WOW how about that McCain scandal - That sure had legs...

:eyes: :eyes:

:shrug:

The one on the front cover of all the papers?

:shrug:

to the evils of the liberal press while diverting media attention away from the Dem debate.

:headbang:
rocknation

:puke:

If Obama's willing to sell it, it'll have legs.

and I just heard a piece on NPR on it. What more do you want?

he said, paraphrasing, "they know more than they're reporting."

I don't believe they'd have printed it if they didn't have some solid information that they have yet to put out there. And McCain's reaction reinforces that.

I used to work for the attorneys who likely vetted that story, and I remember from past "big stories" like this one just how carefully the lawyers go over the stories, and how much information is left out out of caution.

I'd LOVE to read what didn't make it into print. Matthews knows whereof he speaks.

Just not at such high volume. I think that it will give journos something to dig into.

Everyone here already knew all that stuff, so it was no surprise. If it had come out when McCain was still campaigning hard for the Rep nominee it might have sunk him. Having it come out now I'll bet they're planning on saying to any Dem who brings it up in the GE, "That? Oh, that's old news. Already discussed (ergo "put to bed") last February. Yawn."

McCain and dozens of his slimy surrogates deny it with gusto.

Meanwhile the NYT sticks by the story 100%.

IMO It's not over by a long shot. I think we're just in the first (predictable) phase. What else can McCain do but lie and what else can the NYT do but stick by their story?

...his own sworn deposition testimony in responding to some of the NYT's inquiries. McCain's about to be in a world of hurt, between this and the campaign finance mess.

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

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.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I'm sure I spoke to ." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

McCain's subsequent letters to the FCC—coming around the same time that Paxson's firm was flying the senator to campaign events aboard its corporate jet and contributing $20,000 to his campaign—first surfaced as an issue during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. William Kennard, the FCC chair at the time, described the sharply worded letters from McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, as "highly unusual."

link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505/page/1

You said it the night this "story" came out.

All it did was get the RW to rally behind his sorry ass.

him on finances. The womanizing one didn't take off but they're getting him for bigger stuff than that.