Defending McCain, O’Reilly Threatens To Peddle ‘Longstanding Rumor’ Against Unnamed Democrat
Defending McCain, O’Reilly Threatens To Peddle ‘Longstanding Rumor’ Against Unnamed Democrat
Last night on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly called the New York Times’s damaging story on Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) unethical relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman a “hit piece.”
During a discussion about the piece with former White House Press Secretary — and now permanent Radio Factor fill-in host — Tony Snow, O’Reilly responded by saying that he could “just as easily” expose a “longstanding rumor” about an unnamed “powerful Democratic person in this country.” “I could do it tomorrow,” he warned.
Watch it:
Presumably, O’Reilly’s high ethical journalistic standards are the only thing preventing him from peddling such unfounded rumors.
Transcript:
O’REILLY: There has been a longstanding rumor, and you know it, about a Democratic, powerful Democratic person in this country, longstanding, been around, people have looked at it, never reported by anyone, never mentioned by anyone. Easily done in the same way The New York Times did it. I could do it. I could do it. I could do it tomorrow, anonymous sources told me this individual in America, again, a prominent Democrat…
SNOW: Right.
O’REILLY: …was doing this, all right. And everybody in the business, the journalism business, knows that story’s in play. No one will report it. So I — it’s a hit piece on McCain. It’s a hit piece.
Topic Cloud
Come on Snowjob. We double dog dare you! This is a case of empty posturing as they watch their war mongering candidate hit the skids.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 amDoes it involve unusual uses of falafels, Dild?
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 amthe difference between this “rumor” they supposedly have is contrasted against the “facts” published by the NYT. Get a life, Loofah Boy and Snowbound.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 amTo use an old w line : “Bring it on mofo” !!
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 amwow… the hiring of snowjob was “fortuitous”… not?
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 amit’s almost as if he was hired just for this story…
Here we have to treasonous americans spouting off rumor and innuendo on national television….er….well, maybe not credible television if there is such a thing….Fuchs Snooze certainly is not credible reporting. I think it’s time to look into treason on the part of Bush’s mouthpiece (snowjob) in his ongoing lies which he knew were lies and which he fed to the american people. From there, let’s dig deeper into Falafel Boy. No doubt he’s got sexual harassment in his closet which he hushed up with a hefty payoff.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 amGet. Bent. O’Reilly. Loser.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 amtwo…..two…..two treasonous americans.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am#7 He already is “bent” - O’Liely’s bending over to pick up his loofah every day of the week while being used as a mouthpiece.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 amDo I hear charges being accrued against Snowjob as he is foolish enough to put his disgusting lying face out there in public view once again? It’s called “aiding and abetting” by using his position to defraud the public and “enable” this corrupt regime in their annhilation of the constitution.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 amThe people would have gone easy on him in light of his illness and the fact that he had the decency to step down. Now he’s rearing his butt-ugly head once more - be careful what you ask for, Snowjob. Be very careful. Snowjob’s an integral part of the treasonous lies spun via his position in the unnecessary genocide of innocent iraqis and some 4,000 of our military heroes who believed those lies.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 amIt’s called “aiding and abetting war crimes” Tony. What don’t you seem to “get” about that?
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 amI love Tony Snow’s thoughful commentary on the subject:
“Right”
Wow! Such eloquence.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 ami’m sure if that “prominent Democrat” were tied up with lobbyist payolla
the NYT et al. would be happy to tell the story…
and i’d be happy to hear of it…
i did notice this: oLIElly said “DemocratIC …”
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 am+10 points!
he got BIG MONEY for that “Right”!
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am“O’Reilly Threatens To Peddle ‘Longstanding Rumor’ Against Unnamed Democrat”
- - Two words: Slander lawsuit.
Bring it, Bill.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 amNotice how the right-wing is only focusing on the affair aspect of this story, which isn’t the important part at all? The important thing was Mr. I Hate Lobbyists McCain has been doing favors for lobbyists for years. He has a lobbyist running his campaign. He takes in massive amounts of money from lobbyists.
McCain completely changed his opinion about requiring companies to switch from analog signals to digital after Paxson Communications, the client of Ms. Iseman, started lobbying him. Affair or not, McCain flip-flopped on his opinion, which gave broadcasters like Paxson years longer to convert their technology. This is a pattern from the “Straight Talk Express” going all the way back to the Keating Five savings and loan scandal in the 80’s.
Corruption is one of the main things angering people about government right now. Corruption was the #2 issue when voters removed Republicans from running Congress in 2006. When people talk about wanting “change”, they’re really talking about things like ending blatant political corruption and influence-peddling.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 amWell, between “Who Would Osama Want As Pres?” and this, it shows you just how empty the gas tank is for these clowns. They’re down to straw man polls and innuendo.
Ouch! It’s gotta be painful being on of these idjits these days.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am“Presumably, O’Reilly’s high ethical journalistic standards are the only thing preventing him from peddling such unfounded rumors.”
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Seriously, the only things “preventing” him from peddling an unfounded rumor are:
1) He doesn’t have one yet. He needs time to make one up.
2) Spewing an obvious made-up lie will get him a little press, but it could bring a libel suit. And he’s still dealing with the shock waves from his “lynching party” remark about Michelle Obama.
There’s an art to being a hateful talking head. You want to emit a steady stream of invective and vitriol to keep your fans interested, but you don’t want to pile it on so thick that you lose your job a la Imus.
Besides, suggesting you HAVE a rumor can sound a lot more sinister than revealing what it actually is, so O’Reilly will probably try to get his mileage on mere suggestion.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 amRegardless of what O’Reilly is trying to do, the kind of jargon the NYT used in that article was unneccessary. I’m tired of politics being about a competition between the candidates personal lives (to a certain extent, obviously) and not about what they can do for policies in this country. Let’s focus on that, NYT.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 am- - Two words: Slander lawsuit.
Bring it, Bill.
Comment by Badmoodman — February 22, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Well, not legally. It’s almost impossible to slander or libel a public figure.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 amDildo & Snowjob; quite a pair.
I wonder which one swallows?
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 amYou guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “news”paper. So it printed a Non-story with no proof just to pass an agenda. If Fox does anything remotely like that you guys cry foul.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 amFirst of all, I don’t care about the NYT as they are quickly aproching the level of CNN with conservative BS.
That said though, I find it strange that Billo and Snowjob look like the second coming of Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon doing the commie routines.
Not only is the RePUG attack on Government evident, they are gonna take down the fourth estate as well.
It ain’t even funny either. they have no sense of timing and I’ll bet that can’t even throw a pie right!
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 amI am betting that O’Reilly would lose his job if he did that. I am also betting that the long standing rumor is not about payola…but is on the topic of sex.
Given neocons (and O’Reilly is included here) troubles with their own sexuality, they are inclined to think sexual activity is much worse than governmental malfeasance.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 amRegardless of what O’Reilly is trying to do, the kind of jargon the NYT used in that article was unneccessary. I’m tired of politics being about a competition between the candidates personal lives (to a certain extent, obviously) and not about what they can do for policies in this country. Let’s focus on that, NYT.
Comment by flyraisinfly — February 22, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Well said.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 amHey VA Voter,
What rock did you just crawl out from under? Did you sleep during the entire 1990’s when the media reported ad nauseum every unsubstantiated Bill Clinton “affair”? Where were the calls of “liberal media” then?
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 amHmmm. Maybe O’Reilly is planning his next lynching party.
/snark
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 amHey Tony - Democrats aren’t constantly lecturing and judging others on their moral purity.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 amou guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “newsâ€paper. So it printed a Non-story with no proof just to pass an agenda. If Fox does anything remotely like that you guys cry foul.
Comment by VA Voter
Yeh, thats why they hired Bill Kristol and allowed Judy Miller to repeat what Scooter leaked to her.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 amSo, O’Reilly just PROVED that he is a reich-winger and is not “fair and balanced.” Thanks, O’Racist……
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 amYou guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “newsâ€paper. So it printed a Non-story with no proof just to pass an agenda. If Fox does anything remotely like that you guys cry foul.
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 10:51 am
How is it a “non-story”? Just because you don’t like the content and facts, that doesn’t make it a non-story.
Faux “reports” smears against Democrats on a daily basis and you reich-wingers wank off in delight.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 amQuick Reaction to Lobbyist Charges Has Muted Damage
ABC News - 3 hours ago
By RON CLAIBORNE In less than 24 hours the McCain campaign traveled the long distance from anger and anxiety to calm and confidence.
oh really? … but then there’s:
Report Raises More Questions Over McCain’s Close Ties to Lobbyists FOXNews
L O B B Y I S T S .
oh, and, H Y P O C R I S Y .
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 amThis “story” is becoming exactly what the republicans/Fox want. An unproven rumor of sexual liasons between McCain and this woman. The evidence of improper meddling by McCain into whatever her lobbying firm was going after is getting lost in this fog.
Fox pushes Sex and rumors better than all other networks (Yes, even better than Nancy Grace). As long as the story remains about this it will remain in their battlefield on which they are experts.
The story should be about the lobbying firm, not the sex.
If the other networks keep chasing Fox on this story of sex the real issues will fade from our site.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 amYou guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “newsâ€paper. So it printed a Non-story with no proof just to pass an agenda. If Fox does anything remotely like that you guys cry foul.
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 10:51 am
Oh give it up. Nobody believes this lie anymore. The New York Times and other media outlets are only as liberal as the corporate masters who own them and pay to advertise in them.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 amO’Reilley didn’t “threaten to peddle†the rumor. He said that he could peddle it, but he wouldn’t, because his standards are higher than the NYT.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 10:58 am
R O F L ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 amO’Reilley didn’t “threaten to peddle†the rumor. He said that he could peddle it, but he wouldn’t, because his standards are higher than the NYT. Comment by good_golly
Oh BS, he doesnt have anything to peddle. I call his bluff.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 amand, oLIElly never said he wouldn’t tell…
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:03 amkeep ‘em hangin’, billo…
Gigi, a Hillary and Obama reference???? Are you getting a little desperate? Where is your Bill Clinton reference?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 amO’Reilley didn’t “threaten to peddle†the rumor. He said that he could peddle it, but he wouldn’t, because his standards are higher than the NYT.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Which would tell a thinking person that he was blowing smoke out his butt. His standards could crawl under a roach.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 amBut, the simple truth is that O’Reilly’s threats against a Democrat as a response to the NYT just proves that is a far, far reich-winger and has zero semblance of “fair and balanced”
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 am37. Call Hillary’s “bluff†too -GG
To use your logic…maybe her standards are higher than Bills? Heh.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 am*Flag The Trolls*
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 amComment by John Kerry — February 22, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Let the flagging begin!
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 amBeat me to it, Dr matt!
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 amYou guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “newsâ€paper. So it printed a Non-story with no proof just to pass an agenda. If Fox does anything remotely like that you guys cry foul.
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 10:51 am
Except that this isn’t a left-wing political dirty trick. If it was, we lefties would be pouncing all over it, screaming about how “relevant” this is and claiming it’s evidence that McCain isn’t fit to be president.
Is that happening? No, not to a large extent. There are a few on some progressive blogsites (such as this one) who are trying to throw some gasoline on this fire, but most of us are either condemning the story as “old news” or ignoring it altogether.
So who’s pumping the bellows on the fire? Um…that would be the McCain campaign itself. And Kristol. And Limbaugh. And various McCain fans who are screaming about this “dirty trick” played by the “liberal” NYT.
What does all this point to? The most likely scenario is that it’s the conservatives who pushed for this story. After all, they have been making FAR more noise about this than the progressives have. Why? Here are a few points to their strategy:
1) It will generate sympathy for McCain.
2) It can be blamed on the “liberals” — painting them as engaging in dirty politics.
3) Even if it DOES tarnish McCain with some voters who had been supporting him, McCain is still a shoo-in for the GOP nomination, and it will be forgotten by fall.
4) This whole business will inoculate McCain against future scandalous eruptions. All his camp will have to say is “this is just more of the same crap as that NYT article.”
Yes, somebody’s agenda was probably passed here. The question is…whose?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 amO’Reilley didn’t “threaten to peddle†the rumor. He said that he could peddle it, but he wouldn’t, because his standards are higher than the NYT.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Absolutely. just ask the staff at the Paris Business Review.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 amWell said.
Comment by Keltoi — February 22, 2008 @ 10:53 am
You must not have read the article. It’s being portrayed as being about sex, but it’s really about McCain’s hypocrisy in claiming to be above the lobbyist fray.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 amWhilst on the other hand, it is a proven fact, and not a rumor, that Dild O’reilly is a pervert.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 amBring it on, LoofaBoy.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 amHe said that he could peddle it, but he wouldn’t, because his standards are higher than the NYT.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Because “his STANDARDS ARE HIGHER”???????????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am- - Two words: Slander lawsuit.
Bring it, Bill.
Comment by Badmoodman — February 22, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Well, not legally. It’s almost impossible to slander or libel a public figure.
Comment by toasterhead
Egg-zact-ly Mr. Toaster Head.
There really are no real laws for slander, because when someone is noted in the press, especially they have some sort of title, they can be slandered in any way. slander happens in Britian, but not here.
Besides that, we can’t even get political or constitional issues settled, or get get our elections settled by the courts, so we can’t figure that real action against the FAUX news from a judge.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 amIt was McCains aides that talked to the NYT folks…lol. They were just doing what Rush was doing!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 amO’Reilley didn’t “threaten to peddle†the rumor. He said that he could peddle it, but he wouldn’t, because his standards are higher than the NYT.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Absolutely. Ask those poor German POWs who were massacred by Americans at Malmedy in WWII.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 amPerhaps Dild knows his days as a “serious journalist” are coming to an end, missmolly, and he’s trying to to transition to comedy whilst the transitioning is good. I mean, he sure got a good laugh outta you there.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 amWhy does McCains aides hate him?
Why does Limbaugh and BORe blame the media for what Republican aides leaked to the media?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 amHey Orielly why don’t you expose the child sex parties involving politicians, judges, and journalists thats used to control and blackmail them?
The only reason you wouldn’t is because you participate yourself.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 amOreilly and Snow are exactly like the little girls on my Daughter’s 4th Grade playground, and less intellectually compelling.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 amThe credibility of the NYT continues to sink like a stone. A 3000 word front page piece on which they’ve obviously been working and waiting to release will serve only to further sully this once proud and respectable institutuion. It’s actually quite sad that the NYT is reduced to this level of desperation. This may serve to galvanise the right wing and drum up support where once McCain had little.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 amYou guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “newsâ€paper. So it printed a Non-story with no proof just to pass an agenda. If Fox does anything remotely like that you guys cry foul.
Comment by VA Voter
What adenda is the paper passing on the person it endorsed?
Why is it a non-story that mcain took a boatload of money, free travel from a lobbieist and company that was in front a committee he served on , and ruled in favor of, and sent letters supporting to regulatory agencies said company was butting heads with?
Come back with a better bottle of whine, this one is being served before its time.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 amNo, because the Clinton camp specifically said that their dirt was on Obama, while O’Reilly didn’t name any names.
Comment by good_golly
No, because it was not the Dems that spread this rumour, it was McCains aides that spread the dirt. If BORe wants to get even for dirt spilling he should peddle crap about the Republican aides!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 amThe credibility of the NYT continues to sink like a stone. A 3000 word front page piece on which they’ve obviously been working and waiting to release will serve only to further sully this once proud and respectable institutuion. It’s actually quite sad that the NYT is reduced to this level of desperation. This may serve to galvanise the right wing and drum up support where once McCain had little.
Comment by Nettles
The held it back due to pressure from Mcain lawyers. It was due to come out last december, when it would have killed mcain’s remaining hopes. idiot.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 amNo, because the Clinton camp specifically said that their dirt was on Obama, while O’Reilly didn’t name any names.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:17 am
So potentially slandering any Democrat is more ethical than slandering a specific Democrat? You really do live in a universe all your own.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 amDavid Brody of CBN believes that this New York Times “hit job†may
be seen as “a conservative badge of honor†and
“could actually help John McCain.â€
and that’s what i called yesterday… or tried to say…
on the limpballs thread…
there is more to this story… more to come…
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 amIt’s actually quite sad that the NYT is reduced to this level of desperation. This may serve to galvanise the right wing and drum up support where once McCain had little.
Comment by Nettles — February 22, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Exactly the point missmolly made earlier.
Who benefits from McCain’s aides talking to the press?
Why, McCain benefits! Who’da thunk it?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 amThis may serve to galvanise the right wing and drum up support where once McCain had little.
Comment by Nettles — February 22, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Right, because the conservatives are so heavily influenced by the New York Times.
Brilliant.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 amIf BORe wants to get even for dirt spilling he should peddle crap about the Republican aides!!
Comment by Xisithrus — February 22, 2008 @ 11:19 am
You mean like a certain someone in South Carolina?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 amSo potentially slandering any Democrat is more ethical than slandering a specific Democrat -gummitch
He wants to peddle crap about a Democrat because two Republican aides to McCain, insiders with knowledge, said what he did was inappropiate.
And its the Democrats fault!!! Waaaaahhhhh!! Waaahhh!! Newsflash GG you dont talk to the press unless you want it made public!
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 amYou must not have read the article. It’s being portrayed as being about sex, but it’s really about McCain’s hypocrisy in claiming to be above the lobbyist fray.
Comment by gummitch — February 22, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Gummitch,
Yes. I read the article. I know it’s more about lobbying than sex. But what the average American reads into it is nothing deeper than a Clinton-esque sex scandal on a much smaller level. The point I was making was simply: Who cares in 2008 about minute details of a candidate’s personal life… policies are much more important.
For the record, I am an Obama supporter, so I’m not fighting for McCain. I’m discussing the importance of accurately focused politics.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 amYou mean like a certain someone in South Carolina? -RUC
I am above peddling dirt!!!
Heh.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 amI seriously doubt Bill’O and the rest of FAUX Noise are protecting a “powerful Democratic person in this country†because of their journalistic ethics.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 amApparently the only standards that are lower than BORe’s are two REPUBLICAN AIDES with insider knowledge.
Wahhh Wahhh, the Democrats made them talk to the media!!! Wahhh!!
Wahhh!! The aides were only doing what Rush did!! wahhhh Wahhh!!
Its the NYTs fault for making the aides talk to them!!! They tortured a confession out of the Aides!!! Wahhhhhh!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 amComment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:17 am
you’re slowing down, gg. tough week?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 amIn case you haven’t read, the “two Republican Aides†have denied the story -GG
Well Duh.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 amyou’re slowing down, gg. tough week?
Comment by joe cantwell — February 22, 2008 @ 11:40 am
She’s got to be exhausted. I can’t be easy to blog AND turn tricks at the same time.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 amnow Righty is the pretend “classy” party
just like other times they’re the pretend “injured” party
it’s funny that Dubbie ever referred to “political theater”, ’cause it’s all his side has ever had going for them - thespianism.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 amComment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:41 am
mmm, sorry gg i was enjoying a big bowl of schenfreude.
now what were prattling about this time?
eh?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 amWhat if Larry Sinclair passes his upcoming pollygraph test? Do you think the NYT will report on it? Note that the results are expected to be published before March 4.
Comment by good_golly
And if he doesn’t pass it will you comment on it? Will take back all the hurtful things you’ve said about the NYT? You know that Bill Geller didn’t get a wink of sleep last night because of all the mean things you’ve been saying.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 amComment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:48 am
hmmm, a smear?
oh gg, you are getting desperate, aren’t you?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 amGo for it Tony. And people are going to believe you about as much as they believed you when you were the lying sack of shit Press Secretary.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 amIf felafel boy has information and is with-holding it, either he doesn’t really have that information *OR* he is withholding it for an opportune moment when it can do the most damage.
What does either case say about his journalistic integrity ?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 amWhat if Larry Sinclair passes his upcoming pollygraph test? -gg
I dont care what the centrist NYT rag says.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 amRegardless of what O’Reilly is trying to do, the kind of jargon the NYT used in that article was unneccessary. I’m tired of politics being about a competition between the candidates personal lives (to a certain extent, obviously) and not about what they can do for policies in this country. Let’s focus on that, NYT.
That article was about much more than McCain’s sex life. It was about influence peddling. The sexual liaison was just one small part of a much bigger picture. But, of course, the MSM is much more interested in the sex angle than they are about the influence peddling angle. It sells more newspapers.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 amYou really do live in a universe all your own.
Comment by gummitch — February 22, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Indeed. g_g spins endlessly in a tight orbit around a distant planet known locally as UrAnus.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 amYou gotta love loon trolls like GiGi. It thinks that if Keller had an affair, that makes McCain having an affair OK. But, I have to ask, did Keller leave his wife that waited faithfully for him for years while he was in captivity for his current bimbo? I think not.
If you took away their straw man, the right wing loons would have nothing.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 amO’Reilly responded by saying that he could “just as easily†expose a “longstanding rumor†about an unnamed “powerful Democratic person in this country.†“I could do it tomorrow,†he warned.
The difference, Bill, is that YOU wouldn’t be taken seriously.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 amBill Keller, the New York Times’ top editor who bears responsibility for the publication of the Sen. John McCain / Vicki Iseman hit piece may have once had an extramarital affair himself — with his current wife Emma Gilbey, according to research dug up by Deceiver.com.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Hmm… much like the good Senator McCain himself, who married his current wife a month of divorcing his first.
Yeah, I can see how Keller’s predicament would shock Republicans, seeing as how they so abhor extramarital affairs and all. Right, Newt? Right, Sen. Vitter? Right, Rudy?
Shocking.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 amComment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:53 am
deceiver.com?
here’s another gg source:
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY&eurl=http:/ / wonkette.com/ tag/ larry-sinclair/
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pmPerhaps this is the story O’Reilly was holding.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Probably — since it’s pretty damn lame.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pmThanks for lowering your standards by peddling rumors gg!
Heh.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pmGet a grip, GiGi - we don’t care how many hard-faced dominatrix bottle blondes John McWhore boinks.
At his age, that he can still get it up at all is a mitzvah.
What we *do* care about is the fact that John McWhore is absolutely corrupt and wallowing in dirty lobbyist money - for which he performs like a cheap hooker.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pmYou guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “newsâ€paper. So it printed a Non-story with no proof just to pass an agenda. If Fox does anything remotely like that you guys cry foul.
More fantasy on the right-wing’s part. The NYT is by far NOT a “left wing” newspaper. If they were, they would not have kept Judy Regan on and been cheerleaders for invading Iraq. The proof that McPander has frequently made nice with lobbyists is not a “non story”, especially when he is running around saying that he is the only candidate NOT influenced by lobbyists. McPander brought this on himself. As far as “no proof”, they have the words of people who worked for McPander. That’s proof enough for me.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pmWould it be terrible of me to say Billo needs a jowl-ectomy?
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pmVA Voter: “You guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “newsâ€paper.”
Right. The NYT is that “lefty” paper that pounded on Bill and Hillary Clinton for eight straight years about a phony non-scandal called Whitewater. The NYT kept pounding for 6 years after the Republicans’ own Resolution Trust Corporation decided after an exhaustive invesigation in 1994 that the Clintons had done nothing wrong.
The NYT is also the “lefty” publication which for months allowed Judith Miller to reprint the ramblings of a drunken Iraqi expatriot as a justification for invading Iraq.
One more example of “lefty” leanings: the NYT ditched a story about a NASA imaging specialist who had conclusive proof that Bush was cheating during the debates.
I don’t know exactly what the NYT is, but they’re definitely NOT a “lefty publication.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pmI wonder which one swallows?
Comment by Zimzone — February 22, 2008 @ 10:49 am
both…
but O’liely prefers the reach-a-round
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pmThis schadenfreude reeks of turdblossom.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — February 22, 2008 @ 11:58 am
yeah, gg never talks about cindy and carol… does she?
quote from the ap article:
“A month after the divorce, McCain married Cindy Lou Hensley, heiress to Phoenix-based Hensley & Co., the nation’s second-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pmRalph: “Hmm… much like the good Senator McCain himself, who married his current wife a month of divorcing his first.”
Actually, it’s even worse than it sounds. McCain jettisoned his first wife after he found a wealthy, politically connected daughter of a wealthy conservative in Arizona. The second he finished marrying her, he started looking for a district in which to run for public office with the help of his new father-in-law.
McCain is a corrupt, sociopathic phony.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pmCAPTION CONTEST!!
Billo: Yeah, it’s this long, and it only cost $39.99.
Snowflake: Where can I get one?
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pmThis story has Rove shit stains all over it. He asked McCain what dirty laundry could possibly come out in October when it would hurt, they had their moles spill it now, and it blows over and is a non story by November. Pretty smart really. Smart like melting gold fillings to make a pretty ring smart.
Oh, and thanks for the rim job JK, I owe you two now.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pmO’Reilley didn’t “threaten to peddle†the rumor. He said that he could peddle it, but he wouldn’t, because his standards are higher than the NYT.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 10:58 am
You’ll fall for anything, dumbass.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pmWho cares in 2008 about minute details of a candidate’s personal life… policies are much more important.
For the record, I am an Obama supporter, so I’m not fighting for McCain. I’m discussing the importance of accurately focused politics.
Comment by flyraisinfly
I care. If McPander was schlepping someone and then steers business the way of that person, then it says a lot about more than his moral character. McPander has set himself up as the one candidate with no lobbying influences. Well, he better be prepared to defend that statement because he started it.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pmWhat we *do* care about is the fact that John McWhore is absolutely corrupt and wallowing in dirty lobbyist money - for which he performs like a cheap hooker.
Exactly. Nobody here is complaining that John McCain “had seeeeeeeexxxxx.” I don’t care if he was boinking every member on his staff. The PROBLEM is the conflict of interest that comes with boinking a staffer who has business before one of your committees.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pmComment by Zooey
Damn, that thing must run on 120volt, and not batteries for that price.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pmThis story has Rove shit stains all over it. He asked McCain what dirty laundry could possibly come out in October when it would hurt, they had their moles spill it now, and it blows over and is a non story by November. Pretty smart really. Smart like melting gold fillings to make a pretty ring smart.
Comment by nanlichi
That was my first thought. I smell a rat all over this story. It does three things for John McPander. 1) It gets the Republicans who can’t stand him to rally around him because he has become a “victim” and 2) gives him something he can use for fund raising purposes and 3) it conflates the sexual liaison aspect of the story with the influence peddling part of the story saying that if the sexual part is not true, then the influence peddling part also must not be true.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:14 pmDamn, that thing must run on 120volt, and not batteries for that price.
Comment by DieNowForPeace — February 22, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Desperate men….. ;)
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pmAbsolutely. just ask the staff at the Paris Business Review.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 22, 2008 @ 11:09 am
Great reference ralph. It was so obscure I had to google it. High5!
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pmSnow is going to reveal that Obama is black!
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pmVA Voter: “You guys know that the NYTs is a left wing “newsâ€paper.â€
Yeah, I guess that’s EXACTLY why the NYT endorsed McWhore. They’re just a left wing rag.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pmRalphie - I’ll second Shayne’s High5 - yer on fire today!!! ;o)
~A
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pmNote that the results are expected to be published before March 4.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:48 am
And note that the test will be performed PRIVATELY by an extremely partisan outfit willing to pay $100K for the “correct outcome”. Sheesh…
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pmSaaay… where’d JK’s posts go?
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:27 pmJohnny McMaverick: Ready, Willing, and Able to inherit the wind that Dubbie broke.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pmjk got his big bad ranting idiot self e-jected. thanks goodness for small favors.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pmbilbobaggins @111,
No one else benefits from the timing of this story but McCain.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pmSaaay… where’d JK’s posts go?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 22, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
The fastest way to get rid of posts is to copy them and go up to the contact us window and ask them why they’re letting this stuff stay. Just flagging them doesn’t seem to work as well. Morning fluffy.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pmThat’ll surely clear McCain!
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:41 pmReally you trolls here ranting at us are wasting your time. We wouldn’t vote for McCain if you paid us cash. And it’s not because of this story whether it’s 100% factual or not. If you want to defend McCain you should be doing it at a right wing site where people might vote for him. And the fact is Democrats don’t need this scandal to win, we have W.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pmTony Snow, you continue to sink into the muck and mire of O’Lielly’s domain.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:59 pmAs for B.O. what can be said about the unethical and racist egomaniac, who takes perverse joy in mocking his guests, making insane challenges, and asserting that his journalistic standards prevent him from spreading gossip. His audience grows older every day; I would like to hope for the day he is gone from the scene through attrition - only when it affects their bottom line will Fox let him go.
My sentiments about O’Reilly threatening to pass off a rumor as truth:
Go ahead, O’Reilly. If you peddle a rumor off on some Democrat, then you’ll find out very quickly what a Slander lawsuit feels like. Now, if McCain feels the article in the NYT has no basis in fact, he’s certainly free to file a Libel suit. I’m all for this asshat having his day in court. Discovery should go very well into figuring out if he did this or not. If he didn’t, well, then he’ll get justice and we’ll see this is just another instance of politicking. If he did, then…well, sucks to be him, and he’ll lose the support of the republican fundies they need to win.
As for the trolls, I like SHayne’s idea…both flag them AND send the posts through ‘Contact Us’. Also, the trolls are fighting SOO hard to turn this into a non-issue. Why here? Who cares what ‘a bunch of loonie moonbats’ think? Could it be that they’re rightly afraid that our posts reflect the majority of the US today? Are they afraid that they’re going to lose the presidency? I think so.
THe Republicans are suffering today because of their choices in the past. Had Bush stuck to Afghanistan, followed the rule of law, balanced the budget, used decorum when dealing with our friends and foes internationally, and basically didn’t trample our liberties, then you trolls wouldn’t hear any arguements from us Independents about him. But no, he decided to run this country into the ground. The chickens are coming home to roost, and some little article from the NYT won’t make a hill of beans difference on that.
Hint: THis is just icing on the cake. The cake? It spells out one word. It’s four letters long, starts with a B, and ends with an h.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pmWhat if Larry Sinclair passes his upcoming pollygraph test? Do you think the NYT will report on it? Note that the results are expected to be published before March 4.
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Oh and gone_goofy, as a second generation, lifelong Chicago, Larry Sinclair or al Cracker, is no Chicagoan. His hotel room in Gurnee that is almost in Wisconsin that’s over an hour north of Chicago and 5 hours north of Springfield. Freakin’ Gurnee! You mean Larry Sinclair has been to Bass Pro Shops, gee who could have guessed by looking at him. You, O’Reilly, Snow - BRING IT ON. If you think the NYTimes article rallied conservatives around McCain, try smearing Obama over sex and drugs. We’re progressives, we LIKE sex and drugs, dumbass.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pmFirst, this type of lawsuit is very hard to prove when you are a public person, which is why it will probably never come to that. I think Jeremy missed the Bill’s point. He wasn’t threatening to expose the rumor. He was trying to make the point that this kind of stuff shouldn’t be thrown out there without proof, which NYT did not show. Sorry you missed that.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pmMore personal responsibility…less lawsuits!
Do it! Do it! Do it! If the rumor has any legs, then the American Public has a right to know. But, there is a difference between a rumor and a fully vetted NYT article (with 4 authors, BTW) that has been run by any number of lawyers. I’m pretty sure that the NYTimes are on pretty solid ground. But if one reports a rumor, and it proves to be false, then…. you are opening a huge can of worms for one’s self. So Go on Bill and Tony. Let’s see what you’ve got.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pmMcLiar, McTraitor, McPanderer, McLOSER…
McHAHA!
McByeBye!!!
Sincerely,
McNRA Gun Nut(e)s
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 pmComment by bilbobaggins — February 22, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
I agree, if we have people like Bay Buchanan who say with a straight face that they expect GOP candidates to be loyal to their families because adultery is only a Democratic Party thing, then yes, his infidelity in addition to his connection with lobbyists is fair game…
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pmBill O’Reilly breaks the story on his show…
“And that Democrat’s name is Gary Hart. Shocking.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:19 pmwell come on billo - spill the beans!! - and maybe at the same time you can convince pat robertson to let us know who god told him would be the next president - and i loved how snow said that people are sick of this tabloid scandal news - yeah right!!! - if it had been obama instead of mccain,fox and every other right wing pundit who believes that anyone actually gives a rat’s ass about their opinion would be all over him like a pitbull on a poodle.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pmHillary is Ready, Now!CommentBug.com Free Photo Storage!
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 amJUST IN:
Larry Sinclair took his polygraph lie detector test today and results will be out Monday or Tuesday.
By the way, that is who O’Reilly was talking about most probably. He allegedly did drugs and had sex with Barack Obama in 1999. This man has also filed a law suit in Minnesota. Should be very interesting to see if Obama is actually telling the truth here.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 amOK, OK, as wrong as O’Reilly is, am I the only one curious about this rumor?
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 amOK, OK, as wrong as O’Reilly is, am I the only one curious about this rumor?
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 4:01 am
No, REAL Americans prefer FACTS.
If O’Dildo has PROOF, let him come forward.
Otherwise, just empty threats from the PROPAGANDA channel,
Fox “news”.
McLiar, McTraitor, McPanderer, McLOSER…
McHAHA!
McByeBye!!!
Sincerely,
McNRA Gun Nut(e)s
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 amLOL, Arn, chill out. Boy, I hope that blogs are a place for you to vent frustrations, not to relax..cuz if it’s the latter…damn.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pmLOL, Arn, chill out. Boy, I hope that blogs are a place for you to vent frustrations, not to relax..cuz if it’s the latter…damn.
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Yeah, Duh, Duh azshole. Take your “concern” and go FKVK YOURSELF.
If O’Dildo has any PROOF about a politician, he would have the GREEN LIGHT from the folks at Fox PROPAGANDA (”news”).
The fact that he isn’t coming forward is simply another rumor, innuendo, lie, etc. on which O’Dildo and Fox make their LIVING…
Anyway, if YOU have PROOF, tell us.
Otherwise, REAL Americans want FACTS, and your interest in “rumors” makes you a PERFECT stooge for the PROPAGANDA of Murdoch.
McLiar, McTraitor, McPanderer, McLOSER…
McHAHA!
McByeBye!!!
Sincerely,
McNRA Gun Nut(e)s
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pmSo for a sake of insanity,
Lets say I agree that it is a hit piece. Not that Billo doesn’t do his hits every day on radio and TV at his enemies expense. But so I agree its a hit piece.
-So we kill the hitter.
-Is the piece true or false?
-If true, it wasn’t a hit after all.
This is the conservative ideology here. Look at President Bush’s policy on “Whistle Blowers”.
If a person sees a crime, reports it, The person stopping the stopping the crime become the criminal………
Conservatives world of justice….
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm