This is a good response by D’Souza at townhall.com

Aren’t we working on a sexual innuendo story about him?

Yes; that’s why we want him to get the nomination– so we can torpedo him and make sure that this whole business is in the bag for the Democrats.

Is that ethical?

[brief pause, then everybody cracks up]

What is the story without the innuendo? It’s business as usual.

TMZ might be more to your liking than hotair.

.. without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising “poor judgment” by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman …

McCain is vulnerable here. Minus the sexual innuendo, we haven’t heard the last of this. Obama’s people will see to it, as well they should. It’s fair game. If you hold yourself out as a pompous, holier-than-thou jackass, others are entitled to inquire whether you are in fact a pompous, holier-than-thou jackass.

I have no idea whether the affair story is true or not, and I don’t care.

Howard Dean
Chairman
Democratic National Committee

Hmm, where have we seen these tactics before?

So now what? Do they go on their merry little way, off to the next smear piece? I’m thinking so.

I would feel a lot better about McCain if he sued. That’d be sure to keep his name in the papers.

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

Man, this guy is just a piece of work huh.

Point of story he doesn’t like: allege that Johnny had affair, not enough evidence, should have had more, not sure if he had a relationship

Point of story he does like: his aides were worried that the affair would ruin his career, he did have that relationship and it was on his aides to stop him

So Keller is saying that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that Johnny had an affair, but he actually did have an affair.

Wow. They teach this level of creative thinking in wherever the hell this idiot went to school?

I think there is an undercurrent of the coverage of the Bubba years here. Maybe childish payback or something, it would explain the incoherence.

Or that that guy is a drunk. I don’t have proof, but he is a drunk.

A sloppy drunk.

“…The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.” [emphasis added]

Either Keller’s intellectual dishonesty or his clueless fatuity is remarkable. He seriously believes (or claims to) that the crux of the story is that McCain’s “close aides” — by imputation, all of them — were aware of the (purported) situation and urged McCain to alter his behavior; McCain thus appears to have ignored the concerns of his entire staff.

In fact, the NYT feature relies only on the opinions of just two unnamed “former associates”, “who said they had become disillusioned with the senator”. (When did this “disillusion” happen? Around the time of the supposed “incident”? Or, more recently, when the NYT knocked on the door looking for dirt on McCain? Isn’t that relevant?) (Not to mention their aversion to going on the record.)

This clown shouldn’t be allowed to serve as editor of a high school yearbook, much less a newspaper (ostensibly) by and for adults.

Yeah, like the striptease of circus clowns who have on 10 layers of clothes.

Slimy? Sure, but you have to admit that it explains a lot about the kind of stories the NYT runs these days.

logis on February 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM

If by explains you mean, the slimes are a bunch of lying weasel commie slime balls than it sure does…

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

…So your point is that you don’t have a point.

Slimy? Sure, but you have to admit that it explains a lot about the kind of stories the NYT runs these days.

It. Must. Be. So.

Obama’s last buddyfest with William Ayers in public was in 2002.

Which one is “old news” now?

“But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

Umm.. he is called a Maverick..

If McCain was worried about his Career..

He wouldn’t have pur his neck out for the Surge in Iraq.

McCain has $0 earmarks, Obama has $91 Million, and Clinton over $300,000 Million

McCain has worked on bipartisan legislation and has formed coalitions with Democrats in the Senate , to the angst of some Republicans..

If he was “Worried or feared that it would ruin his career” he wouldn’t do it..

How can an extremist like Obama or Clinton who never reach across the aisle unite ANYTHING?