- ‹ previous
- 2685 of 7913
- next ›
Conservatives Spinning (in Circles) Over Iseman Scandal
So which is it, conservatives? Did the liberal New York Times wait to publish their bombshell until after John McCain had locked up the Republican nomination because the NYT hates Republicans and wants to see the nominee crippled, or did the liberal New York Times wait until John McCain had locked up the Republican nomination because it loves John McCain (it endorsed him, after all), and didn't want to see him maimed with a viable alternative left in the race?
Can we get our spin straight, please?
Update: Oh boy.
Update Update: This post should have conveyed the very real concern I have that this story will end up helping McCain. Hard core conservatives don't like McCain because he is seen as being in bed (ba dum!) with the liberal media — he has repeatedly taken hatchets to his fellow Republicans in order to impress the members of the press, and in return they've showered him with years of adoring coverage. (Or so goes the right-wingers' theory.) Now, he's up against the NYT just like every other conservative has been for years. He's one of them, and deserves their support. Evidence of this thought-process is already evident here.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Ms. Iseman is a member of several Zionist organizations. It is rumoured that she blackmailed the Senator in taking a rabid pro Israel position. Jack Abramoff was another one as well, but he is safely in jail now.
There's no reason it couldn't be both. "Sure, we like McCain, but when push comes to shove, he's a fascist Republican. If we publish it too early, our guy might not get the nomination (and we'd get Mitt? eew!); now he's got it in the bag and we've got this juicy bit of gossip about the GOP nominee! Just can't resist any longer."
For the record, this strikes me as a pretty lame "bombshell." Moment of weakness, he did something stupid, he's learned from it, and moved on years ago. One could say the same things about Obama's youth drug use.
Honestly, I think this is a non=issue. As a Democrat I would never support McCain, but who cares what he did in the 90's? Clearly, Democrats no longer care about the 90's either and as a supporter of Senator Clinton, it's not easy for me to say this.
no, i don't care either, but republicans have made it entirely clear that they believe our politician's sex lives are at least as important as their professional lives, so let's see how they handle the possibility of mccain's indiscretions. bill clinton isn't even running, and we still hear endless amounts of crap about his past. yea, i'm still bitter. enjoy, gop.
The way I see it, the farther right McCain moves and the more he is embraced by his conservative base, the better for Obama. Because if the moderates and independents see that the right is embracing McCain and then look at his record on Iraq, the less they will view him as the "maverick" and the moderate that he really isn't. So I applaud the right wingers jumping to McCain's defense. It only hurts him in the general election.