No way this is a true story! He's too old to get it up, or be President.

I beg to differ on folks stating that the NY Times decided to resort to smear tactics. That doesn't make any sense. They endorsed the man and this story was in the works for years. If they really wanted to hurt him they would have released it before the Florida primaries. . . so . . . they may be telling the truth.

Bottom line is who cares. We know the man loves the country and really wants to make a difference. So I say -- McCain stick to the issues and we will catch you in the fall.

Go Obama 08!!

For folks that are still saying they know nothing about Obama's experience. Don't take my words, follow the link below and then access the quick links to the Library of Congress website to conduct your own research. www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

I am a democrat. John McCain -- keep your head up. Your personal life is your own and if there were dealings in your past regarding unfair lobbyist activities, be done with it and move on. Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. America wants someone who truly wants to move the country forward in the right direction. Healing, forgiveness, empathy, hard work, prosperity and peace.

We all know you have the country's best interest at heart and I am certainly looking forward to a blow out competition between you and Barack Obama in the race for the Presidency. See you in the fall and may the best man win.

"Someone asked Chris Cillizza, rhetorically, "What is a journalist with zero credibility?"

Answer:

A New York Times reporter."

==================

And the saddest thing is that you seem to enjoy the answer.

Someone asked Chris Cillizza, rhetorically, "What is a journalist with zero credibility?"

Answer:

A New York Times reporter.

"Who did the poll, Michelle?"

Possibly, but not probably.

wpost4112,

Who did the poll, Michelle?

didn't punctuate that well. this is the fundraiser:

"Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand."

Good news....

new Texas poll...Bama now within 3 points.

Not that we trust polls.

just sayin.

wpost4112,

For once I agree with almost everything you said in one post, except for the fact that I haven't tried that cake!

Enjoy the ride :)

Burned body found inside USA embassy in Belgrade amid riots.

You'd almost think that Keller published that article to help McCain. Just bizarre.

"Well, that was pretty predictable. The McCain campaign is
already raising money off the uproar over the Times piece, depicting it as nothing more than the work of a left wing cabal -- including the paper, the Democratic Party and of course MoveOn -- that is bent on destroying the GOP nominee.

From a new McCain fundraising email:

Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand.

To be clear, we think there's much in the story that's legit, particularly the stuff focused on the questions around McCain's professional relationship with the lobbyist and the broader pattern of influence peddling that's alluded to. The anonymous suggestions of a romantic affair, however, have only made it easier for the McCain camp to respond as they did above.

Interestingly, the fundraising email makes no mention of the fact that the paper endorsed McCain.

More on this story right here at The Horse's Mouth.

Late Update: Now the Republican National Committee has a fundraising email out, too, saying: "The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House."

"Wow ... stop it now before you produce more pearls. I see you came inspired today!"
=================================

LOL. Just grit.

"wpost4112,

LOL. Just plain water ... the rest comes out naturally. I'm just warming up and haven't read your valuable contributions ... give me some seconds to catch up ... I am not baking any cakes today so it will not take long"
--------------------------------

Shouldn't take too long. Nothing of great interest today....except a recurring fascination with bathroom stalls (not mine sadly).

Will miss the debate tonight as our dinner group meets...I am the lone Obamaniac amidst the Hillarians so I'm sure we will have our own ersatz debate.

Coconut cake turned out well.

Wow ... stop it now before you produce more pearls. I see you came inspired today!

The Macko camp didn't complain about the NYT when it endorsed him for the primary.

wpost4112,

LOL. Just plain water ... the rest comes out naturally. I'm just warming up and haven't read your valuable contributions ... give me some seconds to catch up ... I am not baking any cakes today so it will not take long

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship.

Hmmm..

Huckabee believes in a miracle..

Will the Republican party defend John McCain?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1758

...

Easy enough problem to solve.

Is lobbyist a certified "freak of nature" drop-dead gorgeous bomb-shell?
Don't return the phone call.

Does said lobbyiest look more like Janet Reno/Madeline Albright/Hillary Clinton?
Take the call.

"I guess Jimmy Hoffa also "had a dream" for America and Michelle will explain why he also made her proud!"
===========================

I see you took your clever pills today!

"" a randy bull turned loose in the corridors of power, servicing whichever lobbyists that succumb to his manly charms."

----------

I think I just heard Larry Craig swoon in his stall.

J writes
" I would guess the bigwigs get to decide or something highly democratic like that. After all, there may not be much time."

Thats what happened in MN with the untimely death of Sen Wellstone a few weeks prior to an election. They pulled Mondale out of storage, who couldn't hold off Coleman (who's preparing for a loss to satirist Al Franken in MNs next political comedy).

Shame on Mc Cain for seeking support from a lobbyist. I am glad Obama is'nt doing that but looking for the support of "non-interest" groups as the "tea-(mob)-sters". I guess Jimmy Hoffa also "had a dream" for America and Michelle will explain why he also made her proud!

"Macko is a randy bull turned loose in the corridors of power,"

I just figured it out... McCain knows he has no chance of beating Obama in this populist surfing contest, so he's going after Bob Dole's V*agra endorsement job!

" a randy bull turned loose in the corridors of power, servicing whichever lobbyists that succumb to his manly charms."

When you put it that way, becoming a politician sounds more appealing than I'd previously imagined it.

JUST AS EXPECTED:

In an email letter to supporters this morning, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis wrote:

"Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting - an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election....We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand."
.......

Davis railed against the Times as a "newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus." And he warned supporters to "get ready for more of the Democrats' attacks over the coming months as the Democrats pick their nominee."

The bottom line, Davis wrote, "We need your help to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times by making an immediate contribution today."

Regarding the question of what happens if McCain drops dead before election day but after the Republican convention, I assume the ticket would soldier on under the VP nominee. The scenario I find it interesting to speculate about is what happens if he drops dead (or experiences a health crisis serious enough to take him out of the race) before the Republican convention. Would Romney reactivate his campaign and fight it out at the convention with Huckabee? Would anyone else leap back into the race? Or, with all of McCain's delegates up for grabs (unless individual states have rules that would cause the delegates to then be pledged to whoever came second), would any other Republican grandees jump into the race?

All quite unlikely, since McCain appears to be in robust health, but quite entertaining to imagine.

Don't be fooled, people. You would have to have had your head under a rock for the last 20 years not to realize how cozy he has been with lobbyists and special interest groups, despite his protests to the contrary.

The McCain camp is ginning up this "news" (I hear tomorrow the NYT is going to run a story about the sun rising in the east) in order to counterbalance concerns about his age. McCain, if nothing else, seems suddenly virile. Macko is a randy bull turned loose in the corridors of power, servicing whichever lobbyists that succumb to his manly charms.

WHAT THE HELL ARE THOSE THREE SENATORS DOING RIDING TOGETHER IN THE SAME CHOPPER?

Someone say "DUH!

That raises another question for me. What if McCain is nominated and doesn't even last the campaign? Does the VP nominee automatically become the Presidential nominee? If not, how is it handled?

And does the Democratic party have rules too for what happens if a selected nominee doesn't make it to the actual election?

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 21, 2008 03:04 PM

To the best of my knowledge, the parties get to control this. They likely already have rules regarding replacement of a dead nominee. I would guess the bigwigs get to decide or something highly democratic like that. After all, there may not be much time.

I'll have to review my constitutional law (I'm not a lawyer and would gladly defer to Mark), but my recollection is once the election is over it would go to the VP-elect if the Pres-elect bought it between the election and inauguration.

BTW,

just saw the clip...audience did not applaud Barack for blowing his nose....

More media distortion.

"When the Times did finally publish the long-gestating investigation last night, the McCain camp immediately tried to train the glare back on the Gray Lady. In fact, McCain advisers stated that The New Republic's inquiries pressured the Times to publish its story before it was ready so this magazine wouldn't scoop the Times' piece.

"They did this because The New Republic was going to run a story that looked back at the infighting there, the Judy Miller-type power struggles -- they decided that they would rather smear McCain than suffer a story that made The New York Times newsroom look bad," Salter told reporters last night in Toledo, Ohio."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24

Had the NYT released this story when they got it in the first place, McCain would never have sewn up the nimonation. It is a wonder Romney's people didn't get this out long ago.

And as for today's revisionist offering, nice try, this story really puts a "nothing to see here" spin on it.

But I would guess this cat is not only out of the bag, it is pregnant with a black baby...

All this philanderin' talk about Johnny MC, the strait-shooter (or was that "talker"?), makes any fundie wonder about those ugly SC rumors from the 2000 campaign...

Too late to "Fix" this one...

Gabriel Sherman, reporter from New Republic says NYT has no documentary evidence of affair....

This is just weird.

Still doesn't make sense why the Times would endorse McCCain knowing they had this story in the drawer....

author of The New Republic back story on MSNBC in a few minutes....

thanks, wpost. whew -- to be in a helicopter in a snowstorm--pretty risky stuff.

The distrubing thing about the NYTimes article is not the "romance" thing but the pattern of McCain helping special interests only to back off. Then he helps special intersts again, always saying he made a mistake or had done nothing wrong. The Keating mess seems to repeat itself in smaller doses.

no injuries...only a snowstorm....all safe...

Thanks bsimon.

I am aware that dead people have been elected before, I guess just not to such a significant post.

Mind you, given some of the people that have attained the high office of President I could be wrong there...

sorry...Hagel, not Feingold....

"Roosevelt said we have nothing to fear but fear itself," Pelosi said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.

So, do you think the terrorists are paying attention? It would seem so, when one would-be terrorist hides a box cutter inside of a book entitled "Fear Itself" and brings it with him to an airport.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 21, 2008 02:25 PM

That's pretty funny. Terrorists listening to a politician and then finding a book based on a quote. The only thing missing is a grassy knoll.

looks like emergency landing..no report of injury...

Biden, Kerry, Feingold in Afghanistan...helicopter to ground...

The Times endorsed John McCain.

According to a December 20, 2007 Drudge report, the Times had the information that McCain was too cozy with a female telecom lobbyist.... this story was two weeks before the kickoff of the primary season.

Had this info been released, the presumptive nominee might not be McCain.

McCain admits to talking to Times editor Keller at least once, other sources say it was more, and angry.

According to The New Republic story released today, the invesigative reporters thought three months ago that they had nailed the story, but it was held up by Keller.

One of those investigative reporters has since left in "frustration."

In the world of unintended consequences.... GOP conservatives are now getting off their high horses to rally to McCain.

Regardless, I was very disappointed to see so much crooked talk from McCain today. He never talked to his staff, he never talked to the Times... whoops, maybe just once, a very short friendly call. Sorry John, that just doesn't pass the smell test.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

'The mill stone that will bring this economy down is spending and entitlements - the sister of your beloved regulation.'

spoken like a true believer in 'The Magical Wisdom and Holy Wonderfulness of the Markets'

'And what if we kind of like our lives as usual? What about Americans' freedom to be uninvolved and uninformed?'

What a sad statement. How really depressing to actually WANT to be uninformed. But I doubt Obama will march into your home and yank you off your couch.

And the fact that some TV reporters are pinheaded morons is hardly news, nor is the fact that they are too lazy to get Obama's name right -- and really, what has that to do with anything?

The question is, why did John McCain hired Bob Bennet, best know for representing GUILTY DC bigshots?

anthonyrimmell writes
"Does the VP nominee automatically become the Presidential nominee? If not, how is it handled?"

Interesting questions, though I think you overstate the likelihood of McCain not making it to 2012. Generically, my guess is that the states have the control over the ballots in their states. Depending on the timing of such an event, states might not be able to reprint ballots prior to the election. In the event the voters elect a dead person, it probably goes to the electoral college.

justj writes
"That regulation comment is a pretty narrow view. Regulation afterall, is incapable of keeping up with greed... You can't regulate against greed, you just have to hedge your bets. The mill stone that will bring this economy down is spending and entitlements - the sister of your beloved regulation."

Regulation may not be the sole solution, but it should likewise not be ignored either. A couple significant reasons for the strong economy we've enjoyed for the last 70 or so years is the regulation that followed the market crash & bank runs that spawned the great depression.

The problems faced by our economy are larger than just the fallout from subprime mortgages - go read the Ignatius piece to get a hint of how widespread the problem is becoming. We're not talking about a couple thousand homeowners losing their houses, we're talking about credit drying up globally, and foreign investors stepping in to buy up US financial companies. Take a look at Meyerson's column too, to get another perspective - though not as deep - on another aspect of the problem.

Back at least vaguely on thread (well, about John McCain anyway)

Given his age, I have seem some posters elsewhere note that the running mate McCain nominates as his VP may be much more significant than ever, as there is a much greater chance that he wouldn't last his term - if elected.

That raises another question for me. What if McCain is nominated and doesn't even last the campaign? Does the VP nominee automatically become the Presidential nominee? If not, how is it handled?

And does the Democratic party have rules too for what happens if a selected nominee doesn't make it to the actual election?

Now that an MSNBC news employee has been reprimanded after mistakenly flashing a picture of Osama bin Laden on a segment about Barack Obama during Chris Mathews's Hardball program, news of the incident is sweeping the globe.

Here, for example, from Australia, Canada and India:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/20/1203467145976.html

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDWRpYH0A6F1DtXM9rq_fDPU2dbg

http://entertainment.in.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1251239

I wonder whether the news has reached Afghanistan yet?

The mistake was made by someone in the network's graphics department whom MSNBC would not identify.

It is not the first time the media have confused the Illinois senator with the al-Qaeda terror leader.

Earlier this month, Reuters also called Obama Osama during a piece on one of the primaries. The mistake was posted on various newspaper sites before being changed.

And last year CNN apologized for promoting a story on the search for bin Laden with the headline, "Where's Obama?"

In a separate incident, a CNN reporter said "Barack Obama's campaign has been dogged by false rumors, among them that Osama is a Muslim, Obama rather."

This has been a rough month of apologies at MSNBC.

"This is going too far."

Perhaps you should expand your news sources beyond the National Review & Weekly Standard.

This is simply another attempt by the same fine people who brought us the Swift Boat ads to change the subject. There isn't one shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims. There are merely reported "concerns" and rumors. I imagine, before the election, these same swine will do something similar to Obama.

The real issue is the economy. People don't want to hear this, but every bit of it is due to another Clinton folly, "free trade". The problem with the global economy is that companies can search the globe for the lowest production costs for their goods and services, exporting jobs, production capacity and technology from their host country. There is an international "settling" of wages and benefits to the lowest common denominator. In the U.S. this has translated into the disappearing middle class, the loss of health insurance and other benefits by blue color workers, factory closures, even cheap temporary guest workers displacing U.S. workers in the technology, medical, and some finacial sectors. It is literally the case that no job is safe anymore.
At the same time, those companies are dependent upon their host country consumers for much or most of their business. In a vicious cycle, consumers, especially as they see their wages decrease, shop for lower cost goods produced offshore, which leads to more job and capacity loss at home.

In this country, we are witnessing the effects of this gigantic **socioeconomic experiment**. It has been made even worse by corporate and investor lack of dependency and allegiance to the U.S. and to our workers (except as consumers). Capital is leaving this country, a lot of it going to the growing economies of Asia and the more stable economies of Europe. Foreign capital, likewise, is fleeing here becasue of our low interest rates, something the Fed did to combat the looming recession. The effect has been inflation, as there is less capital to prop up our disasterous government and private debt, more inflation as demands for higher wages and benefits are made by the offshore production facilities, more inflation still as the dollar falls as a consequence of capital and job losses. The real trouble is that the Fed, Wall Street, our politician's, and even consumers, do not recognize that we got into this mess to begin with as a direct consequence of "globalization". The result of all of this, I fear, is going to be an American disaster on a scale unimaginable. (And forget the rest of the world going down with us. For the most part, they recognized "free trade" as a gigantic Ponzi Scheme and have been using it to milk the U.S. of jobs, technology, production capacity, and capaital without jumping off the same bridge.) We are on a train to hell and everyone who can stop it keeps talking about how smooth the ride is, how they can't wait to arrive in this wonderful warm new vacation spot. We are a ship of fools.

"This is going too far."
=========================

Only if you are silly enough to take her words literally. As if they'll jail someone who wants to be a couch potato! Lordy. Some people just have a potato between their ears.

If what Weaver said is true then why on earth would NYT run this on the front page?? There must be more.

From Michelle Obama's speech at UCLA....

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

I'm sorry, nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President of the United States to demand anyone shed their cynicism. And I'm all for people pushing themselves to be better, but I don't think the President demanding it is the way to go about it.

And what if we kind of like our lives as usual? What about Americans' freedom to be uninvolved and uninformed?

Darleen at Protein Wisdom transcribed what follows:

"You have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged."

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjljYjA3YTYzMjU2ZjA5Yzg1MmM2YjIzZjEyN2ZjZjk=

Ah. Apparently apathy will be criminalized, then?

Does anybody on the left side of the aisle find this rhetoric a little creepy? I'm all for her Constitultional right to hold contempt for the country and have no pride whatsoever in our great land except that it is supporting her husband's bid for president, but this? This is going too far.

Claudia,

That regulation comment is a pretty narrow view. Regulation afterall, is incapable of keeping up with greed. Just look at how we move from one scandal to the next - we regulate on a reactionary basis - there is zero forward looking. The real estate boom created a lot of wealth in this country and it was when its excesses got us (as with any bubble and as with any cycle) the stuff hit the fan. Look at the .com boom and bust before it. Everyone gets on the wave until it crashes. The smart get out of the way before it does. These banks didn't need regulation to know they were making risky bets - they accepted the risk and got burned. And the consumer willingly went along. Sure there was some predatory lending - every hack in the world got into real estate in the past five years but it was the burst of the bubble that caused the credit crunch. That is the free market and it is working the way it is supposed to work. You can't regulate against greed, you just have to hedge your bets. The mill stone that will bring this economy down is spending and entitlements - the sister of your beloved regulation.

proudtobeGOP writes
"So, do you think the terrorists are paying attention? It would seem so, when one would-be terrorist hides a box cutter inside of a book entitled "Fear Itself" and brings it with him to an airport."


You'll have to point out the part where illegal wiretapping would have averted this crime.

We were in WW2 proud. do you think there was nothing to fear then? that isn't what he or she meant. Rather, not to give in and driven by mindless fear, give up every liberty and freedom our forefathers died for.

The so-called surviellance bill guts the 4th amendment entirely. It might as well be called the The Warrantless Wiretap/Evesdropping on Americans bill. It need provisions to protect citizens from fishing expeditions. I'm afraid I trust Big Government a little less than you do. And I sincerely doubt some young whack job [apparently working alone, so what good would wiretapping do?] is paying attention to congressional proceeedings.

And this..

'A few months ago, just a few days before Christmas, Drudge reported that the New York Times was poised to publish a "high-impact report" involving John McCain and "key telecom legislation." There were very few details, but McCain had reportedly already hired an attorney to deal with the controversy, while the senator and his campaign "pleaded" with the NYT not to run with the story. '

Why would he have hired a lawyer?

'And Washington power lawyer Bob Bennett has confirmed to Politico that he is providing counsel to McCain.'

And why this one? He's the heaviest hitter in town.

Robert S. Bennett (born 1939) is an American attorney best known for representing President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Bennett is also famous for representing Judith Miller in the Valerie Plame case, Caspar Weinberger of Iran Contra fame, Clark Clifford in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandal, and Paul Wolfowitz in the World Bank Scandal.

"Speaker Pelosi quoted Roosevelt last week in an alarmingly stupid defense of the Dems refusal to pass the surveillance bill."
-------------------------------

Although I support Obama, I find Pelosi and Reid an embarrassment to the Dems.

Hillary should lead the Senate.

Pelosi forced her way into lead House position on the "first woman" argument. We see how well that worked.

Michelle and Barack must be falling off their chairs with laughter.

One says to the other:

"ANOTHER self-inflicted sex scandal in the middle of an election?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%28Senate_candidate%29#Campaign_demise

Not germane to this non-story but the other string looks dead so I will re-post here.

I love this from George Will on the experience question:

"The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to the rank as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."

I think Obama can take advantage of the experience issue by hammering home his point that all of the experience Hillary supposedly has did not allow her to make the right call on the Iraq war - a mistake she still refuses to acknowledge. That should be his central salvo tonight. It is legitimate (although I really believe it was a lack of political will and not a mistake in judgment that caused all of the dems to vote for the war. it was not that they believed the WMD story but that Bush backed them into a corner and they were unwilling to appear as weak. This is particularly true of HRC who had been triangulating as a hawk ever since 9-11 in order to bolster her presidential aspirations down the line. Because this latter point is much harder to make in 30 seconds, Obama should hit my first point hard.)

"So what does it have to do with Nancy Pelosi."?, drindl asks.

Speaker Pelosi quoted Roosevelt last week in an alarmingly stupid defense of the Dems refusal to pass the surveillance bill.

"Roosevelt said we have nothing to fear but fear itself," Pelosi said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.

So, do you think the terrorists are paying attention? It would seem so, when one would-be terrorist hides a box cutter inside of a book entitled "Fear Itself" and brings it with him to an airport.

The "back story" on the NYT McCain piece:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24

'His diagnosis of the economic problem we face is unsettling at best. Anyone economically minded care to read it & comment? JD?'

Paul Krugman and certain other honest economists have been predicting this for more than a year, bsimon, because of increasing deregulation and the rise of new financial instruments that were completely unregulated and so complicated no one really understood them.

This why we need regulation -- because human greed trumps everything else. Always.

"Police nabbed a 21-year-old Florida man at the Tampa airport after they found him hiding a box cutter in a hollowed-out book titled "Fear Itself.""

=====================

Life would be so much easier if we could lock up every male between the ages of 12 to 28. Ignorant testosterone is responsible for 90% of the world's violence.

Of course, it's mighty helpful if you're fighting a good war.

Universal draft would help tame us beasts.

"Police nabbed a 21-year-old Florida man at the Tampa airport after they found him hiding a box cutter in a hollowed-out book titled "Fear Itself."

So police, doing POLICE work at the airport, which not a single Democrat opposes, in fact it was democrats who demanded increased airport security after 9/11, while bush dragged his feet. This is exactly what the police should be doing and no democrat anywhere opposes it. On the contrary, we would like to see more of it -- especially at the ports. So what does it have to do with Nancy Pelosi.

"Unless it was in the stall of a men's room"
=======================

LOL. What's with your bathroom stall fixation?? That's your third. One might wonder.....

Is that you Larry??

I couldn't hear the tapping.

"If Sen Clinton attacks Sen Obama on the claim of him 'breaking' his pledge about public financing, will he use the opportunity to point out the new 527 organization operating on her behalf? Depending on how the attack is made, an effective rebuttal might includ something like:"
----------------------------------

The problem for Hillary is that her attack machine in Wisconsin failed...at least in public opinion...Bama won by 17%.

So if she goes on the attack, I think it will automatically backfire...she'll seem even more desperate and folks will just switch over to American Idol.

Who knows?

I have this feeling she will regret demanding the debates.

Hope Michelle knocks any hubris out of Bama's head...he needs to get back on the ground and stay sharp.

Police nabbed a 21-year-old Florida man at the Tampa airport after they found him hiding a box cutter in a hollowed-out book titled "Fear Itself."

Benjamin Baines was also found to be carrying the Bible and the Koran, as well as other books on Islam, including "Muhammad in the Bible," "The Prophet's Prayer" and "The Noble Qur'an," The Tampa Tribune reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331677,00.html

Note bene, Speaker Pelosi.

Anyone else read Ignatius today?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002270.html

His diagnosis of the economic problem we face is unsettling at best. Anyone economically minded care to read it & comment? JD?

Thanks, bsimon, With a name like 'dickey scruggs' how could he not be shady?

Also from the WSJ-- what pharma companies are contributing to the spike in healthcare costs:

"The pharmaceutical industry has been a frequent target in the current presidential campaign, but that hasn't stopped it from continuing to aggressively raise the prices of prescription drugs.

Some individual drugs had double-digit price increases over three years. GlaxoSmithKline PLC raised the price of antidepressant Wellbutrin XL by 44.5% from 2005 to 2007. Sanofi-Aventis SA raised the price of sleep drug Ambien 70.1%. Shire PLC increased the price of its attention-deficit disorder medication, Adderall XR, by 33.5%, while the price of cholesterol-fighting Lipitor -- the world's top-selling drug, which brought in roughly $13 billion last year for Pfizer Inc. -- rose 16%.

In some instances, drug makers are raising prices on medications that are due to lose patent protection so that customers will switch to -- and continue to buy -- similar, newer products that enjoy market exclusivity well into the future.

It's a tactic that pharmaceutical companies use "to shift patients to next-generation drugs by making old ones so expensive," says Michael Krensavage, a drug-industry analyst with Raymond James & Associates. For example, Sanofi raised Ambien's price ahead of its loss of patent protection last year so that it was more expensive than Ambien CR, a new formulation, to encourage patients to switch to Ambien CR, which will be patent-protected for several more years."

Was the jet called "Monkey Business? Gary Hart feels your pain John.

Unless it was in the stall of a men's room, it won't matter in the long run.

As Mr. Weaver used "us" on more than once occasion in his responses, who were the others? The Times says McCain was confronted and acknowleged the inappropriate nature and yet he denies being confronted in his presser today. Someone is not telling the truth and the identification of whom else constitutes the "us" is the real clarification that is needed.

Not only have the wheels come off the straight talk express, but it looks like the transmission just blew, too. What next, I wonder?

The following has been represented to me to be the peculiar language in the Bethesda bank loan:

"Additional Requirement. Borrower and lender agree that if Borrower [McCain's campaign committee] withdraws from the public matching funds program, but John McCain then does not win the next primary or caucus in which he is active (which can be any primary or caucus held the same day) or does not place at least within 10 percentage points of the winner of that primary or caucus, Borrower will cause John McCain to remain an active political candidate and Borrower will, within thirty (3) days of said primary or caucus (i) reapply for public matching funds, (ii) grant to Lender, as additional collateral for the Loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching funds program, and (iii) execute and deliver to Lender such documents, instruments and agreements as Lender may require with respect to the foregoing."

I asked transactional lawyers to comment yesterday at "the Fix" on apparent unenforceability of this clause except by call of the loan.

Now I ask election law specialists how this can be construed as a pledge of an interest in a current matching fund. Is that in fact, the test under the FEC? I am at lunch and nobody is going to pay me to research it. So I hope someone here can comment from prior knowledge.

claudia, your WSJ paragraph finishes as follows:
"Mr. Lott, who is a brother-in-law to Mr. Scruggs, unexpectedly announced his resignation from the Senate two days before Mr. Scruggs was indicted last November. Since then, Mr. Lott has been interviewed by federal agents at least once, according to a person familiar with the case."

The remainder of the article offers only tenuous inplications of impropriety between former Sen Lott & the judge in question. His brother-in-law, on the other hand, appears to be more than a bit shady. I recall an article covering the same aspects of the case running at the time of Lott's resignation.

"Will make tonight's debate interesting!"

A post from Chris on that would be far more interesting than the two dedicated to this topic.

If Sen Clinton attacks Sen Obama on the claim of him 'breaking' his pledge about public financing, will he use the opportunity to point out the new 527 organization operating on her behalf? Depending on how the attack is made, an effective rebuttal might include something like:

"I'll take that comment as an implicit agreement that I'm the presumed nominee for our party. Once you've formally conceded the primary, I will be free to negotiate the details of a public financing agreement with Sen McCain, in order to discourage 527 organizations like the one that's running ads here in TX on your behalf."

This one could get messy as no one on either side - McCain or NYT - seems to have all of the facts straight.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

TRENT LOTT UNDER FED INVESTIGATION

"Federal agents are investigating whether former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott knowingly played a role in an alleged conspiracy in 2006 to influence a Mississippi judge presiding over a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against famed plaintiff attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, according to people familiar with the situation.

Mr. Scruggs and several associates are scheduled to stand trial March 31 on charges that they offered $40,000 in bribes to State Court Judge Henry L. Lackey in return for a favorable ruling in a lawsuit against Mr. Scruggs over $26.5 million in legal fees.

Mr. Lott, who is a brother-in-law to Mr. Scruggs, unexpectedly ...'

sorry, that's all the WSJ will give you without a sub...

Oh, the gop gets clarification posts. Oww.

Does barack get the same when the propogandists report lies and gossip on him? Never once that I have seen here.

you show your gop face chris. What is a journalist with zero credibility? A propogandist? Lack of credibility and accountability killed your party chris (gop clinton included). you are just digging your holes deeper.

I believe this is trouble for McCain. 1st, there is a whole generation of voters who don't know and understand the Keating 5 and the savings & loan crisis. They will now as the history will be re-visited.

2nd, this involvement with the lobbyist is exactly the type of hyprocritical behavior that voters have grown to hate. There is nothing that he can say because the facts speak for themselves. He wrote letters, he got money.

3rd, his flip-flopping on torture, tax-cuts etc. will continue to become media fodder.

He Has No Chance

As the former Chairman of the Commerce Committee, McCain was approached, like other committe menbers, by countless lobbyists trying to advance the interests of their respective clients. Why would Weaver or any other McCain staffer single out this one lobbyist for doing what lobbyist are famous for... touting their "connections," "ties" to a legislator or committee. That's what they get paid for.

Maybe nothing is there, but if McCain is so "detached" from lobbyist, why would he or his staff be concerned with one specific lobbyist and her relationship with McCain looking "improper," especially when that lobbyist has no known history of impropriety?

'So, eight years ago some ambitious lobbyist tried to get into McCain's good graces and was prevented by his staff from doing so. This story speaks so well of McCain's operation that he should have leaked it himself. '

Amazing how you can be so deliberately blind. The lobbyist was NOT prevented from getting into his good graces -- he still calls her a 'good friend'. Read what he did for her, even to the point of being scolded by the FCC.

Lobbyists don't represent the interests of the population in general, but moneyed corporations, including foreign ones. That's the pernicious aspect of it.

Bobby-Cervantes:"The problem for Obama is, we still know nothing about him"

Please, if you want to be ignorant about Obama is your choice and your right. But if you DECIDE to learn more about Obama's specific issues, go to: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/

Enjoy!!!!!!

BTW, this paranoia about "doing favors for lobbyists" is kind of silly. Doing something for a lobbyist's client because they give you money is corrupt. Doing something for a lobbyist's client just because you genuinely think it's a good idea is what politicians are supposed to do. Does anyone think that a politician should be against something just because a lobbyist is in favor of it?

For example, being a conservative, I'd imagine McCain is generally in favor of deregulation. So it would be perfectly normal for him to be in favor of rules allowing broader TV station ownership. I'm sure it benefitted somebody and I'm sure that lobbyists would tend to ask someone who already supported such rules, to, well, support such rules.

"If you've been following the incendiary and slanderous commentary in the Times against Clinton during this campaign, you'll see that the Times will stop at nothing to try and install Obama in office."

--------------------------------

Like their editorial endorsement for Hillary as President? I can see how that proves that they will stop at nothing to help Obama.

So, eight years ago some ambitious lobbyist tried to get into McCain's good graces and was prevented by his staff from doing so. This story speaks so well of McCain's operation that he should have leaked it himself. That a once great newspaper like the Times has bothered with this on its front page speaks more about the desperation among the liberal press to find a way to sully McCain's reputation than it does about any alleged wrongdoing by McCain. If you've been following the incendiary and slanderous commentary in the Times against Clinton during this campaign, you'll see that the Times will stop at nothing to try and install Obama in office.

Barring any hard evidence, the right has just deftly protected McCain's right flank and center against the NYT.

Sloppy work by the Times.

Will make tonight's debate interesting!

For what it's worth, my direct observation of elected officials at McCain's level is that if one of them did appear to be in danger of suffering political damage from the statements of some lobbyist, the situation would be handled the way it was reported to be handled in this case -- by staff.

It is understood in Washington that part of the staff's job is to protect the boss: not from getting arrested or jeopardizing national security, but from appearances that might damage him politically. A lobbyist who is bragging about her access to and influence over a Senator is a problem, even if it is just bragging (this is one reason why, traditionally, the best lobbyists have been very discreet). A Senator could always cut the lobbyist off personally, but more often staff are directed to address the situation. Longtime staffers who know their boss well enough sometimes address the situation without direction.

In McCain's case, whether this story turns out to have legs will depend on whether any of the things hinted at in it -- whether Iseman's clients got undue favors because of her access to him or there was some kind of personal relationship between the two of them -- later turn out to be based in fact. If they do, this is a very bad story; if they don't, it's just a story about staff dealing with an appearance problem eight years ago.

Until the blue dress showed up I didn't believe a damm thing they were saying about Bill Clinton either.

Posted by: eda11 | February 21, 2008 12:44 PM

Same here. But as many have said the real issue is not if he was banging her, that's between him and his wife, the issue is what is he doing carrying her water? Or the other lobbyists who are running his campaign and Senate office while he is running for president.

I found more about the public financing issue:

"To review briefly: in December, McCain, who'd earlier opted in to the public financing system, needed cash. The FEC had already certified that he was owed $5.8 million in public matching funds -- but he wouldn't be getting that money until March. And he didn't want to absolutely commit yet to using that system, because it would limit his campaign to spending only $54 million through the end of August. And FEC rules say that using public matching funds as collateral locks a candidate into the system.

So McCain struck a deal with the bank: he promised to only commit to using the system if he lost the primary. If he won, he would opt out of the program, and he'd be more than able to pay the bank back, because the funds would come flowing. McCain's lawyers were evidently very pleased with the canniness of this arrangement.

If you're confused by this, don't worry: so, apparently, is FEC Chairman David Mason. McCain officially notified the FEC earlier this month that he was no longer in the public financing system for the primary. Now Mason has responded with a letter saying essentially, not so fast. It looks like you used the public matching funds as collateral.

If the FEC ultimately decided that McCain could not opt out of the system, the consequences would be severe for him. He'd be limited to spending $54 million through August -- meaning that the Democratic nominee would be able to outspend him several times over.

But there's a major catch, of course. The FEC can't take any official action, because it's still shut down over the deadlock in the Senate. The FEC needs four commissioners to act; it currently only has two."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_281.php

From the other thread:

I just don't get one thing:

why would members of his own staff dish this to the media back in December..or at any time really??

Doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 12:35 PM

A good question. The story-behind-the-story is going to be as interesting as the story itself, I suspect.

Now, all the media outlets [especially Limbaugh and the other rightwingers, who predictably fell in line are McCain became the nominee apparent] are stampeding each other to scold the NYTimes -- completely obscuring the fact that whether or not he had a sexual relationship with this female lobbyist, he did seem to do her some improper favors, which is the bloody point, after all:

"A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman's clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program.

And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson [another Iseman client].
In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain's staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain's staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron."

Many people are talking about how this alleged "affair" or "romantic relationship" is the story. This is false.

The real story is that Mr. Finance Reform himself is cozy, literally and figuratively, with LOBBYISTS. Remember those people? The people that John McCain hates? Apparently he hasn't taken any pork-barrel funding because he doesn't NEED to. He just sends money to whomever is warmest to him when he's in charge of making the decisions.

John McCain has devastated his image with this and his other finance scandals. In his own words, he has a difficult time recognizing when he faces a conflict of interest, even when those around him all see it plainly.

The story here is that all of McCain's talk about fiscal responsibility and straight-talk is a big, juicy lie. He's playing the naive/novice role here, saying he doesn't remember certain things, he didn't recognize when he was making a bad decision and that this has always been a problem for him.

I think that disqualifies him for the White House.

Wait a minute... this happened nine years ago? Is the NYT simply trying to increase McCain's conservative support?

Here are two questions for McCain that are much more timely and much more important to millions of Americans:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007456.html

The NYT and the WaPo will never ask him about those, so it's up to you: go to his campaign events, videotape his responses, and then upload it to video sharing sites.

While this story is less than 24 hours old, I am looking at the reporting with a careful eye towards one thing. . . imagine if this was a story about Hillary. . . .we all know that if this was a story about Hillary, that the coverage would be nonstop blanket coverage for days, all we would be talking about and the rumors and innuendo flying. . . will that be the case for McCain. . well we shall see!!!

She looks so much like a younger version of Cindy. This is yet another example of why lobbyists should not have so much access to representatives. They spend far too much time with them, corrupting the process.

Until the blue dress showed up I didn't believe a damm thing they were saying about Bill Clinton either.

In defining deviancy downward, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan might say, the Times has done more than open the door for its right-wing haters. The newspaper of record has put pressure on itself to do a similar job on Barack Obama and his Antoin Rezko connections or face an election-year barrage of continuing criticism. Sad day for a great newspaper.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/02/ny-times-defines-deviancy-down.html

Where's the beef?

I can't even figure out what this story is about. That nine years ago some of McCain's staffers thought that some lobbyist was going too far in bragging about her access? There's no evidence that anything actually improper happened or that he had an affair with this lobbyist, is there?

PLEASE JOURNALISTS
DO YOUR JOB

McCain Loan Raises FEC Questions

The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign.

And the truth be known - in the end I believe this will help McCain - the middle in this country see Obama and McCain as an option - The middle hates these tactics which is why the Clintons using similar tactics against Obama has hurt Clinton.

The problem for Obama is, we still know nothing about him. Those who support him based on this false high may come to learn by September he is no different than any other politician. This will cause the high to fade and his supporters will fade along with the high.

Obama's campaign could turn out to be the biggest bust in presidential politics. Can he survive the venting? With the Clintons yes, but with America no.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Fundamentally, if McCain had nothing to hide, why would he and Weaver only accept questions in writing? That doesn't seem very straight-talky. They can always tape-record the interview for their own record.