nice bit o' bashin'

As per Alvin - and a bashin' it is. The New York Slimes irresponsibly put to print a story that is ten years old and wasn't worth the gossip for the paper it was printed on back then, let alone now. They have no source for the story and there is no one and no documentation of any sort to corroborate what they put to print that has been produced. The fault here is with the New York Slimes for being so totally irresponsible and desperate to get a front page story. The Slimes is in its death throws and I anxiously await its demise. I wouldn't wipe up regurgitation nor line a bird cage bottom with that rag.

Your parody, Michael suggests that you believe that they had an affair. How can you be so nieve? I always think of you as being intelligent, but your intelligence has given way to gullibiiity. They may have acted adulterous or improperly with business practices but where is the smoking gun? There is none. What the Slimes has accomplished is the old adage that if has the appearance of corruption then it is considered corruption. Public officials know this and if you work for an employer like the US Government you know that it is wise to avoid anything that has that sort of appearance because the assumption is that public opinion will put the screws to you and your government employer will discipline on these grounds if they can get away with it, simply because it has the appearance of.... I get ethics training twice a year whether I need it or not. So McCain may well be guilty of giving the appearance of impropriety. So with that I will state that this is all there is to this "news" story.

It also appears that you wrote this in a bit of a hurry with a bit too many lines too close to the OS. But you did manage to get in one very good line:

"Well, you thought you were fitted for a Roman toga"

I like that line. Wish I could give you all 5's but your not getting far enough away from the OS I must ding you on in the overall and the funny. Pacing was spot on.

Guy, you and every other apologist for the fascist GOP is missing the point completely. The point is that McCain is basing much of his campaign on character, and this story just reminds everyone of how UN-heroic he has been in peacetime. In 1982, Cindy McCain was Judith Giuliani. And McCain was supposed to be atoning for the Keating Five. This story brings up all the things that make him just another corrupt Republican that this nation should not let anywhere near the White House. And I would remind you also that, at this point in 1998, I was saying just what you were saying, about Bill Clinton. One more thing: If the New York Times has a bias, it is against LIBERALS. William Safire, David Brooks, William Kristol for crying out loud! You people have a persecution complex, thinking the media is out to get you, yet you control most of the media through corporations. Liberals in the media are a small minority. Or need I remind you that Bill O'Reilly still has a job? And that Don Imus and Bob Grant got theirs back? If liberals really ran the media, those guys would have been canned as soon as they FIRST spewed racist talk. And if liberals really ran the media, they wouldn't know be bending over for McCain's apologists and affirming his phony "character." No, Guy, the Times was right to print the story. If they were truly biased against "conservatives," they would have held the story until right after the Republican Convention, when it would have killed his campaign for sure. Blaming the messenger doesn't make the message untrue. Instead, blame McCain himself, for his idea of government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists -- regardless of whether he's having sex with any of them. He says he's clean? He's lying. And, as you and your bums were saying 10 years ago, "It's not the sex, it's the lying." And we've had enough lying from the Administration the Dirty Old Man of the Grand Old Party is trying to replace.

Michael - Name me one politician that you know for sure who has never lied. I can't. This is not about anything you are stating in your reply comment. It is about totally irresponsible journalism. The press according to the 1st amendment to the constitution of the United States of America is guaranteed freedom just as I am free to throw my fist all I want but that right ends where another person's nose begins. It's just bad journalism. Who controls the press in this country? Who knows. I don't, nor do I pretend to nor make any conjecture about who does. The press is just that "The Press". Each are suppossedly independent and responsible for what they publicise. They have a responsibility to be accurate. That is why we have laws that govern slander and libel.

Mark Twain once said a person who does not read the news is un-informed - a person who reads the news is mis-informed. I'll take that to the bank. I would think that Mr. Clements would state the same about all media sources that we have today such as radio, TV, internet, etc. had they been in existance during his time. A reasonable person would say that a news story without a reliable source or reliable evidence would not be trustworthy. The story is based upon a letter that the senator sent to the FCC on a matter that had a process time of 400 days. 800 days had passed and he sent a letter for a status on the business with him and the FCC. I'd call this "doing his job" and how many other letters of simular nature did his office generate. The New York Slimes focused on one event and blew it way beyond anything a reasonable person could believe or tolerate. Where's the beef? - I'm from Missouri - SHOW ME. Until I see something evidentiary on the matter I must dismiss it as idle gossip. If the Slimes can provide something of evidentiary substance I will join sides with you. So for now I simply dismiss this story as just that - a story. Thank you and have a most pleasant day Michael. I'm just glad that we are free to agree to disagree and I'm glad you are a contributer to this site because it ain't stew without the onion.

No, it ain't stew without the onion. But the Republicans have been poisoning the stew for 40 years. The Times merely pointed that out -- truthfully. Don't blame the restaurant critic for pointing out the unhealthiness of the food.

I must now remind myself that when arguing with an idiot to make absolutely certain that he is not doing the same thing.

Guy, although admirable as you are trying to be in "kindly" presenting facts, Michael is not the type who listens, not the type who reasons, not the kind who cares if you are saying things nicely and certainly is too far gone with his bitterness and inner torment to even entertain the notion that he is wrong about anything (and feels justified in his mockery however off base and over-the-top it may be) Truth is, (even if he hates it, it's still truth) that even the democrats, (those who have kept their sanity and not let their bashed and bruised egos take them over and make them rot inside), know the New York Times is an EXTREMELY liberal publication, In fact, some 90% of the big newspapers are and lets not even get started on the TV networks! The majority of the left wing supporting media spoke's people were liberal, (and one doesn't even need the huge report proving it two years or so back to show them) I don't really think Michael is that far gone as to not know that though -- maybe it's just that he is in some fantastic denial or more likely, attempting to con you into thinking differently, (as if anyone w/functioning brain cells would think the press is for the right). His "corruption" lines are hot air - and just the tip of the hypocritical iceberg he is floating on. With Hillary's endless scandals (literally, endless as she has the BIGGEST financial fraud case in the Hill's history in the Ca courts - with solid proof, not witch hunts and hope for a scandal… but solid proof - in the courts, as we post!) and her inability to tell the truth even when there is no reason to lie - is all documented and not merely propaganda, (which apparently is the main source of information for Michael's opinions and parodies). The Clintons were constantly surrounded by scandals from their first moments in the governor's mansion to throughout this entire presidency - and bill too is a chronic liar. Hillary took a huge amount of money from Ascroft too, and 40 of the 43 democrats on the hill took money from him - but it was made into a right-wing scandal - and if that alone is not proof of the bias left wing media all by itself, nothing is! Of course, in Michael's defense, he wouldn't know the truth for any of the corruptions or the innocence of the witch hunt victims - he wouldn't know and wouldn't care. He is apparently comfy in his role of the "injuried American - fighting for his holier than thou party against the evil villains on the right, (gad). Truth is, we don't hear that Hillary's scandals and lies are still up and running, we don't hear that her "35 years" that bragging line of bull is actually terribly false and misleading, (she isn't called on that either, a free pass to distort her history, (like she did in her book), con the people and live to tell about it… The media doesn't challenge Obama and his , MANY PORK spending attachments, you don't hear the nightly network news programs asking the big question, "where does this absent half year term junior senator get off thinking he is qualified to run a great country like ours… they don't mention that his mantra of "I was against the Iraq war from the beginning" is in fact a HUGE lie - nope, they protect it because even if it is a lie, which it is, documented multiple times, they love it for the same truth that applies to Hillary's campaign cons - --- "if you tell people a lie long enough, enough times, in enough occasions - people will believe the lie, even if faced with the truth later". Sure, the media is a mainly left wing tribe of cons --- they are not telling the truth to Americans, they are only telling them what they want them to hear. They include what they want us to be informed about and purposely mislead and become silent about all they wish to hide, and hey, it works, look at Michael! The NY Times has even published edited imagoes to make things look ten times worse that they were, lying to the public in photos and print - they won't inform, they will dictate to us… BUT, they WILL tell us of an affair they cannot prove, never happened, was a unfounded rumor years ago and plaster it on the front page of the paper, the very front page!!! SURE MICHAEL, they are right wing "cons" - and the Easter bunny is true and my baby loves me cuz he told me so! Gossip is front page news, implications are reality… all part of their telling us what and how to think. And Michael, the Times buried Clinton's ills for the most part on the back pages, buried among ad circulars and such. The didn't mention to us before voting of his three pre-presidency affairs while he was in office as governor, the rape (even with the facts that the victim took a lie detector test and passed!) --- NOPE, they wanted us to think he was an all-American boy… when he was a con artist, his wife was a con artist, full of scandals both financial and sexual… They told us only that information that would be positive when he ran, so your sob stories or how you personally felt in 98, hot air. Michaels' calling McCain corrupted - is in fact, just more hypocritical bashing - If America really knew the truth and were exposed to the corruptions on the left, they would never vote them in for anything… let alone Obama or Hillary. That's why they are protected and the media who tells us what to think, feel, trust, vote for, etc… helps them run the show of total deceit.

I have a feeling we are going to have a slew of John McCain/Hillary Clinton/Obama bashing for the rest of 08. . .aren't we. . .I don't like McCain for many of his opinions, but what you presented here. . .I mean, I'm sorry--but the whole immoral/lady on the side thing to me hasn't been proven--but more importantly for me, it's not an issue that would affect my vote. . .He's not a typical republican on some issues, I support Hilary over McCain, and I'd lean towards Obama over McCain, but I can't say that I felt this was my favorite work by you--but you paced it well.