I'll see if I can dig up a picture of Monica Vicki that I can post here.

You can borrow mine:

Ah, there she is.  Creepy how much she looks like his wife:

http://www.thanksforthemusi...>http://www.thanksforthemusi... style="border: 1px solid ;" alt="" />

That's the second wife, right?  Not the *OTHER* one he cheated on?

Thanks, RF.  Is this Huckabee's window?

I edited this because of remarks I made out of irritation.  I am SO sick of politics.  Period!

Everyone is out to outsleaze everyone else.

Find me a scandal where they raided a pension fund or robbed the childrens orphan fund....you know..something substantial.

Funny how the left defended Clinton and will crucify McCain if it turns out to be true.

Double standards on both sides.

I think so RF.   Tough to keep them straight.

The McCain campaign managed to bury it before New Hampshire, Nancy.

.

There were hints of this two years ago, and four years before that.  It bears repeating that the primary allegation is that McCain did *POLITICAL* favors for her.  It's just that the American voter doesn't seem to take notice so long as *WE* are the only ones getting screwed...

That's the thing about skeletons.  They're never content just stayin in the closet. 

Sigh...your right Nancy,a dose of truth serum would be just the ticket...I wish ,so stupidly I know,we would stick to issues,not this "speculation" without proof.

Tom..even if it isn't his window the attemps to make it one is apparently well on it's way.

I'm deleting the above comment in case anyone wonders.  And apologize for making a sexist remark.

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton the 1st took all that off the table when he 'did not have sex with that woman'.  It has reached the point of ho hum...yaawwnnnnn. 

Personally, I give a rats arse what the man or woman does behind closed doors be it my house or the white house. What I want to know is how this person is going to run our country - besides into the ground!

Another one of these mountains out of molehills situations!

Nancy, now that you've edited, I need to as well.  I think the thing to remember is that when one party sets the bar, they'd better be sure they are clear of that bar.  Especially since McCain voted to remove Clinton from office.

McCain would never take a mistress at his age; besides there are no back seats on those electric scooters.

But than again he did call his physician to inquire about those four hours, so I guess you cannot totally discount it.

More grist for the mill, from McCain's statement on the Clinton impeachment: http://australianpolitics.c...

I do not desire to sit in judgement of the President's private misconduct. It is truly a matter for him and his family to resolve. I sincerely wish circumstances had allowed the President to keep his personal life private. I have done things in my private life that I am not proud of. I suspect many of us have. But we are not asked to judge the President's character flaws. We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted--for whatever purpose--the rule of law.

And more from Drudge: http://www.drudgereportarch...

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.

The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

But than again he did call his physician to inquire about those four hours, so I guess you cannot totally discount it.

So that's what they mean when they say  (drumroll........) McCain is a "stand-up" guy !!

Wonder if McCain ever got a swift boat ribbon?

So, wittterpitters, do you feel Clinton was unfairly railroaded over his affair, or he was fairly railroaded over his affair but Mister 894 should get a pass on his? 

Hmmmmmmmm,... funny how the NY Times just broke this?! Timing is everything...

Better timing would have been before New Hampshire, when they started working on it.  But the McCain campaign successfully stalled publication...until now.

.

Similarly, the Bush administration got the NYT to hold off on the story about Bush's telecom crimes until after the 2004 election.

Maybe, if there was still a conservative rag left in the US, Obama could get some fair press too....

Oh, please.  Not the "liberal press" fable again.

.

If there were a liberal press in this country, John Edwards would be the undisputed front-runner in the election.  And George W. Bush would be appealing his conviction.

Tom...I'm sorry I caused you to have to change your post.  I felt I shouldn't have ragged on men about the "affairs" thing.  It was kinda sexist. 

Now..don't make me say what I wanted to say about zippers and all that.  :-)  I don't differentiate between parties when it comes to flings...I think it has to do with power and influence, and groupies.  (no matter how much lipstick they put on the pig, a it's still a pig and a groupie is a groupie.)

evidence?  who needs no stinkin' evidence?  who cares that they both say it didn't happen and that no one can prove that it happened?  it's lots more fun to engage in character assassination than to actually care about facts.

a 40 year old woman with a career.  a family.  let's call her a hussy!  a groupie!  that's fun.   she must have slept with him.  pretty, successful women always sleep around.  they can't help it.  who cares about her career, or his family, or anyone else hurt by this ridiculous, unsubstantiated substandard news drivel?

2 anonymous people said they suspected something wrong, it MUST be true!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/...

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship, and the paper offered no evidence that they had, saying only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served.

Does anyone think the New York Times would publish this story without being on solid legal ground?

You can bet it was reviewed by enough $1,000-an-hour lawyers to make up a football team.

You can bet that what's printed and even alluded to is well documented.

It is clear that the issue is not so much about a dalliance with the Iseman woman as it is about the relationship with her as a lobbyist while McCain chaired a senate committee dealing with matters concerning companies she represented.

The smoke arises from the letters McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of one of her clients during the time they spent hanging out together on the client's corporate jet.

And now that the excrement has finally hit the fan and splattered all over his presidential chances, he says "no comment."

Meanwhile, both he and the lobby lady lawyered up.

And you can bet there won't be a libel suit from either McCain or Iseman.

Tomorrow, we will hear McCain's protestations of innocence in the carefully crafted statement drafted by his people.

It will decry the dirty attack by the liberal press and Democrats to destroy him.

But at the end of the campaign day, it won't matter what he says, he will end up looking bad and certainly not presidential.

Maybe he'll throw in the towel along with an angry rant protesting his innocence but knowing he can't win.

That might be his best move. Better than being trounced at the polls in November.

Party leaders are probably pressuring him to withdraw quickly in a last ditch effort to stop the bleeding. (For the good of the party, of course)

Either way, stick a fork in him, he's done.

Even if there was no illegality, people can't help but question his poor judgment. And that might be precisely why this issue came up when it did.

No one really expected McCain to get this far.

But now that he did, it was necessary to stop him before it became too late.

It was highly doubtful McCain could have won against either Clinton or Obama anyway, but this scandal promises to grow long legs before it fades into history.

It's probably best for the country and the party that it came up now rather than later.

So, is this why Paul and the Huckster have enigmatically hung around so long with absolutely no apparent chance to overtake McCain's commanding delegate lead?

Will the Mittster reconsider his withdrawal and reenter the race in the hope of snatching up McCain's delegates?

Is the Republican party in deep doodoo, or what?

Could a Republican be elected dog catcher after this and myriad other scandals during the past eight years of Bush league BS?

Stay tuned for the next episode of Republican Follies.

Wow, Saberhagen.. you know this is the New York Times we're talking about.  I am guessing that you don't know very much about the good ole NYT.  I'd be happy to talk about the history of the NYT that you seem to place so much faith in.  Let's see, where to begin?

Does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell?  He got hired by the NY Times after lying about having his degree in 1999.  No one at the NYT bothered to check his credentials.  Despite the fact that his articles were filled with grammatical errors and factual inaccuracies, he worked his way up to a full time staff writer position around 2001.  In 2003, he was exposed for plagiarism and making up the facts in his "news stories."  He didn't do this just once, mind you, he lied about the facts of stories and plagiarized at least 30 times that we know of.  Now, The NY Times didn't catch him, it was a reporter from another paper who explosed him after seeing that Blair had plagiarized her work.  A case study evaluating the issue explained:

"He was given a regular tenured reporting job despite the misgivings of his immediate boss," the report said of Blair. "He was put on high-profile national assignments with his new supervising editors receiving no notice of the serious problems that had marked periods in his previous four years at the newspaper." (1)

If that reporter hadn't caught Mr. Blair, it's quite possible he'd still be fabricating the news today.

Now, the NY Times did institute some changes to help to reduce the likelihood of another Jayson Blair happening again.  Like, for example, their establishment of an ombudson to monitor the integrity of the newspaper.  Oh, that poor ombudsman has been so busy!  How about the embarassing 2004 report by the paper's ombudsman uncovering the paper's liberal bias:

"On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires"(2). 

This isn't your everyday accusation of liberal media bias, mind you.    And its not coming from a conservative either.

Now, just to make it very clear that it's not just conservative writers who have questioned the integrity of the NYT, I should mention a book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky (Chomsky... I'm sure he won't need an introduction, right?).  The book was called Manufacturing Consent (5).  This book exposed the perpetuation of propaganda by media sources.  Now, if you've read this far, I'm sure you're thinking that they talked about the NYT.  Yup!  Chomsky and Herman demonstrated that the NYT provided biased coverage that favored the corporate interests of the newspaper's sponsors.  And they pointed out the enduring power of the NYT because that newspaper is so powerful that its words "create history" rather than report it.

Let's see, what else.  Oh, remember the Duke Lacross Team Rape Case?  Maybe that one slipped under your radar.   A stripper decided to falsely accuse three students of raping her.  There was no evidence to support the accusation and the North Carolina Attorney General dropped the charges.  The first New York Times reporter assigned to cover the case followed the trail of evidence and reported that the case appeared to favor the defendants.  After all, the DNA evidence was pretty compelling.  While the rape kit found the DNA of several men on the accuser's body and clothing, none of the DNA belonged to any of the defendants.  But that didn't get published, oh no. The editors didn't like that story b/c it wouldn't sell papers, leading them to replace the reporter, Joe Drape, with another reporter who was more willing to write the story from a pro-prosecution framework while also stressing the racial aspects of the case.  In fact, the poor management skills and clear bias of the New York Times led to a book detailing the gross negligence of the editors to present the facts of the case.  from the book:

"…the New York Times initially stood out for its reasonably balanced coverage. The first Times reporter to conduct detailed interviewing about the evidence in the rape case was sportswriter Joe Drape….Drape's March 31 article especially stood out from the pack. He highlighted comments by defense lawyers challenging the accuser's credibility, vowing that the DNA would prove the lacrosse players innocent, and pointing the fishy features of Kim Roberts's 911 call….the more he pushed, the more Drape came to believe that Mangum was not credible and her rape charge was probably false….Encouraged by Drape's performance, Thomas provided all the evident of innocence then in his possession to the Times reporter. Thomas was expecting a great article, but in early April Drape called him and said there would be no article because he was 'having problems with the editors.' 'From my perspective,' Thomas recalled later, 'the interest of the Times in defense information came to a slow crawl with the departure of Drape. And soon after Drape privately told people at Duke and, presumably, at the Times that this looked like a hoax, his byline disappeared from the Duke lacrosse story. The word among people at Duke and defense supporters, including one who later ran into Drape at a race track, was that the editors wanted a more pro-prosecution line. They also wanted to stress the race-sex-class angle without dwelling on evidence of innocence. They got what they wanted from Drape's replacement, Duff Wilson, whose reporting would become a journalistic laughingstock by summer…" (3)

Yeah, that's responsible journalism!  Let's not dwell on the question of innocence, let's make sure to talk about RACE cuz that sells papers! Let's not forget that when the case was closing, the New York Times tried to keep the controversy going by publishing a 5600 word front page article about the case detailing the guilt of the involved parties... unsubstantiated by fact.  When the attorney general dropped the charges, he further emphasized the innocence of the defendants.  That's not something that happens everyday.   Now, I happen to think that the accusation of crimes are a pretty egregious action on the part of newspapers.  When did this happen you ask?  Last year!

Shall I go on?  How about the New York Times' wonderful history of Pulitzer Prize Scandals?  Let's start with Rick Bragg.  The man writes pretty good novels.   He wrote an article that won the Pulitzer Prize while for the NYT.  Except he didn't credit the freelance journalist that he got information from.  Bragg kept the byline to himself so he got the award all by himself.  Bragg resigned from the NYT in 2003 in order to avoid an investigation.  Doh... And the New York Times didn't push the investigation because, well, they like to keep their awards.

Now, I've given you just a brief list of scandals involving the NYT failure to adhere to basic journalistic standards of integrity over the past couple of years.  But I think I've saved the best for last.  A favorite story of mine but one that requires us to go back a few years.  Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932.  He covered the farming system in the Ukraine under Stalin.  Mr. Duranty really liked Stalin and he was a big fan of communism.  Such a fan, in fact, that he decided glorifying communism was more important than reporting the genocide that was killing millions of people under Stalin's collectivist policies.  Duranty came back to the United States and praised the wonders of the Ukranian ag system despite knowing about the widespread deaths.  Duranty's account has been discredited multiple times by reporters with integrity who respond with revulsion at the gross immoral character that could perpetuate such a fraud (4).  But the good old NYT won't give up that Pulitzer, nope nope.  Gotta keep the bling.

So, are those enough examples of the NYT's follies?  Can you at least try to look beyond the clearly partisan-motivated defense of the NYT in your post and recognize that you aren't being remotely fair in this regard?  Can we see that a woman's professional and private life is probably ruined without any provision of evidence?

Hey, maybe they're guilty.  Maybe the NYT has evidence about McCain and Iseman, maybe they had an affair, maybe he did something improper, but it sure seems to me that IF the evidence exists they should provide some substantiation of their assertions.  No writer reading that can feel comfortable with the baseless innuendo.  I sure don't; if I wrote something like that, I'd expect to get fired.

I'm watching CNN now, they're sorta liberal right?  Michael Goodwin on CNN just said that he's "uncomfortable with the story" because of the failure to provide evidence to support it.  Hank Sheinkoff, a Democratic Strategist, just said that it's clearly a political attack and that this sort of story can kill a candidate whether it is true or not.  Mark Halperin (Time Magazine) just talked about how damaging to her career this will be, whether true or not.  Cooper Anderson just called it "heavy on innuendo" and light on "anything resembling a smoking gun."  Even the responsible liberals in the media are recognizing that the newspaper article is total crappola.  Seems to me like providing some evidence to support an accusation with huge ramifications is a pretty low bar to set for one of the most widely read newspapers in our country.  

This thread is really tough to read.  How is it that some of the individuals who are laughing it up despite the failure of evidence are the same folks who condemn the religious folks for developing worldviews not based upon fact?   Seems hypocritical to me.  Sure seems to me like the use of evidence is important in all walks of life, including politics and certainly when evaluating the "work" of the NYT.

(1) http://www.pbs.org/newshour...

(2) http://query.nytimes.com/gs...

(3) http://www.newsbusters.org/...

(4) http://www.usatoday.com/new...

(5) http://www.amazon.com/Manuf...

Wow Free... I for one am very impressed... beauty... intelligence... can you cook too !

Just kidding... I am however very impressed with the comment... nice.... it probably would have taken me over an hour just to type that amount of content.

Free,

First off, this is not about defending the the New York Times, it's about abuse of power.

I simply said the newspaper is most probably on solid legal ground.

In fact, the NYT is not the only publication carrying this story.

Others, including The Washington Post, are also featuring similar stories containing names, dates, attribution, etc.

The protected sources cited by NYT are not the only sources of information as found in several versions of the story carried by other publications and penned by other jounalists.

I am familiar with the Jayson Blair gaffe and other NYT mistakes and oversights. But pursuant to this particular story, they are irrelevant.

There actually is more than innuendo and baseless assertion behind this story.

An abundance of material is available on the subject of McCain's improprieties dealing with these lobbyists and other special interests while an influential senator.

By your reckoning that journalists must provide proof of guilt, Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post would never have broken the Watergate story, information for which was provided by the anonymous "Deep Throat."

Proof is the stuff prosecutors need in a court of law after journalists and whistleblowers bring crimes to light and spur official investigations.

What's required in responsible mainstream journalism is reasonably diligent research, attribution and corroboration of claims and assertions by others.

In this case, campaign contribution records show McCain took bundles of money and other perks like private air travel from Iseman's wealthy clients for whom she lobbied just as he had decades earlier in the Keating Five savings and loan debacle when he took money from Charles Keating and friends.

What's interesting is the fact that after McCain was reprimanded during the investigation and subsequent conviction of Keating, McCain apologized, returned some of the money and embarked on a mission to establish himself as the senatorial Lone Ranger crusading against political corruption, only to be found a decade or so later again taking money and whatever else from a Forbe's List of special interests through an ambitious lobbyist.

Given that history, what might we expect from him as president?

A lot of folks don't think that its okay for a sitting legislator to pander to special interests that fly them around, entertain them on yachts and give them money while they legislate matters significantly affecting the lucrative businesses of those people.

Folks should know this stuff about people seeking public office, especially the presidency.

That's what the tenets of journalism are about.

By the way, if Vicki Iseman's reputation has been so severely damaged by these revelations, if untrue she can petition the court for damages under libel laws. But again, that's not likely as what little that has been written is accurate.

Free, I am interested Chomsky's book on mass media to which you so courteously provided an Amazon link. I hope to read it soon. I consider Chomsky a highly respectable source of opinion.

But the Newsbusters site "Exposing And Combating Liberal Media Bias" complete with links to Ann Coulter is not a source from which I would normally seek unbiased opinion or fact.

The link to the NYT editorial unabashedly admitting its liberalism I presume you offered as definitive proof of the publication's liberal leaning. So? It goes on to state that although its editorial opinions are indeed liberal, its stories are ideally devoid of either liberal or conservative bias.

The pbs.org coverage of the NYT Jayson Blair fiasco seems credible.

USA's piece calling for the rescinding of NYT's 1932 Pulitzer is also interesting.

However, your argument that the NYT is a second rate publication or worse is not supported merely by the fact that a rogue journalist infiltrated its ranks and another story or two were possibly flawed. The newspaper was diligent in rectifying its mistakes with substantial changes in editorial management and policy.

If  by your axiom, errors define a newspaper's lack of respectability or worth, and all newspapers commit errors, then all newspapers are unrespectable and worthless.

Would that axiom also apply to broadcast journalism?

If so, we have no where to look for news than say, the Newsbusters site which you apparently feel is credible enough to cite as support for your view.

I think I will continue to glean information from a variety of mainstream sources I respect, including the NYT, albeit with a prudent degree of healthy skepticism.

My comment about groupies was a general comment not necessarily about, or limited to Iseman.  It was a commentary on politicians and people in power.  Anyone in public office needs to be above reproach if they don't want things like this to come up and bite them in the posterier.  In an election year both sides have sharp shovels and use them trying to dig up dirt that will tip the scales.  Again, as has been mentioned, timing is everything.  Not only that, but any dirt found is most likely saved to see who is more likely to win the nod....after all there's no point in using that ammo if a person isn't winning.

Watch.  The mud slinging isn't over by a long shot.  On either side.

I just LOVE it!

DSRF (Double Standard Random Factor) is now railing about McCain!

He's like a crack addicted chihuahua in heat!

"Chico! Chico! Haha! Lookit your boy McCain!"

"Chico, Chico! What do you have to say now?"

"Hey anyone who'll listen to me! Chico's boy had an affair!"

Golly Gee. Seems I remember his tired ol mantra re Billy Boy Blunder: "Hey! Its just SEX!"

"Hey! Don't you Repubs ever get  "a little"? "What'reya, jealous?"

"Its his personal life! Leave the guy alone!"

BWAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

This is absolutely priceless!

You know what DSRF?

I almost hope its true. Shows the ol' boy's still got some lead in the Ol' Ticonderoga esse!

This could be just what he needs to quell the Dem Drumbeat about his being  "just an old dude" {sfinboston-incisive poitical pundit that he is.....}

At least there's no Blue Dress! No DNA as it were.

I just love it! YOU GO JOHNNY BOY!

(PDA wouldn't connect last night and I was at Cargill or I woulda weighed in sooner -- this is just priceless! Really!)

Hey, at least Johnny wasn't with this guy!

http://www.nopc.info/forum/...>http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Smokin' crack and skullin'..................

DSFactor, you have relegated yourself to irrelevance

(if that was ever a "factor"  ;=)  )

At least I had the appropriate reaction to the above.....pffffffffft!

You dude [hey don't call me that!] are relegated to the corner of the classroom with the pointy hat with that estimable linguist sfinboston from now on..............

And TomW, further to your eye grabbing headline, I never heard Johnny say: [whilst pointing boney index finger at the unwashed TV masses]::

"I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lobbyist......... not once"

I never heard him say it

Not once............

If the Times story is true, then whatever happens to McCain is something he brought on himself. If it's not true, there's a "treatment" for journalists who knowingly print false information, and I'm not talking about a lawsuit.

SaberHagen

You're like Pavlov's NYT dog

Just the pseudo-intellectual "answer the bell" reaction they were trolling for!

Railing about Mister 894?  No, I'm laughing at the operator of the Strayed Cock Express.  (Where'd that chicken go, anyway?)

.

His new press liaison--the one who was busted for trolling blogs under false pretenses for her candidate--will have a lot to do over the next few days.

FreeCognate, I actually specifically didn't call Iseman a hussy, for the record.  As for the rest of it, I noticed you left Judith Miller off the list of crazy coming out of the NYT.  You've got to take the paper column by column.

Now, maybe this is rumor and maybe it's not.  The taxpayers spent millions and millions of dollars before they uncovered the blue dress.  The point is that this story couldn't have hit at a better time for McCain.  He's past the point where he can lose the nomination and as far as possible from the general election.  Had this story come out 3 weeks ago, he'd have been toast.  If it came out this fall, it really would have hurt him.  By next week, the story will be dead unless new video comes out and he'll still have a week until March 4th.

What I like is that after months of stories about Obama being a Muslim, attending a madrassa, him not saluting the flag etc. a story comes out about McCain with some actual facts involved and some Republicans act like the world is ending.

That the story's coming out now is indication of *CLEAR* bias on the part of the New York Times in favor of the Republican candidate it endorsed.

.

It appears that the basic story--his campaign aides were worried about the perceived relationship and waved her off--is true.   But it still begs the Top Gun question:  *DID* the Maverick Goose Iseman? 

First off, this is not about defending the the New York Times, it's about abuse of power. 

Of course it's about defending the New York Times.  This is a newspaper that just a year ago waged a campaign against three innocent young men accused of rape based upon zero evidence.  This is about the abuse of press priviledge.  The New York Times has a history of gross negligence when preparing stories for press.  Big stories fabricated; Stalin-genocide apologist refusing to give up a Pulitzer NYT despite the active hiding of genocide in the Ukraine. 

I simply said the newspaper is most probably on solid legal ground.

You either aren't familiar with the law or you are playing coy.  The press can say whatever they want about a public figure.  Any attempt by Iseman to try to seek vindication will probably get ignored by any court.  Which means that they don't get held accountable except when members of the public and the field of journalism and politics say WTF: You went too far.

In fact, the NYT is not the only publication carrying this story.Others, including The Washington Post, are also featuring similar stories containing names, dates, attribution, etc.

hmmm................. The NYT's four reporters worked on their story and got it published.  The additional sources are merely restating and explaining the NYT story.  There was no independent group of writers working for someone else who published the story at the same time.  Responsibility goes to the NYT.  They either have the goods or they don't.  And please don't try to claim this was the drudge report story first.  That ridiculous piece of tripe includes lies that no one believes or corroborates, things like McCain asked the NYT to spike the story, something that even the NYT isn't claiming.  Maybe the New Republic rumor will pay off with something new; but that isn't published yet and so you can't be referring to NR.

I am familiar with the Jayson Blair gaffe and other NYT mistakes and oversights.

A gaffe?  Like a boo boo?  Not a huge embarassing scandal that demonstrated a horribly low standard for editorial fact checking?  30+ false stories over three years is a "gaffe?"

There actually is more than innuendo and baseless assertion behind this story.  An abundance of material is available on the subject of McCain's improprieties dealing with these lobbyists and other special interests while an influential senator.

Where?  Please provide links.  I don't think you have the goods b/c frankly folks aren't sure that the NYT has the goods, but let's see what you claim to have.

What's required in responsible mainstream journalism is reasonably diligent research, attribution and corroboration of claims and assertions by others.

And there is zero evidence that the NYT did that.  And the NYT has had lots of problems doing that in the past... hmm...

What's interesting is the fact that after McCain was reprimanded during the investigation and subsequent conviction of Keating, McCain apologized, returned some of the money and embarked on a mission to establish himself as the senatorial Lone Ranger crusading against political corruption, only to be found a decade or so later again taking money and whatever else from a Forbe's List of special interests through an ambitious lobbyist.

A thoroughly sad revision of history.  First, why do you have to bring up the Keating incident in some attempt to justify the complete lack of evidence on this Iseman issue?  Do you think that the Keating incident guarantees that he is guilty with Iseman... even with zero evidence? 

And what was the outcome of the Keating investigation?  Hm... I remember: "There is zero evidence that McCain has ever breached the public trust"  Who said that?  Besides me.  Why, Bob Bennett this morning on MSNBC.  Bob Bennett, the liberal heavy.  You can check out the many liberals bagged on this story through their site. 

But let's talk about the Keating Five Scandal.  Bob Bennett was the liberal Democrat lawyer charged with investigating the scandal.  Right?  Really liberal guy, defended Clinton in the impeachment, certainly not some conservative who would want to be McCain's bud.  After a year and a half, Bennett argued that McCain was blameless and should be dropped entirely from the investigation.  However, the Ethics committee refused to drop McCain.  This is the first time that the Ethics committee refused to follow the advice of its own council.  Why did they keep McCain in?  Well, hmm... could it be politics?.   After all, not including McCain would have meant only democrats would have been blamed for the Keating scandal and the Democrats couldn't have that.  How embarassing!  However, even after ignoring the advice of Bennett, McCain was still exonerated.  I'm quoting this from Slate, since they are pretty far left and you seem to only accept news from the lefties:

"The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.  In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury." (2)

And he didn't get "reprimanded," for the Keating scandal; that's a word used in the NYT story from yesterday.  Not only did McCain get pretty much a free pass from the Ethics Committee after Keating but he donated all of the money (not "some" as you put it) in question to the U.S. Treasury. 

So, to recap Keating: the liberal lawyer charged with the investigation exonerated McCain but the Ethics Committee ignored their own lawyer because they wanted to keep the lone Republican in the investigation.  Then, they found his actions neither "improper nor attended with gross negligence."  Wow, McCain isn't looking so bad after all.

Now, let's talk about the NYT story.  I can't wait to see your "evidence" besides the anonymous witnesses.   But let's talk about them.  These two "protected" (ha) witnesses didn't say that they knew there was an affair nor did they say that knew there were improprieties, they just said that they thought that lots of people thought that maybe something was going on!   Which is great, because what they said is the equivalent of Washington 90210. 

On the newsbuster site: I think , to be fair to me, you get to criticize the bias of the links I provide when you start providing your own.  I used the horribly offensive newsbusters site to get a quote from the book, that's all.  i could have just as easily just linked the book through amazon but i got that hit first.  That book was written by a New York State professor and a journalist from Newsweek, not Ann Coulter.  But since you didn't deny my argument, I guess we can agree that the NYT really screwed up that story good!

However, your argument that the NYT is a second rate publication or worse is not supported merely by the fact that a rogue journalist infiltrated its ranks and another story or two were possibly flawed. The newspaper was diligent in rectifying its mistakes with substantial changes in editorial management and policy.

Not my argument.  A poor attempt by you to create a straw person.  You conceded the Rape Case, Rick Bragg, Walter Duranty, Chomsky's critique, 30+ articles (the "gaff").  You have produced zero evidence that the newspaper was "diligent" in rectifying its mistakes and the newspaper's ombudsman criticized the paper as unable to maintain the standard needed for journalism.

In fact, the NYT wasn't "dilligent" in fixing things after Jayson Blair.  Daniel Okrant served as the ombudsman for the NYT 2004-2005.  This article does a wonderful job discussing the slippery slope that the NYT has gradually descended... leading to things like "hit and run journalism."  He offered this nice bit of wisdom regarding the use of anonymous sources:

"Coddling sources -- There is nothing more toxic to responsible journalism than an anonymous source. There is often nothing more necessary, too; crucial stories might never see print if a name had to be attached to every piece of information. But a newspaper has an obligation to convince readers why it believes the sources it does not identify are telling the truth. That automatic editor defense, ''We're not confirming what he says, we're just reporting it,'' may apply to the statements of people speaking on the record. For anonymous sources, it's worse than no defense. It's a license granted to liars." (3) 

It was the duty of the NYT to offer evidence to back up the story of the two witnesses.  They didn't.  And so you won't find a single journalist not affiliated with the NYT defending the story.  Not Chris Matthews, he panned it this morning.  Not Tim Russert.  Not the editor of Time Magazine... Hmm... not anyone.  how odd.

But let's talk about what the NYT specifically didn't include in the story.  That's right - they didn't include information that would actually make McCain look not guilty:

"Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, said McCain's staff provided the Times with "approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist's clients and her public relations firm's clients," but none of the examples were included in the paper's story.  (1) 

Isn't that amazin!? The NYT decided not to include the times that McCain opposed the clients of the lobbyist that he was supposedly favoring.  I wonder why...

By the way, if Vicki Iseman's reputation has been so severely damaged by these revelations, if untrue she can petition the court for damages under libel laws.

You're kidding right?  Whether she is innocent or not, she is being judged and this is something that she will never shake.  The press can say whatever they want about a public figure and, by association, she can't do anything about it either.

Have you thought about what this does to women?  After this fiasco, why would any man in a public position ever meet with a woman and risk a scandal like this when it can be presented as fact by the nation's top newspapers?  Why would a man risk his wife and his family and his job and his future by working with a woman?  Bye bye women lobbyists.  Your presence is not wanted here!  Probably female politicians too.  Gotta be safe, ya never know who is lookin! 

Let me thank you personally for supporting a slanderous story that could potentially promote a pretty vile form of sexism.  If this low standard of evidence permits the development of a scandal, then pretty women have no place in government.  Women get out!  Unless you're really really ugly and fat, or butch! then maybe a senator can meet with you.  Maybe.  If he's low ranking or blind or something.

If  by your axiom, errors define a newspaper's lack of respectability or worth, and all newspapers commit errors, then all newspapers are unrespectable and worthless.

No math sir, i don't discount all newspapers.  I just want some evidence to support the stories.  I want a public who critically evaluates the truth of stories presented in the press instead of just carelessly assuming that the story has to be true because it's printed in the newspaper.  You know... like science... someone figures something out through trial and error and then others work to repeat the discovery.  Check and Recheck.  I like checking... and rechecking... and checking again...

But of course, the funniest part about this whole thing, is that it will probably help McCain.  The conservatives are now rallying around him to defend him from the evil scourge of the NYT.  The NYT managed to do McCain a huge favor by moving the party toward unification behind McCain.  Hilarious.

TomW:  I'll see if I can dig up a picture of the little hussy  Monica Vicki that I can post here.

You don't think that is suggesting strongly that she is a hussy?  I mean, it's much easier for you to just erase "the little hussy" rather than keep it there with a line, right?

RF:  The "endorsement" argument is weaksauce.  We all know that the NYT hasn't serious endorsed a Republican candidate in um... forever?  That McCain was their pick among the Republicans doesn't mean they were endorsing him to be the big cheeze.  Here's the first paragragh of that "endorsement:"

"We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice." (4)

Oh yeah, they loved McCain!

But it's wonderful that you keep using leet "Top Gun" speak to reference the unsubstantiated sexual affair.  Iseman must be so proud.  I love that as a woman I get to be a target for sexist ridicule just for hanging out with a man.  

 (1) http://www.time.com/time/po...

(2) http://www.slate.com/id/100...

(3) http://query.nytimes.com/gs...

(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2008...

I think this to will pass.  No harm no foul.

Chico says: "SaberHagen You're like Pavlov's NYT dog Just the pseudo-intellectual "answer the bell" reaction they were trolling for!"

Trolling for reaction?

How about informing the public of some shady dealing?

The NYT simply broke their story.

The Washington Post also broke their independent story.

If the stories were unsubstantiated, few of the countless other news organizations that also ran various versions of the story would dare print it for fear of lawsuits.

Whether McCain porked the woman or not is irrelevant.

It's about influence peddling to special interests.

The verifiable facts are that McCain wrote letters to regulators on behalf of the woman's clients while chairing a senate committee dealing with matters affecting their special interests - all the while cavorting with them on their private airplanes and yachts and taking contributions from them.

Oh yes, and then there's the matter of McCain hypocritically acting as the self annointed crusader for political reform since being nailed taking money from Charles Keating a decade or so earlier and pressuring investigators to lay off his buddy Charlie who ended up in the slammer for bilking millions from his Lincoln Savings and Loan investors and depositors.

Caught red handed with his paws in the cookie jar he returned some of the money from Keating not to Keating's bilked depositors but to the treasury. 

Hey, if all that's okay with you, fine, send him a contribution.

But the rest of the public who frown on such hanky panky have a right to know these things and the media has a moral obligation to present these facts to a voting public preparing to choose a president.

I guess some would rather shoot all the messengers rather than have the truth on the street lest it hurt good ole Johnny boy's revenue stream, the poor lobby lady's dubious reputation or the slimy fat cats looking for special deals from compliant pols.

McCain is/was a sitting senator, you would hope he would have more class.

Is this a guy who you want to lead the country?

Pseudo intellectual, indeed.

BTW, if I'm a pseudo intellectual for expecting a so-called straight shooter to shoot straight and a media to let us know when he's not, how would you suggest that you be described?

It's becoming increasingly clear that there is a direct causal connection between you and blogs that degenerate to such insult and namecalling.

Don't get huffy

I like dogs

Whether McCain porked the woman or not is irrelevant.

There ya go.  Reduce the woman to nothing.  She doesn't count.  Just so long as we can use this against McCain!

Nancy, no need to apologize.  I do agree with what you'd said before and agree on the power and influence.  I also agree that a lot of men in power are sexist, opportunistic pigs, so you didn't ruffle my feathers.

I think on a side note that a lot of people in politics these days have a deep need for attention of any kind, so it's not surprising when this stuff comes up.

such a porcine verb

"porked"!

at least you could have used "diddled"

lets not defile the "other white meat"

We are hauling some tomorrow!

(Durocs, Polands, Hamps -- guy in Tipton)

She's 40, beautiful, and single? Jeez. Not too many of those around here!

Chico - LMAO for sure BIG - You kill me man !!!!

So FreeCognate, what level of proof is required for these people to publish?  Let's say for instance that the sexual part of the story is untrue.  We still know McCain was rebuked for interfering with FCC deliberations on behalf of one of Iseman's clients.  We know that there have been other issues where McCain has acted aggressively on behalf of her clients.

As for Iseman, I think she got good results with McCain for her clients.  No one in Washington is a saint and I think her results matter more to her clients than her methods, whatever those methods may have been.  What I'm not buying is that she's a poor, helpless woman whose good name is being besmirched by the big evil liberal media.

Lastly, I see your point a