Was Kennard Clinton or Bush's man?

This story is less than a day old, and I've already heard a dozen talking heads like Buchanan running interference for McCain. These are the same people who wanted Clinton's head on a platter for his little tryst with Monica.

Watch closely... this will demonstrate once and for all just how liberal the "Liberal Media" really are. You'd think that they would do whatever they can to run down the Republican nominee... right? There was no more evidence against Bill Clinton when the bobbleheads launched their witch hunt over Monica... will they treat McCain the same way? Any bets?

First of all, Buchanon, Hannity and any other conservative voice you are lumping in as a "talking head" were never part of the "liberal media" as defined by conservatives.  However, the NYT was.  I'd say they're off to a pretty good start.

That is something I never understood. There were always a lot more avowedly conservative voices in the media than liberal counterparts among the talking heads and the NYTimes editorials consistantly had very conservative voices in their stable.  It just never made any sense to say the media itself was liberal.

It's a POV issue.  I always felt my viewpoint was underrepresented in the media in the 80's and early 90's.  Conservative talkers have exploded in the past twenty years or so.  It's definitely changed with cable news channels and the internet.

Avowedly conservative voices were underrepresented as were avowedly LIBERAL voices. I understand thinking your point of view was underrepesented. Mine has ALWAYS been underrepresented and STILL IS. Where were the voices damning the contras and our misadventures in Nicaragua and the rest of Central America for instance? It used to be more neutral. Neutral isnt liberal. I watched the news since I was a little kid, it was something we always did at our house. No one was touting MY point of view THEN and they still arent today.

Solon, have you tried the Moscow Times?  (Just Kidding).

As I said the media is not monolithic. No question for instance the Nation magazine published since the civil war IS liberal. Overall, its not liberal and never has been. No ad hoc references of a liberal message popping up here or there can refute this.

ahh, so the entire media was never liberal?  Only factions of it?  As in any other democracy?  I see...

That is right. It is also not a complaint. I am not saying I think we ought to have a liberal media. It was also not conservative. There were always liberal and conservative islands in the media sea. The media has always known it serves power. It reflects elite opinion. If you ran it down bit by bit you would see a liberal leaning on social issues and a conservative leaning on economic and foriegn policy issues. It also has never been monolithic. I am just arguing against the constant refrain that the media is liberal. No it isnt, it never has been.

Bruce,

It is what I suspected all along, the media was in love with darling McCain when he stood up to the conservatives in his party, when he bucked his own party......but now that he is battling liberals, he is no longer the darling he once was.  Now they, the NY Times, the liberal bastion that they are, can't wait to eat McCain for lunch.

I guess the McCain love-fest is over....... 

it is over now. Let the bloodbath begin. 

Tommy, the New York Times editorial board is definitely liberal.  However, their reports trend toward objectivity, as any good news outlet should.  And seeing as how this was a news article, not a column or editorial, I do believe they're not pushing a specific agenda with this.

 

BTW, the NYT spoke to two different campaign staffers (McCain staffers mind you, Oh those liberal John McCain campaign staffers...) And both staffers corroborated the story independent of the other.  I'd say the story is legit, or else McCain's staff is eating their own for the sake of....well, I just don't know. 

I have no idea whether it's true or not true, until it is proven to be true, then it is of little value to me in any fashion.  If it does turn out to be true, then I will evaluate it at that point and decide if it has any bearing on any decision for me.  

At this point I am not supporting McCain, so it is even less relevant to me than to others, I would imagine. 

Someone said this morning on TV, (Today Show?) something like, print journalists would rather be wrong than be scooped. They felt that was the story here and the NYT felt they would be scooped by some conservative publication, (I forget which), so they published what is in effect, a story, that so far, has nothing to back up it's claims. 

Mark down this date...I think the same thing as you on this one AA. 0-:  They didn't want to get scooped so they printed a story that they had no business running with.  If anyone should be looking at there ethics right now it is the NYT.  Not the first time they let a reporter run an article on shoddy evidence...can we all say Judith Miller.

I get your point, and though I believe the story to be true...not that he had a romantic relationship, just that the relationship was perceived to be romantic...I still understand that it could very well be wrong.  My point is, the NYT tries its hardest to maintain objectivity in news reports, at least as far as left vs. right is concerned.  

You may be right Tommy.  I was watching CNN yesterday and Cafferty basically ripped into McCain and his speech while claiming Obama was a breath of fresh air.  I wondered what would happen when 2 media darlings ran against each other would the love affair continue for both or would one have to be sacrificed.  I don't think we can say just yet but it does seem to be blowing a certain way in the last few days.  McCain just may get dumped in favor of their other darling Obama. 

Tommy, I highly doubt, from what I've seen, that it's "liberals" bashing McCain right now.

Media Darling McCain finally getting some scrutiny.

Here's the puzzling thing: the Conservatives are portraying this as a "hit job" on McCain by the "liberal" NYT. Two things don't fit. First, they had this story over two months ago, and could have published it when there was still time to deny McCain the nomination. They waited until he had it pretty much sewed up; why? Second... the NYT endorsed McCain, presumably while this story was in the works. WTF?

My theory? The Troglodytes will use this as their excuse to finally back McCain... to protect him from this hatchet job by the "Liberal" NYT. This is a gift to the GOP.

actually, a third thing doesn't fit.  The story was revealed by two McCain campaign staffers, independent of each other.  If it's just some "hatchet job," then this conspiracy goes all the way up to the higher levels of McCain's campaign itself.  

If you'll notice, the troglodytes repeatedly refer to them as "disgruntled" ex employees... implying that they can't be believed.

Joe Scarborough was all over himself trying to dismiss the story this morning, as was Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson.

Personally, I think it may be true... will the Press run with it, or let it drop? We'll see.

They weren't current staffers they were former staffers supposedly.  I think if they want to make these accusations they should do so on the record otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to make allegations based solely on what they suspected and not even on claims that there suspicions were even true.

Having read the content of McCain's correspondence I don't see any conflict.  He specifically said this was not to influence a decision one way or the other but to find out the status of resolution of an issue that was pending for over 2 years.  He even went so far as to say do not contact him by phone because he did not want any apperance that there was anything done to pressure a decision one way or the other.  He reiterated several times in the letter that his letter should not be viewed as favoring one outcome over the other just a check on when a decision will be made.  I really don't see anything in this story.  If they have more information they should produce it because otherwise it realy does look like a hatchet job based on anonymous unnamed sources that don't even claim to know if there is a relationship just that they had suspisions.  According to the information out there he voted against this women's client's interest on numerous occasions and the ones the NYT cited as him voting with their issues they seemed to be in line with normal postions and not votes out of the norm.

I saw Bob Bennett making that claim this morning. I wonder how many votes were actually suspect? This is where a real investigative journalist is needed. Too bad there aren't any left.

Do you remember the last time Bob Bennett was in the news? Seems that he was vigorously defending Bill Clinton over the Lewinski affair.... we saw how that turned out, didn't we?

I am not a fan of the accused has to prove he is innocent...sort of hard to prove a negative.  If these reporters want to raise these issues then they should have laid out the proof.  SHow me the votes for and against and show me where he deviated from his normal behaviour and voting in their favor.  Put it in the article and show me your research.  I think as it stands now this is a hit piece.  If they follow it up with research showing me where he violated public trust by voting against what he believes to be the interest of the people in favor of the interests of this client.  If they don't have that information than stop the tabloid journalism and print a retraction and an apology.   This is how I want it for anyone on the left or right of the political spectrum. 

The question remains... if this is a hit piece, why did they sit on it for two months, giving McCain time to wrap up the nomination? You might argue that they wanted McCain to get the nomination to keep Romney from getting it, so they could then knock off McCain with this story. I guess that's possible, but I think most polls have shown that McCain is the most likely of the Republicans to win in November, and there is no guarantee that he'll be damaged in the least by this story.

Is a puzzlement.

I wouldn't even attempt to hazard a guess as to the motives of the NYT in running with this at this time.  I have heard ideas from all spectrums that benfitted the left and benefitted the right.  I really don't know that I care what there motives are...I just don't like this type of journalism.  I will say this I think MCCain has currently said all he needs to on the subject and the ball is now in the NYT court to prove their case or retract and apologize.

BTW, even stranger...the NYT had this story before they endorsed MCCain...kinda weird if you believed in the veracity of the claims you make in the article then why would you endorse someone you believe corrupt?  The whole thing just smells funny to me.

Just speculating, but isn't it very possible that those in the Times who made the endorsement were unaware of the investigation in progress?  How much does the news staff share with the editorial board?

You could be right.  I don't really know much about the inner workings of the NYT.  I have no idea who knew what.  It just struck me as odd. 

I know many of your read HuffPo.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/my-role-involving-todays_b_87788.html

 

This disputes MMFA 

Yeah, but Lanny Davis is a right-wing hack.  Errr, ummm...

Thanks for posting the link.

Maybe if Lanny was a better kisser...

How in any way does that dispute MMfA's contention that the then-FCC Chairman said the letter was highly suspicious?  It doesn't.

Where does she say it was a highly suspicious letter.  From what I read she said it was highly unusual to announce where they are in resolving a pending matter.  Doesn't sound like the letter is unusual to her just the request to announce the status of deliberations.  I think you are trying to make more of this then there is by subtle spins like calling the letter suspicious and attributing that view to the official.

Here is the actual quote:

"I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending."

I'm surprised MMFA didn't pick up on these comments from Pat's wife:

We -- we -- you know, conservatives are -- we believe that we are the family value party. We believe it seriously. We expect our candidates to live up to those values, not just to talk about them and expect us to vote for them, and not be there really when it counts.

 

And our -- we have a basic belief. If can you lie to your wife and your children, then the voter doesn't have a prayer. And, so, that's where we stand. We assume our candidates are that way, unless we -- we have reason to believe otherwise.

BWAAAAAHAHAHHAA! 

I think this story -- to use Daily Variety parlance vis-a-vis movie releases -- "has legs."  It might even be something that will go right up to November, something Obama or Clinton can count on for points in a debate where McPain's veracity is questioned.  Yes, of course, all of them are senators and therefore, by definition, on the take, so to speak, where lobbyists are concerned.  But Billary has never made such a big to-do as McPain about fighting K-Street, and Barack only says that the "system" in D.C. needs changing (no specifics).  Neither Dem has made a career out of claiming maverick status.

Besides, the pundits are now bringing up the Keating savings and loan scandal.  That, coupled with this new revelation about helping someone in the telecommunications lobby get favorable legislation passed after he allegedly got cosy with her -- well, you can easily see how these things undermine the dread many express when they wonder which Dem will best run against McPain.  The answer now is: either one.  McPain (and, for '08 purposes, the whole GOParty) are toast.  Take them out of the fire; they're done.

 

The NYT should wait until all of the facts are in before reporting this story, just as Drudge did with the "Kerry had a mistress" story 4 years ago. What? They didn't? Well at least no one picked up the story and started putting it out on the air waves as fact...Oh wait, I heard Sean Hannity doing just that at the time.

  Maybe they will let it lie like they did with Jennifer Flowers back in the 90's. Oh wait, they jumped all over that and still bring it up whenever they can dispite never being proven.

  Yes poor poor John McCain. It is clear that the left wing media attacks him unfairly and the right would never do such a thing, just ask his black child born out of wedlock about that. Only the left smears.