NoGodBlog.com

The general thrust of the New York Times article was that McCain's trust in his own personal integrity might cloud his judgement of the personal integrity of others.

Naturally, people jumped all over it, and hey, maybe that was the real intent of the author/editors of the Times. Who knows. After all, the results of this story, even if not intended as an accusation, could have been easily predicted to be construed as and essentially become one. So maybe the folks over at the NYT are a bit difficient of integrity themselves? Or maybe they considered the actual topic to be newsworthy enough to justify the inevitable fallout. I can't say.

But one thing is clear: Passing the salacious subtext along like this (gleefully, even) without the proper context, proported intent, etc, definately says something about the passer's own integrity, if not his powers of interpretation.

One very important part of the article reminds us of McCain's cozy relationship with Keating. McCain, one of the Keating Five, tried to influence bank regulators to lighten-up on their investigation of Keating's shady real-estate investm*nts. He even helped get one of Keating's associates a position on a banking regulatory board. This will not bode will for McCain campaigning in the midst of a housing market-based economic meltdown fueled by lax banking regulatory action.

Yeah...an atheist web site picking this story up. Why am I not surprised...

Tell me why both candidates are not covered equally...?

I'm sure we'll have the usual "shoot the messenger" mentality...but AA has given validity to WND by quoting them...

Presidential candidate A is accused of having a risky homosexual dalliance with someone he picks up in a bar, scoring powdered cocaine for his partner and crack cocaine for himself in an incident that allegedly occurred about nine years ago. The named alleged partner makes his charges public, agrees to a polygraph and files a lawsuit reiterating the charges and accusing the candidate of harassment and intimidation. The candidate refuses to deny the allegations.

Presidential candidate B is accused by unnamed sources of having a romantic interest in a female lobbyist in the same year. There are no specific allegations of sexual or drug-related incidents. Both the candidate and the lobbyist adamantly deny any untoward activity between them took place.

Yet, for the Big Media, there is no story involving presidential candidate A, but a raging mega-story involving candidate B.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56958

Why does anyone care about who a presidential candidate fucked 9 years ago?

Move on to something important please.

It's really a good thing I'm not in charge b/c I'd restart a US version of the SS & put people who report on this stupid shit or celebrities in the gulag.

Comment from: phreedm [Member]

Yeah...an atheist web site picking this story up. Why am I not surprised...

Because atheist sites report on truthful things that rationally thinking, non-religiously insane Republican't Putsch fellators, would want to read about?

Tell me why both candidates are not covered equally...?

I'm not sure how many unfounded rumors about McCain being a muslim about to bring the US under Sharia law have been splashed all over the front pages of major newspapers. Can you possibly provide some factual information on this subject, so that we can make a fair comparison of the two?

I'm also not sure how many unsourced allegations in front page articles were written about McCain's phony marriage, the way they lied about the Clintons' relationship all over the front page of a major newspaper. Could you point me to any of the pertinent articles for comparison here?

I'm sure we'll have the usual "shoot the messenger" mentality...but AA has given validity to WND by quoting them...

Prove that any quotes of WND by AA have given validity to WND by the mere action of quoting them.

Presidential candidate A is accused of having a risky homosexual dalliance with someone he picks up in a bar, scoring powdered cocaine for his partner and crack cocaine for himself in an incident that allegedly occurred about nine years ago. The named alleged partner makes his charges public, agrees to a polygraph and files a lawsuit reiterating the charges and accusing the candidate of harassment and intimidation. The candidate refuses to deny the allegations.

Presidential candidate Alt-A is accused of having a sham marriage, engaging in a le$bian affair with one of her staff, with no proof of the allegations, on a continual basis for the last year. All named parties deny all alleged charges, and asks that the unfounded unsourced allegations be withdrawn. The opposition refuses to deny the allegations, and continues to spread this innuendo as fact.

Presidential candidate B is accused by unnamed sources of having a romantic interest in a female lobbyist in the same year. There are no specific allegations of sexual or drug-related incidents. Both the candidate and the lobbyist adamantly deny any untoward activity between them took place.

Presidential candidate Alt-B is accused by unnamed sources of being a manchurian candidate with a hidden agenda to turn the united states into a (non-christian) theocracy. There are specific allegations of baseless rumors regarding the candidate's childhood schooling. The candidate adamantly denies any of theses unfounded allegations.

Yet, for the Big Media, there is no story involving presidential candidate A, but a raging mega-story involving candidate B.

Except for the fact that this last statement has no basis in reality for anyone who has, you know, actually paid attention to what has been in the mainstream media since the start of the primaries. And candidates Alt-A and Alt-B (who is also candidate A in disguise) have had constant lies published about them in major American newspapers on a continual basis.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56958

Not only an article from the Republican't propaganda rag WorldNutDaily, one from one of their particularly religiously insane contributors, and the one responsible for this internets abomination, Joseph Farah! I'm sure it will be completely fair and balanced, and report on all the pertinent details concerning this (yet again) unfounded allegation that the mainstream media is being big meanies to McClueless, and treating Hillary and Barack with kid gloves. Let's take a look...

[wades through Republican't christianist propaganda piece]

Gee - funny how I never heard that Obama was picking up gays and doing coke nine years ago from anyone but WorldNutDaily. Maybe there's no corroboration on that unfounded rumor (presented here by WND as fact)? And, funny - I couldn't even get the link to the one place where I can read all about Obama doing coke and picking up gay hookers nine years ago.

Also funny how Farah conflates unfounded allegations about Obama with allegations that, you know, actual human beings have been happy to stand behind, regarding McClueless. Almost as though he’s trying to make his readers think that a rumor about Obama is equivalent to something potentially true about McClueless. I wonder why a supposedly Christian person would stoop to using such deceptive tactics?

Not much more there. Tell me how this is supposed to ‘prove’ that the media are biased in favor of Obama again?

Ah Tom...your typical elitist response...

BTW...

Comment from: (: tom :)
I'm not sure how many unfounded rumors about McCain being a muslim about to bring the US under Sharia law

I believe it's Obama who's been accused of being Muslim....

So much for "truth"...

Comment from (:tom:)

Gee - funny how I never heard that Obama was picking up gays and doing coke nine years ago from anyone but WorldNutDaily. Maybe there's no corroboration on that unfounded rumor (presented here by WND as fact)? And, funny - I couldn't even get the link to the one place where I can read all about Obama doing coke and picking up gay hookers nine years ago

Tom...since you're incapable of doing any meaningful research...

http://www.gaywired.com/NewsArticle.cfm?Section=66&id=18245&CFID=18612419&CFTOKEN=67950614

President McCain won't have to wait until the government is shut down to get his nookie. He will be watching his military bomb Iran (on CNN) while some lobbyist (military) is under his desk giving him a BJ. At the same time, signing some legislation to stop the immorality of abortion, welfare programs, a balanced budget, etc.......

Comment from: (: tom :)

I'm not sure how many unfounded rumors about McCain being a muslim about to bring the US under Sharia law

I believe it's Obama who's been accused of being Muslim....

So much for "truth"...

Did you actually read his post?

Tom was clearly using sarcasm to compare the allegations against McCain to the allegations that have been thrown around about the other two. A cursory reading of his post makes this clear.

You pick some very strange comments to pick up on. This one certainly doesn't improve your already abysmal credibility.

Comment from: phreedm [Member]

Ah Tom...your typical elitist response...

Another lie coming from a supposed christian! If christians actually felt shame about their blasphemous abominations, this might cause some to rethink their strategery of polluting the internet with their superstitious babble.

I would also like to piont out to all and sundry that the 'elitist response' was generated by a pile of religiously insane Republican't propaganda spewed on the pages of an atheist web site. So those of us with more than two brain cells to rub together might eventually come to the realization that, if they were to stop spewing occult propaganda and Republican't smear and deflect horsehockey from their vacuous pie-holes here at a site for atheists, they would stop receiving nasty tauntings about their jingoistic imbecility.

I wonder why a supposed christian would seek to cloud the debate by dismissing others comments as elitist? I don't remember any sort of guidelines in the Big Book of Christian Fairy Tales about how to be condescending to those whose rational argument you don't want to deal with.

BTW - I'm sure you're aware of what sarcasm is - you specifically accused me of not being aware of your futile attempts at it once upon a time - but it seems you're as clueless about recognizing it as you (incorrectly) accuse others of doing.

Let's go with the little words and the easy mental gymnastics this time: could you please point me to something that was printed in the major media that is as much of a smear job on McCain as the one the mainstream media did on Obama with the unfounded, unsourced, and innaccurate rumor about Obama putting the US under sharia law if he's elected president later this year? If not, then could you please just STFU and let the adults talk for a while?

Sorry if I don't troll gay web sites for hunks, er, news, like you seem to be doing. That must be why I missed this one - after all, if major media organizations like WorldNutDaily and GayWired have reported it, it must be true*... Maybe Rush 'reported' this too? Or Hannity? Or did Bill Donohoe put out a christian fatwa about this too?

Since you seem to be incapable of doing anything but spout Republican't christianist propaganda, I consider your attempts to spin the conversation just more of the same old same old coming from a Republican't operative. Funny how it doesn't seem to work as well when there's somebody pointing out how much of a load of hooey it is, innit?

* - for the mentally inflexible, I am using sarcasm here.

The whole New York Times article is a load of bullshit. Both sides deny it and the Times states no credible sources. Its a simple attack on McCain by the liberals without any evidence.

I don't like McCain at all, but his private life is nobody else's business.

Please don't feed the trolls.

You all still don't get it. The NYTimes article was not about McCain's private life. That is what the McCain are trying to make of it but that was not the thrust of the article. The article was about McCain's connections to lobbyists and a reminder of the corruption in his past. The Keating Five looms large in an era of similar economic woes caused by lax oversight of the banking industry.

And now McCain's fellow Arizona republican congressman Rick Renzi has been indicted on federal charges related to more illegal real-estate deals.

Comment from: Horus [Member]

The whole New York Times article is a load of bullshit. Both sides deny it

...except for the former McClueless campaign staffers who were interviewed for the article.

Nice try to lob some kimchee into the discussion, though...

and the Times states no credible sources. Its a simple attack on McCain by the liberals without any evidence.

...which must be why they consulted with McClueless' people and got them to sign off on the details in the article.

But another nice try to paint the NYT as liberals when they employ Bill Keller, David Broder, and a Republican't cadre of wingnut welfare cases.

=====

Please don't let the trolls pollute the comments thread with their occult superstitions without pointing out how much they're out of touch...

I'm no fan of McCain, but this whole "story" seems to be fabricated. No direct accusations have been made, no proof has been offered.

Unless there's a stained blue dress hanging in a closet somewhere, I'll take this to be a smear. If you're going to attack the man, attack him on his politics. There are plenty of good reasons an atheist that doesn't like him can give without resorting to perpetuating this BS.

I want a president who is not afraid to sleep with a lobbyist, and I don't think John McCain fears anything, even being wrong!

I want a president who is not afraid to sleep with a lobbyist, and I don't think John McCain fears anything, even being wrong! But, I think he's right most of the time when it comes to military strattegies.

But, I think he's right most of the time when it comes to military strattegies.Um like when?

QFBut, I think he's right most of the time when it comes to military strattegies.Um like when?

Crap

QF

But, I think he's right most of the time when it comes to military strattegies.

Um like when?

McCain has many problems. He's god-soaked. He's a Republican. He wants to continue wasting lives in the Iraq war, which has become a religious civil war between two versions of Islam. I don't want my tax money wasted on Muslim morons who can't get along with each other. I could care less if the entire population of Iraq dropped dead. They are not worth one American life or one American dollar.

McCain once gave a speech about something that had something to do with the Discovery Institute, also known as the Dishonesty Institute, which is in the business of spreading lies about science and promoting the idea called intelligent design magic. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with the Disco Institute is not qualified to be president of anything.

Any news articles about McCain's private life are boring and none of anyone's business. Democrats who stick their noses into Republican's private lives are no better than the Republicans who stuck their noses into Bill Clinton's private life.

The people who most enjoy making other people's private lives their business are the Christian fundies. Real atheists should not act like Christian idiots.

BobC

I could care less if the entire population of Iraq dropped dead. They are not worth one American life or one American dollar.

Wow! Where's the empathy for the Iraqis suffering in the chaos the US created? It's true that the best thing for everyone would be for the US to withdraw but we are responsible for the chaos and the Iraqis at the very least deserve our good will rather than such callous antipathy.

Any news articles about McCain's private life are boring and none of anyone's business. One last time. Just because aspects of McCain's private life were mentioned in the article does not mean the article was ABOUT his private life. The article was about McCain's corruption, conflicts of interest and hypocrisy. Unfortunately for McCain's family his lack of ethics has spilled over into his private life.

Bad blockquote day.

BobC

Any news articles about McCain's private life are boring and none of anyone's business.

One last time. Just because aspects of McCain's private life were mentioned in the article does not mean the article was ABOUT his private life. The article was about McCain's corruption, conflicts of interest and hypocrisy. Unfortunately for McCain's family his lack of ethics has spilled over into his private life.

Those commenting that the sexual aspect of this story is not significant are exactly right. If McBush (a great name for McCain) is really interested in change, he shouldn't be involved with lobbyists at all. And, in denying the story, his release to the press said that he was not approached by Paxon Broadcasting in any way, and did nothing whatsoever for them. And, yet, here is this deposition, made UNDER OATH, where McCain says that he did just that. A sitting President 10 years ago supposedly deserved impeachment for lying under oath. Is McCain lying now, or did he lie in the deposition? Oh, it doesn't matter, he's not actually President yet. And since he's joined at the hip to George W. Bush, he never will be. I have talked to many Republicans in the last few months who are even more rabid in their hatred of the sitting President than any Democrat...not a good sign for the Grand Old Party.

And now Paxson is contradicting McCain's denial of meeting with him. Paxson is saying that he clearly asked McBush to write a letter on his behalf to the FCC. Also McBush has hired a high power defense attorney.

Looks like McBush seamlessly made the transition from the Keating Five to the Paxson One.

And what do you know? The whole Paxson thing evolved around the Paxson group wanting to purchase a Pittsburg TV station for xian proselytizing purposes. Scratch the truth, find a lie.

Comment from: atomictesting [Member]

I'm no fan of McCain, but this whole "story" seems to be fabricated. No direct accusations have been made, no proof has been offered.

It does seem to be somewhat difficult to prove that senator mccain was unduly influenced by one of his lobbyists (who is also, coincidentally, being accused of sexual improprieties with the same lobbyist), and may have inappropriately abused the powers of the senate committees he was on in favor of that lobbyist. It usually is hard to prove that sort of thing. But that is the issue at hand, more so than where mccain's little soldier has been barracking.

Unless there's a stained blue dress hanging in a closet somewhere, I'll take this to be a smear. If you're going to attack the man, attack him on his politics. There are plenty of good reasons an atheist that doesn't like him can give without resorting to perpetuating this BS.

It also does seem to be a problem that the mainstream media seeks to conflate this story with the Great Clenis Hunt of the '90's. Maybe in order to get some to focus on that aspect of the issue and thus trivialize the larger wrongdoing here - that mccain was being influenced by this lobbyist into exerting undue and improper pressure into issues his committee was debating, and further to influence them in favor of this lobbyist and her clients. Which is why it should be much more of a concern to be looking into the things he did while allegedly being unduly and inappropriately influenced by this lobbyist.

Sorry if the wording is not as clear as it could be - I was trying to eliminate the framing of the issue that the MSM would prefer everyone to use, and putting the story in terms that emphasize what I see to be the real problem here. I could care less about what mcclueless is doing behind closed doors. I am somewhat concerned that he has a history of letting these type of people influence him inappropriately and no indication that he has learned from his own personal experiences.

In the WP article, you get a good idea of the perverse world that Rethuglicans live in. McCain's lawyer explains how a lie is not a lie.

"But Paxson said yesterday, "I remember going there to meet with him." He recalled that he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter."

McCain attorney Robert S. Bennett played down the contradiction between the campaign's written answer and Paxson's recollection.

"We understood that he [McCain] did not speak directly with him [Paxson]. Now it appears he did speak to him. What is the difference?" Bennett said. "McCain has never denied that Paxson asked for assistance from his office. It doesn't seem relevant whether the request got to him through Paxson or the staff. His letters to the FCC concerning the matter urged the commission to make up its mind. He did not ask the FCC to approve or deny the application. It's not that big a deal."

The Paxson deal, coming as McCain made his first run for the presidency, has posed a persistent problem for the senator. The deal raised embarrassing questions about his dealings with lobbyists at a time when he had assumed the role of an ethics champion and opponent of the influence of lobbyists.

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. "

So we lied. What's the difference? Who cares?