If Democrats would focus more on the fact that an Arizona Senator intervened in an FCC matter on behalf of a company based in Florida, it would be a better line of attack.

But seeing you people talk about McCain lying as though the candidates you support never have, is freaking hilarious. Excuse me for becoming more cynical over the last 10 years, but I’ve seen enough to know that ALL politicians lie.

All of them.

Oh, but we did.
We learned it from watching you.
The Starr Report was very instructive.

“I have refrained from ever intervening in the regulatory decisions of the federal government if such intervention could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as done solely or primarily for the benefit of a major financial supporter of my campaign.”

The stories breaking today reveal McCain will say whatever it takes, regardless of the truth:

“In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson’s chief executive, Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign. McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain’s request “comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process” and “could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission’s deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.”

McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company’s jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.”

And also this:

“After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell “Bud” Paxson, finally ruined his company.

Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.

McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters – but not the great bulk of television stations – off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with “fear and trepidation” at a hearing on September 8, 2004.

Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson – and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.”

Sorry Cons, but Saint McCain is a liar. I don’t care how many of his wives he’s cheated on, but I do care that he’s apparently willing to say anything to get elected. Even Rush Limbaugh knows that.

It’s a repellant, hideous piece of journalism that has little merit and no place on the front page of the country’s leading newspaper.

That said, it’s mighty funny how some people have suddenly become sensitiive to this sort of thing.

Ah yes. Let the smear campaign begin and with the NY Times to boot.

Funny – I don’t recall seeing you making a similar remark when the ‘Barack Obama is a muslim’ smear appeared all over the pages of the same paper that you are critiquing now. With considerably less evidence of it being true (and actually a bunch of evidence proving it wrong). Funny how the supposedly liberal NYT put that rumor on the front page, and they buried disclaimer that it was all a flaming pile of bull$hit 20+ pages back.

I’ve also read that this story has been spiked for years because it might make the Anything-But-Straight-Talk Express look bad, and one of the reasons it’s being published now is that there’s another newspaper that won’t sit on the story. I’m not sure how much you know about that – being as it might poke some holes in your Republican’t propaganda operation here – but I’m also sure that being scooped might have been a factor in when they published.

Ok, can’t argue with that.

If one side gets in the mud and keeps winning, I don’t see any advantage to my side keeping its suit clean on principle.

However, YOU’VE been decrying such tactics since this blogs inception. Apparently, you have no problem engaging in the same kind of stuff if you think it’s going to help your candidate win. As such, I would suspect we’ll see an end to any complaints on your part when the favor is returned, which it most likely will be on the part of Obama or Hillary.

No, I’m pretty clear here that I’m saying you are. You’re the one declaring what the Times is “really saying” and then getting angry at them for it.

Yes, there’s innuendo, and I admit that’s not really top-notch reporting. If they actually have evidence that McCain had an affair, they certainly need to present it. But I’m refuting your claim that they accused McCain of an affair, rather than reported on actual events they had backing for. That’s the difference between a smear and a story.

Is this the same Jay that defended Glenn Reynolds for using basically the same tactic? Because if it isn’t you ought to kick his ass for stealing your handle.

They would never do that. They are our moral superiors.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The report plants the seed of an extra-marital affair in the third sentence of a 3000 word piece.

Yet here you are, in the comments of a blog entry entitled, “John McCain And Vicki Iseman And The Affair” attempting to claim that the only thing the times is ‘reporting’ is that aides were convinced he was having an affair and that it is just part of a ‘larger’ story. Are you prepared to sell some of what you’re smoking?

Oliver is focused entirely on the alleged affair for the most part. He links to two other entries that discuss nothing but the alleged affair and you’re actually going to sit there with a straight face and say this isn’t a smear? This is a text book definition of a smear. Accusing somebody of doing something without actually accusing them. It’s perfect.

If the article actually said “McCain had an affair” and offered no evidence or sourcing (like the Drudge piece on Kerry), you’d be right.

Oh horseshit. They didn’t say, but they were happy to speculate. And that’s what makes it a smear.