Seems like McCain has a Monica problem :).

[unbreakable]

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm

Do you have an actual reputable source for this smear?   Or is Drudge the best you can do?

Isn't it kind of ironic how Drudge was reputable when he was "breaking news" on Clinton and Lewinski (or Kerry and whatever that fabricated story was)... and yet he's not reputable when his target is McCain?

It's ironic that you think Bretts opinion determines whether Drudge is reputable.

It's actually NOT ironic that you either didn't read what I wrote, or misunderstood it, or simply didn't care.

[Kevin Grey]

More discussion about the topic at hand, less about the posters in the thread or it gets locked. 

[Lee]

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm

Do you have an actual reputable source for this smear?   Or is Drudge the best you can do?

Isn't it kind of ironic how Drudge was reputable when he was "breaking news" on Clinton and Lewinski (or Kerry and whatever that fabricated story was)... and yet he's not reputable when his target is McCain?

It's ironic that you think Bretts opinion determines whether Drudge is reputable.

It's actually NOT ironic that you either didn't read what I wrote, or misunderstood it, or simply didn't care.

I read what you wrote. What is your evidence that Drudge isn't reputable? I don't have any evidence that he is or isn't, but he gets tons of hits and I have seen the big news outlets all refer to Drudge in the past year. Your implying that when it's about a democrat that everyone trusts Drudge but when it's about a Republican no one does? First Drudge didn't break the McCain thing, he just pointed to it (which makes this whole argument irrelevant really). Second the McCain story is pretty minor since there is no evidence that he did anything but hang out with a lobbiest.

Now if I misunderstood you, please set me straight.

[Brendan]

Second the McCain story is pretty minor since there is no evidence that he did anything but hang out with a lobbiest.

Bzzzt.

He intervened on behalf of Keating.  He intervened on behalf of the lobbyist who lobbyed for an industry that he oversaw, and he's already lying about it.  He's tight with all sorts of lobbyists, actually.

And, for good measure, here's your adultery.

[brettmcd]

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm

Do you have an actual reputable source for this smear?   Or is Drudge the best you can do?

Isn't it kind of ironic how Drudge was reputable when he was "breaking news" on Clinton and Lewinski (or Kerry and whatever that fabricated story was)... and yet he's not reputable when his target is McCain?

Wrong yet again as you always are, I have never found drudge reputable on anything he reports, its the major reason I never read his site or take anything he says seriously.   So try again.

[Lee]

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm

Do you have an actual reputable source for this smear?   Or is Drudge the best you can do?

Isn't it kind of ironic how Drudge was reputable when he was "breaking news" on Clinton and Lewinski (or Kerry and whatever that fabricated story was)... and yet he's not reputable when his target is McCain?

Wrong yet again as you always are, I have never found drudge reputable on anything he reports, its the major reason I never read his site or take anything he says seriously.   So try again.

Again, Drudge actually reports on very little, he just links to news sites. It's hard to say he's reputable when he doesn't actually do the reporting.

[Lee]

Second the McCain story is pretty minor since there is no evidence that he did anything but hang out with a lobbiest.

Bzzzt.

He intervened on behalf of Keating.  He intervened on behalf of the lobbyist who lobbyed for an industry that he oversaw, and he's already lying about it.  He's tight with all sorts of lobbyists, actually.

And, for good measure, here's your adultery.

Well I knew he was known for being close to various lobbyists, but I am going to wait to see how thing plays out before I decide anything.

[Brendan]

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm

Do you have an actual reputable source for this smear?   Or is Drudge the best you can do?

Isn't it kind of ironic how Drudge was reputable when he was "breaking news" on Clinton and Lewinski (or Kerry and whatever that fabricated story was)... and yet he's not reputable when his target is McCain?

Wrong yet again as you always are, I have never found drudge reputable on anything he reports, its the major reason I never read his site or take anything he says seriously.   So try again.

Your personal feelings are irrelevant to this discussion.  No one needs to try again, as no one needs to attempt to convince you of anything.  There is a zero percent chance that you will acknowledge any evidence that contradicts your far-right dogma.  Ergo, who cares?

McCain called Bill Keller.  There's plenty of articles that reference it.  Go look them up yourself.

[Brendan]

Well I knew he was known for being close to various lobbyists, but I am going to wait to see how thing plays out before I decide anything.

That seems like a reasonable conclusion.  I'm sure there'll be plenty of additional reporting in the next week or two.

[unbreakable]

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/12/20/20071220_155408_flashnyt.htm

Do you have an actual reputable source for this smear?   Or is Drudge the best you can do?

Isn't it kind of ironic how Drudge was reputable when he was "breaking news" on Clinton and Lewinski (or Kerry and whatever that fabricated story was)... and yet he's not reputable when his target is McCain?

It's ironic that you think Bretts opinion determines whether Drudge is reputable.

It's actually NOT ironic that you either didn't read what I wrote, or misunderstood it, or simply didn't care.

I read what you wrote. What is your evidence that Drudge isn't reputable? I don't have any evidence that he is or isn't, but he gets tons of hits and I have seen the big news outlets all refer to Drudge in the past year. Your implying that when it's about a democrat that everyone trusts Drudge but when it's about a Republican no one does? First Drudge didn't break the McCain thing, he just pointed to it (which makes this whole argument irrelevant really). Second the McCain story is pretty minor since there is no evidence that he did anything but hang out with a lobbiest.

Now if I misunderstood you, please set me straight.

I never claimed Drudge broke the news on the McCain thing.  The NYT did, as far as I know, and that was where I heard about it from in the first place.

What I said was that when Drudge smears a Dem, all the uber-righties applaud how great he is, how much he pisses off Teh Libr00lz, etc.  But when he smears a right winger, they just say he's not reputable, etc.  "Plausible Deniability" has even filtered down to how the rank-and-file do things these days.

Which, btw, he ISN'T reputable.  He's biased hard right, as far right as Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly, etc.  He isn't a link source to news articles, although he does that as well.  What he does is broadcasts rumors- many of his stories are simply smear headlines which link to a blurb, then say "story developing".  Not by him, of course, since he wouldn't know journalism if it bit off his leg.  

He just carries water for rumor mongers, as he did when he "broke the story" on Kerry's alleged affair with a staffer... who Drudge claimed "fled the country", but the real story was she flew to Israel because she was getting married there.  Yeah... lots of journalistic integrity to be had there.  He's simply a web based, politically focused, version of the World Weekly News.


But back on topic, something like this breaking was just a matter of time.  McCain has been wading hip-deep in muck for years and years, so a story like this was bound to come out some time.  He's been flip flopping on everything, yet the media chose to run with the "TEH MAVERICK!!111!" narrative.

There's also the story breaking about his wheeling and dealing with campaign finances, gaming the system, etc.  What isn't being said, but is interesting nonetheless, is how many of the same people who worked so hard to smear him in 2000 are now working for him.

McCain wants to put on a public image that he's a real strong stand-up guy who challenged the culture of corruption, Mr Straight Talk Express, etc.  The truth is that he's always been bouncing from one ethics lapse to the next, and even the people who work for him couldn't talk sense into him.

[Lee]

I think we actually agree here Unbreakable. It's time to go buy each other a beer.

[unbreakable]

I think we actually agree here Unbreakable. It's time to go buy each other a beer.

Sweet!


BTW, the McCain camp's "defense" is straight out of grade school:

Most telling, Mr. McCain’s campaign announced Friday afternoon that it had just recorded its single-best 24 hours in online fund-raising, although it declined to provide numbers.

Umm... yeah.  If they raised a significant amount of money, they'd be telling it to anyone who would listen.  The sad fact that their "single best 24 hours" is so pathetically low is the only reason they aren't stating how much it was.

And then, of course, is the FEC matter.  What sounds funniest of all is how the FEC says McCain is bound by their laws whether he cashed the check or not, so he's bound by the cap his campaign can spend.  Which, interestingly enough, some have said he's already spent as much as he would be allowed to spend.

[Brendan]

The latest on favors for lobbyists:

In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.

The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation’s largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.

...

It was uncharacteristic of Mr. McCain, according to a review of dozens of letters sent by him to the commission during the same period.

It was the only letter that contained a suggestion that a failure to act would result in the possible overhaul of the agency.

...

While other companies also complained to Congress about the plan to close the loophole, the issue was particularly important to Sinclair because it had more marketing agreements than any in the nation. For its part, Glencairn appeared to have been getting little support in Congress until it retained Ms. Iseman in 1998.

Edwin Edwards, who was the president of the company at the time, said in a recent interview that after retaining Ms. Iseman, he was able to get heard by Mr. McCain.

Anyone remember Sinclair from four years ago?  Yeah.