, in my opinion.
Congressmen help constituents all the time. It's part of the job.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 4:03 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Paxson Communications is based in Florida and was trying to buy a station in Pennsylvania. McCain is from Arizona -- they are not his constituents.

And McCain categorically denied yesterday that Paxson or Iseman had requested he write a letter on their behalf. Yet, that's not what McCain said in 2002.
Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 10:14 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The staffer that you quoted did not say that he had spoken to McCain; he spoke to Iseman and told her that her comments were damaging. No one said they were true or not true.

As far as McCain writing on behalf of Paxon Communications to the FCC, he was, after all, the head of the Commerce Committee so this was not at all out of line. His letter did not recommend either denial or approval, just that they act on it. There was absolutely nothing out of line about that.

McCain has very close ties to the Florida community. He was stationed at NAS Jax for some time during his career, and his wife and children lived here during the entire time he was a POW. In fact, during one of his campaign visits, he thanked the community for taking such good care of his wife and family during his absence. It's my understanding that McCain and his first wife are still on good terms, despite his misconduct during that marriage.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 10:25 AM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The staffer that you quoted did not say that he had
spoken to McCain; he spoke to Iseman and told her
that her comments were damaging. No one said they
were true or not true.

Never said he did speak with McCain.

As far as McCain writing on behalf of Paxon
Communications to the FCC, he was, after all, the
head of the Commerce Committee so this was not at all
out of line. His letter did not recommend either
denial or approval, just that they act on it. There
was absolutely nothing out of line about that.

The chairman of the FCC doesn't agree.
Finn


Posts: 2,615
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 12:36 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The chairman of the FCC doesn't agree.

Could you flesh that out a little, Sean? Does the FCC not "agree" that we have the right to petition our government?

Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 1:11 PM   in response to: Finn in response to: Finn
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The chairman of the FCC found McCain's letter -- as chair of the Commerce Committee -- to be "highly unusual".

This is Washington money politics at its worst.
Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 2:06 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
How is writing a letter to the FCC asking them to act on a petition that they had delayed acting on "Washington money politics at its worst." It's what I would hope my representative or any other would do for me.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 2:21 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Who did John McCain write the letter on behalf of and when did he write it?

John McCain wasn't writing letters to the FCC frequently telling them to get their butts in gear -- but he did it in this case. Why?

Paxson paid for influence and access. He got results from his investment in McCain. This is far different than calling up your Senator to get tickets to tour the White House...
Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 2:37 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[i]John McCain wasn't writing letters to the FCC frequently telling them to get their butts in gear -- but he did it in this case. Why?[/i]

How about because a friend or acquaintance asked him to?
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 2:57 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And the money had nothing to do with it? Right....

Did you give Bill Clinton the similar benefit of the doubt over the Marc Rich pardon? Or Whitewater?
Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 6:27 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Marc Rich, no. He was a criminal who did not deserve a pardon. No charges were ever raised against Bill or Hillary in Whitewater, and I do not hold it against her. And he's not running, to the best of my knowledge.

If I'm not mistaken, this entire matter was investigated and McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing. So, no, I don't think money had anything to do with it. Lobbyists give money to both parties. Hillary, I believe, gets substantial donations from lobbyists. And I don't think a person who introduced McCain/Feingold was likely guilty of misconduct with lobbyists.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 9:58 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And I don't think a person who
introduced McCain/Feingold was likely guilty of
misconduct with lobbyists.

And the guy who heads up the Subcommittee on Missing and Exploited Children would never use the Congressional page program as a dating service, either...
evrysoul


Posts: 1,526
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 11:34 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Nary a conservative blinked an eye when David Broder
suggested in the Washington Post last year that Bill
Clinton was having an affair with Belinda Stronach
without providing a single shred of evidence. I dare
say that conservatives don't have any problem with
any evidence-free gossip about the Clintons.

Bill has a very long history of illicit affairs. What evidence is needed when the man can't even decipher that oral sex with someone outside of his marriage is actually extramarital sex??? And who's the bimbo????
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 7:49 AM   in response to: evrysoul in response to: evrysoul
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Bill has a very long history of illicit affairs.

John McCain is married to one of the women he cheated on his first wife with.
Gloria


Posts: 4,393
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 5:31 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The accusation about McCain won't fly
because it's all a great big lie
The opposite of bimbo is mimbo
A good looking man with the brains of a gnat
I'll say Bill Clinton fits that
depiction of description
Gramps


Posts: 14,442
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 5:51 PM   in response to: Gloria in response to: Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[i]The opposite of bimbo is mimbo
A good looking man with the brains of a gnat
I'll say Bill Clinton fits that
depiction of description[/i]

Well, at least you admit Bill Clinton is a good looking man.

But I do question your assessment of his brain size, especially considering he was a Rhodes Scholar, and intellectually was probably one of the brightest Presidents we have had since Thomas Jefferson.

Fact is, women are often attracted to men of power, much like a moth is attracted to a light. Bill Clinton is not the first man of power to have women attracted to him. It has happened to Republican presidents as well as Democrat presidents.
Gloria


Posts: 4,393
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 23, 2008 8:12 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Correction no. one
Bill Clinton was a good looking man.
But the years of his sinful life have caught up with him and now
debauchery shows on his bleary eyed, puffy face.
Correction no. two
Brains????
When they handed out brains, Bill thought they said trains and came forward.

I don't think any of us will live long enough to see a president as immoral as Bill Clinton.
The Kennedy's come close,; Bobby and jack's affair with Marilyn Monroe
Ted and the infamous ride over the bridge with his pregnant girlfriend.
But Bll takes the cake.
"Sin,,haw!haw! That twern't no sin I did."
Add rape to that.
Get over it, libs.
You can dig up all the dirt you want but you will never dig up enough dirt to cover up the dirt Clinton left behind him.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 2:55 PM   in response to: Gloria in response to: Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
What does Bill Clinton have to do with this? He's not the only guy ever to have zipper problems, you know.

But I guess since it's a Republican who has trouble keeping things tucked in, you'll let it slide by....
evrysoul


Posts: 1,526
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 6:04 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
That's right McCain cheated too. But your point was that no one blinked when Bill was suspected of having yet - another affair.

Message was edited by: evrysoul
Chardonnay


Posts: 834
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 23, 2008 5:37 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Sean, I am not a McCain fan, at all, but where can I find out that his current wife is from a previous affair he had?

Never mind - I found the information on the Internet. What is it with these guys?!

Message was edited by: Chardonnay
Harriet


Posts: 4,195
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 2:44 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
What does "inappropriate" really mean here? Romance? Friendship that causes people to wonder if the lobbyist was getting favors?

Even IF the latter relationship is the case, it would be prudent to see the danger and need to distance himself because of appearances.

Who are these staffers? Are they still with the campaign?

She denies any romance.

No favors have been proven to be received from McCain.

Lots of loose ends here that need to be proven before I jump to conclusions.

Frankly, I would be very surprised if this was more than a tempest in a teapot.
Finn


Posts: 2,615
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 4:50 PM   in response to: Harriet in response to: Harriet
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
So, if a lobbyist who is a female is a bimbo, what does that make a lobbyist who is a male?
Don the Norski


Posts: 4,397
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 1:55 AM   in response to: Finn in response to: Finn
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Couldn't be "Bozo", as that's reserved for the candidates.
Gramps


Posts: 14,442
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 9:55 AM   in response to: Don the Norski in response to: Don the Norski
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
How about himbo, or mimbo?

Curiously, the term "bimbo" is a masculine Italian term.
Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 9:43 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The one staffer that was quoted says he never said what he was credited with saying. There is absolutely no corroboration for the story, which first surfaced on the Druge Report last year. Other networks say they researched it and it had absolutely no basis for being believable.

Once again, the NYT prints complete innuendo and on the first page yet. Remember David what's his name who they finally fired because he wasn't even in Iraq when he posted his completely fabricated stories.

[i]As I said, John McCain is in my prayers,[/i]

Oh, spare me.
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 12:25 AM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Yes my sister in Christ Jesus I will pray for you too.
The power of God and His Love are amazing... and can bring love into even the darkest corners of our lives.

Sweet dreams Shar,

manitou8

Message was edited by: manitou8

Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 10:20 AM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I have no dark corners in my life, manitou. God is good.
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
A theological Question...
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 12:59 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[i]I have no dark corners in my life, manitou. God is good. [/i]

[b]Amen, Sister!
God is Very Good! [/b]

[i][b]If there are no dark corners in your life, why do you need GOD? [/b][/i] What do you do while the rest of us are confessing and getting absolution? Do you excuse yourself? or just come in after that part is done? Do you bother to take communion? WHY?


manitou8

Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: A theological Question...
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 2:03 PM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Oh, no, I definitely take confession and absolution and communion. Every Sunday and occasionally on Wednesday morning when I can get to the small service my pastor does on Wednesday. And I certainly need and have God in my life. That's why there are no dark corners. There are no secrets from Him.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 7:52 AM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The one staffer that was quoted says he never said
what he was credited with saying.

Not exactly.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/john_weaver_speaks.html?nav=rss_blog
Finn


Posts: 2,615
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 22, 2008 11:58 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Wow. If this is the worst the Ds have on McCain, they'll be in a run for their money come November. But surely, even Mr. Clean has to be more mobbed up than this story insinuates. It's the US Senate, for cryin' out loud.
Gramps


Posts: 14,442
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 23, 2008 2:53 PM   in response to: Finn in response to: Finn
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Finn

I can assure you there are many more reasons to be against McCain than just this minor "indiscretion." However, considering how this story has seemed to galvanize the neocon talk shows against the evil New York Times, there is a cynical part of me that wonders if this story got planted by the McCain bunch as a way of deflecting the neocons criticisms of McCain.
Finn


Posts: 2,615
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 23, 2008 8:23 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
there is a cynical part of me that wonders if this story got planted by the McCain bunch as a way of deflecting the neocons criticisms of McCain.

LOL!

That would be so cool. In fact, I hereby pronounce it true!

Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 23, 2008 9:35 PM   in response to: Finn in response to: Finn
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
It certainly did cause some of them to jump in and support him.

You know, it reminds me of that old truth that I can speak ill about my relatives but don't you do it. :-)
perelandra


Posts: 3,193
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 21, 2008 8:02 PM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Yah, I agree with opto. The NY Times definitely has an ax to grind, and in the past they have run with stories that have come back to haunt them later.
I remember reading that the old rule of newspaper sources was, "Even if your mama says it, get corroboration from two sources." If they do get such confirmation of this story, I will be sad, because I hate to see anybody mess up his life.
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 12:08 AM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[i]Say it isn't so John....
Character matters.... right?

Mr McCain you are in my prayers.[/i]

[b]ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
OK, everyone take just a moment and review this thread[/b]... Please note, I NEVER speculated as to the veracity of the allegations, I just raised the flag to see who would salute... and it is[b] pretty funny to me all the venom and vitriol that were generated... [/b] I think it is such a great example of how people can be easily manipulated... and led away from thoughtful and meaningful intercourse, related to any substantive issues, when they REACT without any thinking... (See Gramps' recent posts in another thread, dealing with the second amendment. ) There is no room for meaningful discourse it all comes down to partisan sniping, and personal attacks ... :-) [u][i]And They will know we are Christians...HOW?[/i][/u]
I NEVER SAID A WORD AS TO HIS INNOCENCE OR GUILT on any of the various charges. In fact I said I would pray for the candidate. which I have... I also prayed for Shar! And just look at all the angry reaction!
[i]
[b]Now that is humorous![/b][/i]

[b]Wake Up People..
Stop acting like Lemmings [/b]


manitou8

Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 11:06 AM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I am not angry. I just thought your pledge to pray for those you don't know, of whom you are often critical or don't miss a chance to poke fun at (i.e.Gloria and on occasion myself), was some what disingenuous. And I wasn't really sure just why it was that I needed praying for. In other words, it sounded nice, but I ain't buying it.

And I'm not sure where the venom and vitriol comes in.

Cheyanne


Posts: 1,689
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 9:22 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I am not angry. I just thought your pledge to pray
for those you don't know, of whom you are often
critical or don't miss a chance to poke fun at
(i.e.Gloria and on occasion myself), was some what
disingenuous. And I wasn't really sure just why it
was that I needed praying for. In other words, it
sounded nice, but I ain't buying it.

Hey, Shar, don't forget about me! I guess I must have the same venom and vitriol that you to do.
Gramps


Posts: 14,442
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 12:03 PM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
If there is anything this recent McCain episode highlights it is the appearance of undue influence of lobbiests on the campaigns. McCain has 59 registered lobbiests working on his campaign. They are doing so because they feel that McCain will be the most likely candidate that will continue the Bush practice of allowing them to continue to write legislation in their favor.

I would also acknowledge Clinton has 12 lobbiests working for her and Obama has 9 working for him.

The Times article was not so much about whether or not McCain had an affair as much as it was about the quid pro quo relationship a lobbiest may have had on some of McCain's actions as a Senator. Do we really want the same old tactics to continue in the new administration.
wanderer


Posts: 5,072
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 12:15 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
i agree gramps.

i am not the least bit interested in who the candidates do what with in their own personal time. i will leave that up to other posters on this board who are so into the personal lives of politicians. i don't have the time or the interest.

i am concerned with who they do what with regarding our country. i am especially interested in what is going on in our drug world - why they are so expensive and who the companies are giving money in exchange for what. what was going on with the Heparin from China that apparently killed four people - why isn't this stuff safe and why does everything come from China?

i am not at all pleased with the lobby situation. the citizens of this country should come first - and seems to be lobbiest come first. what is good for them is more important than what is good for the citizens of the U S A. i am especially displeased that our congressmen leave office and turn around and become lobbiest - going after their friends for the good of the lobby - not the good of the country.
Chardonnay


Posts: 834
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 3:50 PM   in response to: wanderer in response to: wanderer
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[i]"i am not the least bit interested in who the candidates do what with in their own personal time."[/i]

Now, see, I would disagree to a certain degree. I believe that what people do in their personal lives tells about their character. The whole person (private, public, and political aspects of his or her life) makes up that person and is a clear indicator of the what type of choices they make or will make, the means they will take to get what they want, and in this case, how he or she may run the government. Not that people have not made mistakes in their past, but if they are truly repentant, their lives will show a dramatic change from then on.

Can't say whether, or not, this is the case with John McCain.

I have no respect for men or women who commit adultery. That tells me a lot about their integrity. And yes, it has much to do with decisions they will make in public office. I am afraid that nowadays it will be difficult to find a person fit for public office.
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 5:20 PM   in response to: Chardonnay in response to: Chardonnay
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[i]Can't say whether, or not, this is the case with John McCain.
I have no respect for men or women who commit adultery. That tells me a lot about their integrity. And yes, it has much to do with decisions they will make in public office. I am afraid that nowadays it will be difficult to find a person fit for public office.[/i]
[b]
OK so I am being sincere here....[/b] and not trying to bait anybody.... [b]um... so lets say In this general Erection in November the choice is between an adulterer (John McCain) who is as I recall on at least his second wife..... (a serial monogamist...) and a woman who has apparently been faithful and lived in a committed relationship with her husband who used to be president... and whom we know for certain has been unfaithful to her...
Has Anyone read the Prophet Hosea 3:1-5?
[/b] Which one would GOD want us to vote for? Hmmmmmm.... Personally I would rather not vote for either of them... But WHOM WOULD GOD HAVE US VOTE FOR?

manitou8

Message was edited by: manitou8
Finn


Posts: 2,615
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 7:01 PM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
But WHOM WOULD GOD HAVE US VOTE FOR?

Nobody votes FOR anybody nowadays. We vote against the other chap (chapette?).

Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 2:08 PM   in response to: Finn in response to: Finn
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I will vote for the person that most has the ethics, ideas and moral values that I am looking for. I will never find a candidate that would encompass all of those virtures, not even my husband and he's not running anyway.
Chardonnay


Posts: 834
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 8:50 PM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[i]" . . . so lets say In this general Erection in November . . . "[/i]

Was that a Freudian slip, or what? Too funny, however, your question is a good one.

In Malachi, God said that He hates divorce, and in Matthew, Jesus said that Moses permitted men to divorce their wives because their hearts were hardened. He allowed divorce in the case of marital unfaithfulness.

Like I said, I cannot say if McCain, personally, has changed his life around, or not. There are so many questions about him on so many levels that I have a difficult time considering voting for him.

My husband gets upset with me when I say that since Romney dropped out of the race, this may be the first election where I do not vote. He says the same thing as Finn, when he says that we are actually voting [i]against[/i] the other one.

I do not know whom the Lord would have us vote for. The choices appear to me as two socialists and a democrat.

This whole [b]election[/b] is stressful to me.
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 8:16 PM   in response to: Chardonnay in response to: Chardonnay
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Thanks Char... you got it, it was an attempt at humor... Thanks for picking up on it... at least you have a sense of humor!. :-)
Did you ever read Hosea? The guy was married to a prostitute. Oopsie, sorry to write the word on a Lutheran board.... [b]but it is biblical![/b] Please pray about it before you vote in November!

God Bless!

manitou8

Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 6:26 PM   in response to: Chardonnay in response to: Chardonnay
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
John McCain is on his second wife and has admitted that he was not faithful to his first wife. He has been honest about his misdeeds and has not attempted to deny them. His first wife felt he returned from 5-1/2 years as a POW with a number of problems that he needed to resolve. Not surprising, I guess.

He adopted the children of his first wife and I believe he and this wife have adopted a child from possibly Africa.
wanderer


Posts: 5,072
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 24, 2008 7:25 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
i seem to recall something about an auto accident that his first wife was in -

read a book about him last winter - don't have it anymore - but seem to recall she was drastically changed when he returned from being a POW. that combined with his problems did not improve the marriage -

also recall she made a comment about a 40 year old man acting 25 or something like that.
Einar


Posts: 357
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 6:41 PM   in response to: wanderer in response to: wanderer
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I didn't expect to be able to read this thread, but I did. As always I (too) was flooded with thoughts, but will limit my self to:

"I don't think any of us will live long enough to see a president as immoral as Bill Clinton."

I believe that we have all already lived that long, but with does BC have to do with this? When in doubt say something nasty about Bill and any point is proven?

And then there is the NYTimes. Who covered the Spanish Civil war story, not from the Governments side of the battle lines, but from those of the rebels. Remember them? Lead by a Generalissimo Franco? And now they are supposed to be a liberal rag? I don't think so. eeeeeeeek

And a bimbo is NOT any female lobbyist. It is one who uses, not what is between her ears but what is between her legs to get what she wants. eee


Message was edited by: Einar

evrysoul


Posts: 1,526
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 10:45 PM   in response to: Einar in response to: Einar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And a bimbo is NOT any female lobbyist. It is one
who uses, not what is between her ears but what is
between her legs to get what she wants. eee

Dictionary.com - bimbo (P)

1. a foolish, stupid or inept person.
2. a man or fellow, often a disreputable or contemptible one.
3 - Disparaging and Offensive. an attractive but stupid young woman, especially one with loose morals.

It appears by definition - no one ( male or female) is exempt.

Cheyanne


Posts: 1,689
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 26, 2008 6:51 PM   in response to: Einar in response to: Einar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And then there is the NYTimes. Who covered the
Spanish Civil war story, not from the Governments
side of the battle lines, but from those of the
rebels. Remember them? Lead by a Generalissimo
Franco? And now they are supposed to be a liberal
rag? I don't think so. eeeeeeeek
Hey, I wasn't around yet for the Spanish civil war. But are you trying to say that the NYT today is not liberal? GIve me a break.
manitou8

Posts: 2,431
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 26, 2008 7:47 PM   in response to: Cheyanne in response to: Cheyanne
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
[b][i]Nobody expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!
Our chief weapon is surprise, surprise and fear, fear and surprise, our two weapons are fear and Surprise and ruthless efficiency... Our three weapons are fear and Surprise, and ruthless Efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, Our four... no, amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as.....[/i][/b]
from Monty Python's skit [b]The Spanish Inquisition[/b]

it is on youtube, just google The Spanish Inquisition :-)

oopsie, sorry not what you were talking about... Never mind... Carry on...

manitou8
Finn


Posts: 2,615
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 25, 2008 10:31 PM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
So, what's the bigger scandal? - that the FCC takes over 800 days to decide if a company can buy a TV station - or that one must give a politician money to get him to ask the FCC why it takes over 800 days to decide if a company can buy a TV station?

I think when McCain claims to be an honest politician we are meant to understand that he is honest for a politician, that is, in comparison to other politicians.

Obama probably has the edge on account of his lack of experience.

Einar


Posts: 357
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 26, 2008 9:35 PM   in response to: Finn in response to: Finn
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
"Hey, I wasn't around yet for the Spanish civil war. But are you trying to say that the NYT today is not liberal? GIve me a break."

But you have heard of Franco? And know, in very general terms that he was the third Fascist dictator, after Benito and Adolf? I'm a Liberal (perhaps a tad bit left of Center) and consider the NYT to be a self-satisfied section of the Ruling Oligarchy - who are not liberals. That's as much break as you'll get from me.
Cheyanne


Posts: 1,689
Re: oopsie, New bimbo eruption?
Posted: Feb 29, 2008 6:51 PM   in response to: Einar in response to: Einar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
But you have heard of Franco? And know, in very
general terms that he was the third Fascist dictator,
after Benito and Adolf? I'm a Liberal (perhaps a tad
bit left of Center) and consider the NYT to be a
self-satisfied section of the Ruling Oligarchy - who
are not liberals. That's as much break as you'll get
from me.

Yes, I have heard of Franco. And know who he was. What does that have to do with the NYT being liberal?
Finn


Posts: 2,615
Reality Check
Posted: Feb 27, 2008 5:34 PM   in response to: manitou8 in response to: manitou8
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Shar M


Posts: 15,909
Re: Reality Check
Posted: Feb 27, 2008 9:34 PM   in response to: Finn in response to: Finn
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I wonder what those on this board who have bought the Democrat's spin that McCain is close to lobbyists will have to say about the article. Thanks, finn, for pointing it out.
Sean


Posts: 6,516
Re: Reality Check
Posted: Feb 28, 2008 8:15 AM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Well, Mr. Brooks doesn't exactly give the whole story.

For instance, if you look at McCain's Abramoff investigation, he "investigated" it, but made none of the names public to protect the corrupt Republican House leadership. All the public documents released by McCain's committee had the names redacted. Not to mention the fact that he hid Abramoff's (and congressional Republicans) invovlement in the campaign of former Alabama Gov. Bob Riley. And, by the way, McCain has taken about $100,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff's former lobbying firm.

Here's what George Will has to say about McCain:

[i]Although his campaign is run by lobbyists; and although his dealings with lobbyists have generated what he, when judging the behavior of others, calls corrupt appearances; and although he has profited from his manipulation of the taxpayer-funding system that is celebrated by reformers -- still, he probably is innocent of insincerity. Such is his towering moral vanity, he seems sincerely to consider it theoretically impossible for him to commit the offenses of appearances that he incessantly ascribes to others.

Such certitude is, however, not merely an unattractive trait. It is disturbing righteousness in someone grasping for presidential powers.[/i]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703205.html?nav=hcmodule
Einar


Posts: 357
Re: Reality Check
Posted: Mar 1, 2008 10:49 AM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Cheyanne:

"Yes, I have heard of Franco. And know who he was. What does that have to do with the NYT being liberal? "

The NYT reported the War from Franco's army and from his POV, not from that of the legitimate,and very liberal (even radical) elected government that he was overthrowing (in the name of Christianity, among things) . They have not changed all that much (opinion) since then. eeek