Paxson contradicts McCain, says they discussed FCC letters.
Marking the second time that statements made by Sen. John McCain’s campaign have been contradicted today, Lowell “Bud” Paxson told the Washington Post that he did in fact meet with the senator about writing letters to the FCC in 1999. McCain’s campaign said yesterday that “no representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter.” Paxson said they met “several weeks” before McCain sent the letters:
Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson’s quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.
Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, attended the meeting in McCain’s office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. “Was Vicki there? Probably,” Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post today. “The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings.”
Topic Cloud
Good GOD, these people would sell their souls, and likely have.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pmMore dirt on McShame. He’s over.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 pmJust like Nixon, it’s not about the deeds per se; it’s about the lying about the deeds. He’s been caught in two just today. What’s to come next?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 pmThis does in no way trivialize the “deeds” involved here where he clearly was paid to pull strings. Is this the kind of executive we want again? I think not.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pmOh, SMACK.
Bill Clinton, blah, blah, blah. Just wanted to beat the trolls.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 pmObviously McCrabby doesn’t let a little thing like the truth stand in his way.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 pmI think there’s a good chance that the NYT story was planted, much like the 60 Minutes Bush ANG docs, in order to generate sympathy on the right for McCain. If so, these kind of lies will add a delectable irony to the whole sordid tale.
Just think: Repub strategists, having used the planted story successfully before, decide that it’s just the thing the McCain campaign needs right now. Inoculate the candidate from future outbreaks of the story, set up McCain as opposing the wingnut boogeyman NYT, and draw the true believers into the camp.
But then, the plan starts to unravel as damage control is taken too lightly and lie after lie gets unearthed. The story of a ten-year-old affair makes no impact, but the lies told in defending himself deep-six for good the “Straight Talk” myth on which McCain’s political viability depends.
Deeee-lish.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pmWell said ralph. I like the way you think.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 pmBuh-bye McCave.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 pmObviously McCrabby doesn’t let a little thing like the truth stand in his way.
Comment by Shayne — February 22, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
McCrabby ! … Now that’s funny !
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 pmWay to step on your dick, McCain.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 pmMcCain sure is going above and beyond to try to become Bush’s 3rd term. He’s becoming more adept at lying each and every day. Keep talking McLame you’re our best offense.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 pmWho does Mac and his leash-holders think they are kidding? NO politician can be in Washington without rubbing up against the lobbyists and having them rub up against you (yuck). It’s a fact of life and everyone knows it. So now we are supposed to believe this latest fairy tale that he is as white as the driven snow after 20+ years of slogging through the marble halls?
If ya’ work in the sewer, you’re going to get a little shit on ya’ - somewhere, and maybe all over. Quit lying about your relationships with the lobbyists (and their influence on you) and thinking we don’t know how it all works.
Telling a lie over and over does not make it the truth.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 pmgg, do you ever get tired of carrying water? Ever? Really?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 pmComment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Did you read the post? The whole thing?
Jeebus…
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 pmOh shit.
This means McShame is a liar.
Who could have predicted it?
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 amexcellent stretch gg!! Are you a mental contortionist or what?
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 amWe should have known when he had the “Straight talk express.”
No politician is capable of straight talk.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 amBe fair Zoo. Republicans are full of straight talk. I mean Larry Craig…er, Mark Foley…er…never mind.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 amThe talk would be the most straight thing about them….
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 amNo politician is capable of straight talk.
Comment by Zooey
Rhetoric is their trade, money is their prize, truth is their demise.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 amThe talk would be the most straight thing about them….
Comment by Zooey
I would think the straight thing between them couldnt talk =P
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 amEwww. I don’t want to think about it anymore. :D
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 amThe woman was a professional. She was good.
As in $2,000.00 a night plus room charge?
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 amHillary is Ready, Now!CommentBug.com Free Photo Storage!
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 amHillary is ready to concede? About time.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 amIsn’t this what it always comes down to in this culture of corruption? Everybody is lying except for the poor, wrongfully accused McCain. The lobbyists are lying. The business owners are lying. The journalists are lying. Former aides are lying. Hell, even McCain himself was lying when he testified about this very matter some years ago.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 amIf you are going to whore for your website at least do some investigation.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 amgood golly is a poor impersonation of a human being. might it be a turing test escaped from one of poindexter’s defense projects?
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 amThe fact is McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for him. Somehow I don’t see that is being free from “special interests”. This article is probably a non-starter but it points directly at his being in bed with lobbyists, even if that is not literal.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 amgood golly didn’t even try on this one. I am thinking he did not earn his keep. Nothing but gruel for him tomorrow.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 amAre we really suprised by any of this anymore? I mean really, this is sympomatic of Republicans in general. It doesn’t matter anyway, McCain cannot stand up to CHANGE, and YOUTH, and IDEAS. it’s over before it starts.
http://www.getsomejosh.com
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 amThis “straight (8) talker” should get beat worse than Bob Dole.
A∞Ω
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 amThere is an obvious difference between “meetingâ€
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
McInsane has had “meatings” with…
There gg, I fixed your spelling.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 amThere is an obvious difference between “meetingâ€
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
and “asking to send a letter.â€
Comment by good_golly — February 22, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Yeah, DISHONEST SPIN! ;)
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 amReally? Let’s see. This story has rallied the right to McCain’s side, and also has put a focus on ethics, which is McCain’s strong suit.
On the substance, it seems like the problem here is a contradiction in what McCain said; still, they never claimed that there wasn’t a plea for help from Paxson’s firm, and the letters merely asked for quick action on the matter.
I don’t expect any reasonable response from here, but just pointing out that not everything is so neat as you guys imagine it to be. I just hope Obama or Hillary try to go after McCain for this, considering their own lobbyist ties (worse for Hillary, yet still true for Obama).
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 amI did not have sex with that lobbyist.
I did, however, leave a big glob of quid pro quo on her dress.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:51 amI don’t expect any reasonable response from here, but just pointing out that not everything is so neat as you guys imagine it to be.
thirdparty
Don’t worry, this is going to be much messier than anyone imagines it to be. And the only people who are touting their third party status these days are “good german” republicans who are trying to pretend they didn’t vote for bush twice.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 amHey thirdparty, and other neocon apologists, here is an interesting passage from the WaPo article:
The two letters he wrote to the FCC in 1999 while he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee produced a rash of criticism and a written rebuke from the then-FCC chairman, who called McCain’s intervention “highly unusual.” McCain had repeatedly used Paxson’s corporate jet for his campaign and accepted campaign contributions from the broadcaster and his law firm.
If there’s nothing of substance then why the “rash of crticism and a written rebuke” from the FCC chairman? And if ethics is Mcains strong suit, then why is he lying about this? and why is he flying around in Paxon’s jet?
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 amFrom … Jack Abramoff: John McCain’s other Lobbyist problem… at Daily Kos:
http://dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 2/ 23/ 03912/ 3990/ 390/ 462347
Jack liked new technology. He liked to update his toys and he wanted access to all of his files with every upgrade. Turns out the IT departments of his firms had learned to keep back-ups of all his emails, memos, reports and electronic files so they could always meet Jack’s needs.
D’oh.
These documents and many, many more were turned over to McCain. When the dust settled McCain had 750,000 pages of documents.
McCain has an agreement with the Democrats that the Abramoff documents held by the Indian Affairs Committee can not be released unless both sides of the aisle agree to release them. In other words, McCain has a hold on releasing any of these documents.
This gives him great power within a weakened and corrupt Republican Party.
The NYTs story makes it possible that the truth might come out. It makes it possible that McCain’s Abramoff Cover-up will become an issue in the 2008 campaign.
He had everything. He had Jack’s Little Black Book as it were.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:37 amRepublican lies have an expiration date now…It’s a #72 in Bush signing statements.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:56 amOh, I thought signing statement 471 covered this issue: “Truth is here-by defined as whatever comes out of a republican’s mouth at the moment. Any perceived contradiction on the part of any citizen or member of the media is the fault of Islamofacism, faulty hearing, or democrat anti-americanism.”
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 amRiding the Straight Talk Express?
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 amLet the fur fly. Abramoff/McCain cover-up? Now that the cat’s out of the bag on McCain, people will be flowing out of the woodwork.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 amI figured out why McLiar couldn’t recall specifically if Ms. Vicki was at this meeting though. She was the one under McViagra’s desk.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 amA suggestion for Sen. Obama
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 am…at every debate with McCain, ASK, “If you are truly against corruption, prove it. Release the Abramoff files.”
Ha! No wonder McSaint didn’t take questions yesterday! Because he knew he was actually McLies!
This paranoid (about war) man came up too fast with a press conference on Thursday, and answered questions until there was no question left. Now he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore, pretending it’s all over and saying he wants to move on? This is BUSH-it!
The depper the digging goes the better it is becoming now. The truth and the perjury is appearing gradually. But just wait, there is more coming.
And this man wants to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? How can he sleep at night???
I guess we already had enough of this type of people. We just had almos 8 years of BUSH-it. It’s time for a change, and YES WE CAN!!!
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 amConvoy - Bill Clinton was a rapist? Yeah, right and if you believe that you’re even more deluded than you appear. As for McTorture, he’s got enough bullshit in his closet to last for a scandal a day for the rest of his life. He’s a liar and a fraud. This is become very clear to the people. His military record (USS Forrestal) is bogus and, what’s more, he was responsible for the deaths of 168 marines by his error in judgment.
As for the rest of the can of worms of his lies regarding his lobbying interests, why don’t we ask Abramoff about that? It appears there’s a McCain-Abramoff connection and cover-up.
We really don’t even need any more. These activities are so eggregious that he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning any office in the future.
Adios, McNutbag!
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 amHey Bert - hate to wake you up or burst your delusional bubble but BILL CLINTON IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT. Get a grip and get relevant to the post.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 amBesides, it’s not about McViagra’s impotency or ability to get it up. Most americans wouldn’t believe that he could be involved in a sex scandal by the mere physiology of this old sack. It’s about the money and nothing but the money. Follow the money trail; follow the lies - it’s all there in black & white. Newsweek has jumped on the bandwagon by printing more McLiar’s lies. There’s much more to come this week - of this we can be certain.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 amdrtichy: Don’t you just love McCrazy’s attempt to trivialize this huge scandal by saying “I’m moving on”. On that count he is correct; he is moving on. Moving on into total irrelevancy and shame. He’s at least smart enough to know when his goose is cooked by not answering press questions. And we know what happens with that - the more he resists; the more he indicts himself. Time will sink him into obscurity. When his military record and war hero status is challenged by contradictory “facts”, this man will hand his head in shame. The only difference is that McDaddy, the Admiral, won’t be there to cover up his mess.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:47 amMcLiar just digs himself deeper and deeper with each passing day (and lie). Like Nixon, it wasn’t so much about the dirty deed; it was the coverup lie that did him in. And so it goes with McLiar.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 amI’m not buying this attack on McCain…yet. This post, for example, is very weak. McCain’s campaign said that no one asked McCain to specifically write a letter on Paxson’s behalf, not that there had been no meeting. And the fact that Iseman “probably was there” is hardly an indictment.
http://newsprism.wordpress.com
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 amThis is so funny to watch. thirdparty, good_golly, and BERT_CONVY, self-destructing in public for us all to see.
First, it was ‘this is a non-story’. We all knew that if this was a non-story, the trolls wouldn’t be here demanding so hard that it was a non-story. This could be the torpedo that sinks McCain’s battleship, and the trolls know it. So the new story is: “The Media is making it out to be worse than it is!” from good_golly, with extra helpings of KLIIIIINTON DID IT TOOOOOOOO!!!11!111!11!1!1!one!!1!eleventyone!!1 from BERT and thirdparty.
The sad thing is that we don’t need this scandal to bring down McCain, trolls. All we need him to do is climb on the hilltops and scream from Sea to Shining Sea “ONE HUNDRED MORE YEARS OF WAR IN IRAQ, AND MORE WARS TOO!” Make sure every person hears it.
Then have our guy (or gal) say “Bring our troops home”, and let the voting public have their say.
You guys _barely_ won the last Presidential election, and had a stunning upset in the midterms. Keep your eyes on the ball, since you think electing our representatives is somehow likened to a football game, because it’s now the fourth quarter, we’re up 14 points, your best players are injured and you’re now having to use second string players, your quarterback has been disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct, and you’re 4th and 20 at your own goal line. Keep pushing war and no taxes, and we’ll see you at the polls come November ;).
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 amMcCain’s campaign said yesterday that “no representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter.â€
It’s quite possible that McPander is correct. It’s possible that Paxson didn’t say to McCain “Will you write a letter to the FCC”. He probably just said “Will you do something to make sure that the FCC approves my request”.
I love the way the Republiscums parse their words. That’s what their “I don’t recall” is all about. They just don’t think about the subject so they won’t “recall” what they said. Liars, thieves and cheats, every one of them.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 amI think there’s a good chance that the NYT story was planted, much like the 60 Minutes Bush ANG docs, in order to generate sympathy on the right for McCain. If so, these kind of lies will add a delectable irony to the whole sordid tale.
That’s what I have been saying since the beginning. I smell a rat. The timing is entirely suspect. If it had been released earlier in the primary season, it would have sunk McCain entirely. If it was released later in the campaign, it would sink McCain. By releasing it now it is doing two things that McCain desperately needs. 1) Rallying the base around McCain and 2) Helping him with fund raising.
It is also getting the allegations of pandering to special interests out there in a way when McCain can control the debate rather than the Democrats controlling the debates. Now when the Democrats run ads saying what the NYT article said, McCain can just say “we’ve been through this before, it’s a dead horse”.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 amComment by BERT CONVY — February 23, 2008 @ 9:29 am
That’s the best you can do, string together lies and fairy tales? Say goodbye to McStain and the GOP, bert, they’re all done!
LOL!!!
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 am#13 & #14
goon_golly proves the point I made in post #57.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 amHillary is ready to concede? About time.
Comment by Sabyen91
It is practically statistically impossible for her to win at this point. She would have to take Texas and Ohio by 20+ points to even get close to Obama. And both races are now a statistical dead-heat.
I hope that Hillary takes the high road when she leaves. But I very much fear that she is going to take the low road making her final words at the last debate a mockery.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am“I’m not buying this attack on McCain…yet. This post, for example, is very weak. McCain’s campaign said that no one asked McCain to specifically write a letter on Paxson’s behalf, not that there had been no meeting. And the fact that Iseman “probably was there†is hardly an indictment.”
Comment by dictatortot
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.
Want to rethink that, dictatortot?
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 amI don’t expect any reasonable response from here, but just pointing out that not everything is so neat as you guys imagine it to be. I just hope Obama or Hillary try to go after McCain for this, considering their own lobbyist ties (worse for Hillary, yet still true for Obama).
This loon troll is missing the obvious point that neither Hillary nor Obama are trying to claim that they are pure as the driven snow when it comes to lobbyists. McCain is and he is being shown for the hypocrite and liar that he is.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 amWant to rethink that, dictatortot?
Comment by barfly
It doesn’t need to rethink it. It will say what goon_golly said “There’s no proof that he asked McCain to write a letter“. Like somehow that makes everything ok.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 amWhen the armies of Obama supporters go to the polls in November to pull the lever, they sure as hell won’t be looking to keep other GOP candidates in place. Why do you think there has been a parade of Republican elected officials NOT seeking re-election in 2008? That McCain has so willingly assumed the face of Bush’s shitttt-rain on America is the real mystery. No wonder “conservatives” have their collective noses plugged–you would too if you had to defend the McCain/Bush/Neocon agenda.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 amThe McCain story continues to unfold, and the NYT is beginning to vindicate their original article with the relevant material — not the “McCain boinked another blonde”.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 amSpeaking of Obabma “surrogates” I saw Obama aide Suzanne Rice on Tucker last evening and she had poor Tucker just sitting there on his hands dumbfounded without a place to insert his usual, tired GOP talking point responses.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 amObama doesn’t “go after†anyone on his own. He uses his surrogates at TP and the NYT for that.
Comment by good_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Do you really think of yourself as a McCain “surrogate”? Interesting. I would guess McCain doesn’t think of you at all.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 amThe Straight Talk Express continues lumbering along Looney Lane, belching gas and other noxious emissions, while spinning its tires. Last stop: over the cliff into the McCrazyville junkyard, with McCratchity at the wheel, to join the other rusty Republican wrecks at the bottom. Good riddance.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 amWhile “quoting” from a newspaper article from June of last year, goon_golly neglected to quote the rest of the article, surprise, surprise, as it relates to the letter. While being a McCain surrogate requires a lot of dishonesty, it should also require a bit of intelligence. Too bad for McCain.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 amMcLiar, McTraitor, McPanderer, McLOSER…
McHAHA!
McByeBye!!!
Sincerely,
McNRA Gun Nut(e)s
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 amWhy isn’t this on the MSM? Why are they still bashing Hillary Clinton when it is clear the woman isn’t going to win. Do they want her to hang from a cross?
This is a very Karl Rove move to control to media. And it is working.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pmIt’s all about hypocrisy and influence peddling. The sex part is an irrelevant distraction, except for how it relates to his fidelity.
Howard Dean said it well in an interview:
I have no idea whether the affair story is true or not, and I don’t care. What I do care about is John McCain — and this has been well-documented — is talking all the time about being a reformer and a maverick, and in fact, he has taken thousands of dollars from corporations, ridden on their corporate jets, and then turned around and tried to do favors for them and get projects approved. He has tons of lobbyists on his staff. This is a guy who is very close to the lobbyist community, a guy who has been documented again and again by taking contributions and then doing favors for it. This is not a guy who is a reformer. This is a guy who has been in Washington for 25 years and wants to give us four more years of the same, and I don’t think we need that.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pmhttp://www.suntimes.com/ news/ politics/ 425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
Comment by good_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 11:39 am
in other words, there is no relationship between Obama and Rezko’s current problems. Thanks, gg, we’re glad you’re coming into the light.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pmI would guess McCain doesn’t think of you at all.
Comment by gummitch — February 23, 2008 @ 11:34 am
McCain is all too happy to have the RNC pay gg ten cents per post, as long as she cataults the propaganda and keeps the lies alive.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pmMr. Paxson must not feel he got his money’s worth.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 pmMr. Golly - at least pretend to try to keep it on topic, or you’ll be cast out just like the others.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pmThe problem is, no one buys it. The public isn’t going to accept this, nor should they, since it’s not a significant story. At worst, you have this “rebuke” from the FCC chairman because McCain’s dealings look unusual. We’ve been through this, and we know that McCain has also often sided against Paxson, and does not appear to have been improperly influenced. I mean, look at what the letter was about - again, he wasn’t taking Paxson’s side. Let’s face it: during this campaign, ethics will be a strong suit for McCain; it’s one of the reasons why the left was so concerned about him being the GOP nominee.
HAHAHA, this coming from the guy who hired a lobbyist to replace Joe Trippi as his presidential campaign bombed? LOL. I welcome Howard Dean’s attacks on John McCain - they won’t work! This is the kind of politics people are sick of, and it’s no wonder that Obama and Clinton have avoided this issue.
I’d be interested in Dean’s evidence to back up the claim that McCain “then turned around and tried to do favors for them and get projects approved.” It reminds me of his bin Laden gaffe:
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pmObama doesn’t “go after†anyone on his own. He uses his surrogates at TP and the NYT for that.
Comment by good_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 11:29 am
ROTFL!! Yeah, blame OBAMA for McCain’s BAD JUDGMENT! How REPUBLICAN RESPONSIBLE of YOU!! ROTFL!
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 pmMcCain’s imploding on Huffpo. He even lied to his lawyers - not that’s a definite no-no. Now the lawyers are saying - what’s the difference between McCain saying he did not have direct contact with Paxson and Paxson now stating that he did - the difference is ONE HUGE LIE.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pmgood_golly: your personal fear of Obama and what he stands for is showing.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 pmHey Third Turd: In your dreams! Howard Dean’s comments are filled with truth and are decimating the McTorture Express.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pmLet’s see now - how many lies do we have on John McLiar? First he was against torture but then he voted for it; then he bashes lobbyists as though he has none on his campaign (flash: They’re all lobbyists working on his campaign!); then he proclaims himself as a “war hero” but the facts about the USSForrestal and the deaths of 168 marines along with the injuries of 234 marines during incidents where McCain’s jugement was impaired; first he claims he never met with Paxson - then we discover from Paxson’s lips that he met with Miss Vicki (who was probably under the desk doing professional work for McViagra which is why McLiar couldn’t recall if she was there) right in Washington. So which is it: Does McLiar have amnesia or is it PTSD? Does he have invasive melanoma or could he even live out a 4 year term? Inquiring minds want to know.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pmgummitch: Heads up for completing the article for our braindead troll. He just happens to omit the significant facts every time. Wouldn’t it be sheer torture to inhabit his body and brain? Ewww..
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pmI’d be interested in Dean’s evidence to back up the claim that McCain “then turned around and tried to do favors for them and get projects approved.†It reminds me of his bin Laden gaffe:
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
You’re defending MR KEATING FIVE as being ETHICAL when YESTERDAY A THREAD POINTED OUT HE’D ALREADY EXPLICITLY LIED about this INTERACTION? ROTFL you REPUBLICANS ARE DUMB!
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pmA republican LIES AGAIN and the WINGNUTS IGNORE IT, what a useful skill it must be to be able to hear reality and not listen to it!
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pmMcCorpse is looking older (if that is possible) by the minute. I don’t see how anyone could look at his angry, lying face and vote for him. The republicans must consider him a throwaway, knowing they likely can’t win this year. They don’t want to taint anyone they think has a chance in 2012.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 pmMcCain will probably be on TV next year as the newest Viagra spokesperson. An old geezer with a wife that young? The copy practically writes itself.
Or perhaps, Quiznos:
[takes a bite] “Mmm… now that’s toasty - and there’s no-one who knows toasty like I know toasty.”
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pmThey don’t want to taint anyone they think has a chance in 2012.
Comment by Exit Stage Left
From out of the dank fog a low chant is heard, wafting across the swamp:
“Newt… Newt…”
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 pmDemocratic presidential candidate Howard Dean will not pronounce Osama bin Laden guilty before a trial, he said in an interview published Friday.
New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and put before a jury.
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
yes, it’s a “gaffe” to assume innocence before guilt is proven. you do realiza, don’t you, 3rdpoopy, that Bin laden is not on the FBI’s Most Wanted list, right? that’s a “gaffe” too, right? you ignorant shit.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pmI’d be interested in Dean’s evidence to back up the claim that McCain “then turned around and tried to do favors for them and get projects approved.â€
gee, too bad that it’s exactly what McStain did. A traitor, giving up secrets in Viet Nam, an embezzler, and now a proven liar, and you think the left is afraid of him?
LOL!!!
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pmThat’s the problem. He’s “imploding on Huffpo”; too bad that Huffpo isn’t the Drudge Report, which actually drives news coverage. Huffpo can get worked up about this all it wants…the truth is this story lacks traction.
Maybe you only read their headline, but you should consider the entire “What’s the difference” explanation here. The point is that there never was a denial that Paxson wanted help. Also, what’s important here is whether McCain used his influence improperly. While I think this clearly looks “unusual,” we have to keep in mind that he never asked the FCC to act in Paxson’s favor. Unless he did, this won’t resonate with the public.
This whole thing has really helped McCain, to be honest.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:19 pmThe Democrat who was the lawyer who investigated this said that he wanted to get McCain cleared, but the Democrats wouldn’t allow it since there would be only Dems getting grilled for a month of hearings. So, they didn’t want to let McCain off the hook. You don’t know anything about the Keating situation, you just want to slam McCain no matter whether it’s truthful or not.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pmYou have anger management problems. Don’t worry, I’ll make them worse by the end of this post. But let me just say that it was a gaffe because bin Laden has taken responsibility for the attacks.
Now, why are you about to get angrier? Because you made a completely false statement. “Bin laden is not on the FBI’s Most Wanted list” you say? How do you explain this.
Do you usually pull nonsense out of your ass?
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:25 pmDo you usually pull nonsense out of your ass?
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Well, I stand corrected. last time I checked, he wasn’t on that list. Now, your claim that Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks is also a lie, as is the proof of guilt. I’m reasonably certain that there is no proof, and that Bin Laden has only shown up on the list because of official embarrassment and pressure, given the lack of morals of this administration, and its inability to stay within the guidelines of the law. he is still innocent until caught and tried (which will never be allowed under a bush regime, since they have been in business together for decades), so Dean’s comment is no “gaffe’, as much as you’d like to finish destroying the constitution and rule of law. I have no anger management problems, by the way, my anger is completely justified, especially when morons like you take the side of our enemies and supporte the state-sponsored terrorism of Bush and Cheney. As for pulling things out of your ass, you’re the expert here. Like excusing McCain for the Keating fiasco. You people have no shame, and no patriotism whatsoever. mcCain is a war criminal, and his POW peers hate him, calling him “Songbird” in honor of his cowardice. he’s another perfect failure as a Republican candidate.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pmThis whole thing has really helped McCain, to be honest.
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Unless, of course, the NY Times has laid a trap for Sen. McCain. All those years in the Senate….shoes may be dropping all the way until November.Sen. McCain may start to regret those absolute denials soon.
From todays NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 02/ 23/ us/ politics/ 23lobby.html?ref=us
WASHINGTON — 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.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 pmThis whole thing has really helped McCain, to be honest.
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Only among the rabid right, the braindead rovots of the “base”, all 19%. that’ll be a big help in November!
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pmThe Democrat who was the lawyer who investigated this said that he wanted to get McCain cleared, but the Democrats wouldn’t allow it since there would be only Dems getting grilled for a month of hearings. So, they didn’t want to let McCain off the hook. You don’t know anything about the Keating situation, you just want to slam McCain no matter whether it’s truthful or not.
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
ROTFL!! I don’t know anything about the keating situation? Says the TARD that makes EXCUSES for a CRIMINAL!!! HYSTERICAL!!
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pmYou have anger management problems. Don’t worry, I’ll make them worse by the end of this post. But let me just say that it was a gaffe because bin Laden has taken responsibility for the attacks.
Now, why are you about to get angrier? Because you made a completely false statement. “Bin laden is not on the FBI’s Most Wanted list†you say? How do you explain this.
Do you usually pull nonsense out of your ass?
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
ROTFL!!! He HAS? EXPLICITLY? REALLY? UNDER OATH? Oh wait, Osama Bin Bush has let him go FREE, and says he’s NOT A THREAT - where do you pull your ANGER and NONSENSE FROM - SELF LOATHING? ROTFL!
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pmThis whole thing has really helped McCain, to be honest.
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
With whom? The Christians that don’t trust him already, and will trust him less now that they’re reminded what a philanderer he is? Or the non-special interest indy/republican mavericks that will appreciate him being run by special interests, despite his claim to the contrary? Or the ‘honesty’ republicans that appreciate that he was just CAUGHT LYING?
Well perhaps you’re right, but don’t hold your breath! ;)
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pmThis must complicate things for your McCain haters, huh?
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:50 pmLefty, it was a gaffe because everyone knew at the time that al Qaeda had perpetrated the attack. Now, to be fair, since you don’t know this, bin Laden didn’t assume responsibility until after Dean’s remarks.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 pmRight. OK, you still don’t address your “knowledge” of the Keating scandal.
You’re right…I guess he hasn’t benefited. Oh, wait, not only is the right rallying to him, but he’s rolling in more cash now!
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:55 pmThis must complicate things for your McCain haters, huh?
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Actually….Not! This underling RePugniScum suck up says the Paxson owner/CEO/boss is a liar and he knows more than him!! Phuck that shit thirdparty moron!!! Go Stupid somewhere else…’k?
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 pmLOL, to quote Billy Madison:
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm“You’re right…I guess he hasn’t benefited. Oh, wait, not only is the right rallying to him, but he’s rolling in more cash now!”
Comment by thirdparty
Good. It will make his defeat all the more succulent. You’re not seriously thinking an electorate that cries for change will embrace a Bush synchophant, are you? Get ready for a hard landing.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:29 amWhat I think is that there is plenty of polling data to indicate strong support for McCain. I think it’ll be a competitive election and Obama or Hillary comes in with an edge, but it’s still close. I also think McCain can make a case that he’s been an agent for change on a wide variety of issues, while Obama has a thin record and no real accomplishments to speak of.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:53 amRight. OK, you still don’t address your “knowledge†of the Keating scandal.
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Says the TARD that claims he was INNOCENT but didn’t CLEAR HIS NAME!! ROTFL!!! Yeah, THAT’S LIKELY!!! HYSTERICAL - INSANE - BUT HYSTERICAL!
You’re right…I guess he hasn’t benefited. Oh, wait, not only is the right rallying to him, but he’s rolling in more cash now!
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
ROTFL!! Like that’s related to this, and not the fact that he’s now the candidate you TARDS are STUCK WITH! The money is SO POURING IN that he’s raised about HALF AS MUCH as OBAMA, let alone OBAMA+CLINTON?
ROTFL!! You’re as dumb as a bag of sh*t, and your CANDIDATES are JUST AS STINKY!
What I think is that there is plenty of polling data to indicate strong support for McCain. I think it’ll be a competitive election and Obama or Hillary comes in with an edge, but it’s still close. I also think McCain can make a case that he’s been an agent for change on a wide variety of issues, while Obama has a thin record and no real accomplishments to speak of.
Comment by thirdparty — February 24, 2008 @ 12:53 am
And EVEN MORE that indicates WEAK SUPPORT for McCain, ESPECIALLY AMONG THE BASE! Hey, I’m no fan of OBAMA, but a THIN RECORD beats one of FLIP-FLOPPING, SCANDAL, UNETHICAL/ILLEGAL behavior, and a HISTORY of INSANE WACKADOO BEHAVIOR!!! We’re all SO PROUD that you picked YET ANOTHER CANDIDATE that demonstrates how f**ked up your GOP IS!!! As for your THIRDPARTY TAG - HYSTERICAL coming from a FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST! What third party do you belong to, the American Nazi Party? ROTFL!
February 24th, 2008 at 1:15 amLefty, it was a gaffe because everyone knew at the time that al Qaeda had perpetrated the attack. Now, to be fair, since you don’t know this, bin Laden didn’t assume responsibility until after Dean’s remarks.
Comment by thirdparty — February 23, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
ROTFL! Considering Al Qaeda was TRAINED by Ali Mohammed, a Mukasey/GOP insider CIA agent, what you THINK you KNOW is as WRONG as what you BELIEVE YOU HAVE FAITH IN!!! ROTFL, you people are STUPID ENOUGH to make a T*RD look SMART!!!
February 24th, 2008 at 1:17 am“I also think McCain can make a case that he’s been an agent for change on a wide variety of issues, while Obama has a thin record and no real accomplishments to speak of.”
Comment by thirdparty
Since you name no issues on which voters might possibly consider him an agent for change, logic would dictate that you cannot name any issues of this sort. So in other words, you’ve got nada.
February 24th, 2008 at 1:30 am“While I think this clearly looks “unusual,†we have to keep in mind that he never asked the FCC to act in Paxson’s favor. Unless he did, this won’t resonate with the public.
This whole thing has really helped McCain, to be honest.”
Comment by thirdparty
Strike two.
He wrote an inappropriate letter urging officials to act on the matter - which would be beneficial to Paxson, either way it went: either he would move on to other targets and not have to waste any more money pursuing the deal, or they would approve it outright.
I’m surprised you couldn’t see that.
February 24th, 2008 at 1:39 amHaha, “logic would dictate,” really? Or, how about I just thought you were smart enough to know what I’m talking about. Alright, I’ll take the bait. How about campaign finance reform? Ethics reform? Going after Abramoff? Pork barrel spending? Immigration (didn’t change anything, but at least he took the lead)? Let’s not forget that he criticized the administration’s handling of the war, called for a troop surge, and may reap the benefits of increasing military and political progress in Iraq. And what has Obama done?
February 24th, 2008 at 3:22 amThe problem with this accusation is all of the times McCain went against Paxson. This just doesn’t stick, because voters match up one dubious act against a longstanding record of ethical behavior. You criticize the man that stuck his neck out for campaign finance reform, who went after Abramoff despite alienating his colleagues, who stalks pork barrel spending; I mean, what do you want from your politicians? I guess the empty rhetoric of Obama will suffice, even though he pays lobbyists to run his campaign also, and even though he has this shady Rezko deal lingering over his head. Not to mention the meetings he had with lobbyists for the health insurance industry while in Illinois and how he came down on their side on some issues in the health care debate. I guess in your black and white world, only Republicans can do wrong.
Both parties are corrupt, all politicians have their faults, etc. etc. McCain happens to be a rare exception, in that his record, despite a few blemishes, is not only exceptional in what he doesn’t do (like demand pork), but exception in what he does do, like crusade for responsible government. You’ll never accept that; too bad, because the American public does.
(Of course, Hillary Clinton may still win this race, seeing as the polls in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania are pretty favorable to her. Even if she sweeps it’s a tough road ahead, but if she’s your nominee, good luck. What with Mark Penn’s conflicts of interests, not to mention her high negatives, I’m not quite sure how you’ll handle yourself.)
February 24th, 2008 at 3:30 amOk man-child, are you still denying that bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks? Even after he admitted it in October 2004?
February 24th, 2008 at 3:31 am