Good News - Vicki Iseman files $27 million lawsuit against NYT over McCain hit piece »
Posted By pc25 11 months ago in NewsRemember that one? It blew up in the middle of the primaries, alleging that McCain staffers were convinced he’d had a “romantic” relationship with her in 2000 and that he’d admitted to acting “inappropriately,” then burned white hot for two days before it fizzled from the fact that even the left was embarrassed by how shoddy it was. Now, 10 months later, safe from any campaign consequences, it’s payback time.
Read Full Story at hotair.com »
2188 Views Share Story 18 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 57 (view all)
-
50%
pc2511 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
even better news
Reply
Heart-ache: NYT revenue down 20% in November
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/24/heart-ache-n...
they will probably be next in line for some of that bailout money-
62%
Goppy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL!!!
Reply
It's nice to see you devoting time lately to outrage at media lies.
Now, how about if we all get together and voice our OUTRAGE at Rush Limbaugh?
After all, my fellow Christian Conservatives really DO listen to his every word ... as if he is their Messiah!
Here, check out these lies that Rush has broadcast to the nation ... and never retracted...
-- "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94) ... LIE ...
You'll love this one, my fellow ditto heads ...
-- On the Republicans' "Contract With America": "The New York Times never ran anything on the contract 'til after the election. The rest of the news media hardly talked about it at all." (TV, 4/6/95)
REALITY: In the 42 days between the announcement of the "Contract with America" and the Nov. 8, 1994 election, the New York Times published 45 articles that mentioned the contract--more than one a day. The Nexis computer database reports that more than 1400 pieces mentioning the contract were published before the election.
This one is especially sweet ....
"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.
...We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country.... This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you're sorry, people go, "Oh, OK. A little contrition."... People say, "I feel better. He said he's sorry for it." We're becoming too tolerant, folks. Limbaugh TV show (10/5/95)"
(I don't know if the Grand PooBah of Hypocrisy was high then, but certainly after.)
wait ... wait ... there are so many more lies that Rush tells ... and refuses to retract. ....
... and if anyone tries to file a law suit ... my fellow Christian Conservatives squeal ... "They Liberal Media Folks are trying to SILENCE US!!" -
62%
Goppy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As promised, MORE lies from Rush Limbaugh ... Messiah to my fellow Christian Conservatives ... (and not a peep of concern from same).
Reply
Here's Rush spewing hatred for people who love animals and the environment.
"LIMBAUGH: "On April 23, 1994, a woman named Barbara Schoener, 40 years old, was killed by an 82-pound mountain lion in El Dorado County, California.... She has two kids and a husband. The collection fund had been started for a trust fund for the kids and their education, but at the same time a companion fund had been started by a bunch of animal rights activists for the orphaned lion cubs.... As of May 23, the orphaned mountain lion had received $21,000 in donations and Barbara Schoener's two kids had received around $9,000." (TV, 7/5/94)
REALITY: Long after this story got debunked, Limbaugh continued to repeat it. On May 31, Folsom City Zoo offical Terry Jenkins sent a letter to Limbaugh correcting an earlier broadcast: "There has never been a 'trust fund for the kitten' as you reported, nor any other fundraising efforts by the zoo or anyone else (with the exception of $36 raised by the coffee store across the street). There certainly have not been any 'animal rights people' deciding to set one up as you claim they have." ABC's 20/20 debunked the story on June 4, with Barbara Walters concluding: "Unsolicited public donations have come in for the cub, but so far they total less than $3,000, so people do care more about children than cubs." Yet more than a month later, Limbaugh was still sticking with his distorted version. "
Here's Rush promoting hatred towards minorities ... one of his favorites...
Rush: On California contractor C.C. Myers completing repairs 74 days early on the earthquake-damaged Santa Monica Freeway: "There was one key element that made this happen. One key thing: The governor of California declared the [freeway] a disaster area and by so doing eliminated the need for competitive bids.... Government got the hell out of the way." (TV show, 4/13/94) "They gave this guy [Myers] the job without having to go through the rigmarole...of giving 25 percent of the job to a minority-owned business and 25 percent to a woman." (TV show, 4/15/94)
Truth: There was competitive bidding: Myers beat four other contractors for the job. Affirmative action rules applied: At least 40 percent of the subcontracts went to minority or women-owned firms. Far from getting out of the way, dozens of state employees were on the job 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the federal government picked up the tab for the whole job."(L.A. Times, 5/1/94).
. -
57%
Goppy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's Rush using blather to promote his personal hatred towards science.
Reply
from Rush's book -The Way Things Ought to Be ( 155-157): "Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history.... Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can we destroy ozone?"
The Truth: "Chlorine from natural sources is soluble, and so it gets rained out of the lower atmosphere," the journal Science explained (6/11/93). "CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and inert and thus make it to the stratosphere to release their chlorine."
Science also noted that chlorine found in the stratosphere-- where it can eat away at Earth's protective ozone layer--is always found with other byproducts of CFCs, and not with the byproducts of natural chlorine sources.
"Ozone depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon," Dr. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at Irvine, told Extra!. "Natural causes of ozone depletion are not significant."
Can scientists file a lawsuit against Rush for lying about science?
I don't know, but I do know this ... if anyone tried to ... my fellow Christian Conservatives would surely rise up and say "WE DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BE LIED TO ... AND RUSH LIMBAUGH (among others) SERVES OUR PURPSE!"
LOL!!! -
57%
Goppy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Speaking of illicit affairs ... after all ... an illicit affair is at the heart of pc25's complaint with the NYT.
Reply
In Chapter 16 of "The Way Things Ought To Be: " Rush talked about how Willie Horton brutally raped a woman after he was allowed out of a Massachusetts prison on a furlough program while Michael Dukakis was governor. Rush, of course, refers to this as the "Dukakis furlough program" and blames Dukakis for the whole affair.
Truth: "What Rush failed to mention was that the furlough law he is talking about was passed when Dukakis was not even governor of Massachusetts. It was signed into law by the REPUBLICAN governor who preceded Dukakis. Dukakis' biggest involvement with that law was that he repealed it. But you would never hear Rush mention this. He doesn't want you to hear the whole truth.
Now ... when I ask my fellow Christian Conservatives if Dukakis should have been allowed to file a lawsuit against Rush Limbaugh ... they literally cried and gnashed their teeth!
"No, no! No Goppy! You simply CANNOT file a lawsuit against Rush! He's our MESSIAH! We worship his every word!!!! Please believe us .... if Rush said it .... it simply MUST be true!"
See? My fellow Christian Conservatives aren't complaining about Liberal Bias in MSM to achieve balance ... for balance is ALREADY there .... What my fellow Christian Conservatives want is ... SPECIAL Rights .... SPECIAL Considerations ... They want to be free to say LITERALLY ANYTHING... and not be held accountable.
.
And yet ... every word out of the New York Times is ... well ... subject to lawsuits.
Funny, eh?
See? -
54%
Goppy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is a lie so egregious ... it's difficult to imagine why he was not brought up on charges.
Reply
Check it out ... it's truly an amazing story ... and factual.
Rush transcript of a talk to troops overseas:
I said, "It's an amazing thing to be home and to look at the politics of the situation. There are actually some people who have set themselves up politically to only benefit if you fail or if we fail in Iraq." I said, "It makes no sense to me, but it's not the majority of the American people."
I mentioned this in Kandahar; you could have heard a pin drop. They did not know this story. I repeated the story to them about this Reuters dispatch that we got that found problems with the news that battlefield fatalities were down and lower per capita than ever before in the history of American warfare. Battlefield fatalities are down, and I said, "Folks, this news was presented as a problem, and the people that reported the news said it's a problem because the reason this is happening is because doctors are where they shouldn't be. Doctors are on the front lines. Doctors ought not be in the front lines, it's too risky. So doctors are saving more lives and then I pointed out to them as the story also said, that the critics said it may not be worth saving all these lives." I looked these uniformed men and women in the eye and I said, "Let me tell you what this story said. It said that these battlefield fatality rates are low because we're saving lives that might not be worth living now, amputees, lose an eye, lose an arm, both arms or what have you. There are actually people, not a majority,but there are people who are reporting that this is bad news," and I said, "My staff and I, for a day, we tried to figure this out.
They're just livid - the press, the leftists in this country - are just upset there are not enough deaths to get people outraged and protesting in the streets against the war. They're mad these doctors are saving lives. They want deaths! They've been counting deaths up to 1000. They still want Bush out of office. Make no mistake about it.
end transcript
The Reuters article was NOTHING like the way Rush "presents" it. The article discusses that due to the success of the front line medical system and its personnel, wounded survivorship is way up. And as result of the success of saving soldiers lives, the human cost of the war might not be accurately represented by soley considering fatalities.
NOWHERE in the article did it state or imply there is anything negative about saving soldiers lives. It directly commended the abilities of the medical teams. In no place in the article did it suggest or imply a desire for there to be more casualties. The article did not yearn for more deaths.
What Rush did ... is to instill a demoralizing effect upon these troops ... so that he could continue to vent his own spleen about his hatred for the Left. -
62%
Goppy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a blatant lie ... (or proof of Rush's blatant ignorance) ... although not so anti-American as the one above.
Reply
Rush: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
The Truth: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.
What was funny about this stupid lie is that Rush tried to get around this by having a banking expert explain that if the lending bank failed to follow the federal guidelines in giving the loan and in applying for reimbursement on a defaulted loan, then they could be refused reimbursement.That was his definition of a "risk," the banks not doing their paperwork correctly.
Reminds me of Bill Clinton saying "it depends on what your definition is 'is' is.
LOL!!! Rush Limbaugh is 1000 times SLICKER than Billy Boye! -
54%
Goppy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
pc25, sorry ... but I just found it HI-larious that my fellow Christian Conservatives are so concerned about accuracy in the New York Times when ... .... ... they protect Rush Limbaugh's right to make every false claim ... to outright lie ... to intentionally demoralize our troops ... (I didn't even mention Rush's claim that some of our troops are "Phony Soldiers.).
Reply
Sounds like my fellow Christian Conservatives have simply targeted the focus of their ire ... a patently liberal newspaper ... ... ... but remember .... .... .... this newspaper features writers such as Bill Kristol ... the co founder of the Neo-Conservative website ----> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Does Rush Limbaugh give respectful time to Liberal Points of View on HIS show?
Do y'all see where I'm coming from now?
The Modern Republican is ADAMANT in the desire for SPECIAL rights .... not EQUAL rights.
The Modern Republican wants SPECIAL Rights.
And isn't that just a bit too childish for the party of Barry Goldwater ... a party that used to pride itself on accountability and 'not blaming others' for their own shortfall?
.
sigh. -
67%
UnusualSuspect11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The crux of the NYT’s defense, then and now, is that it never asserted that the two had had an affair, merely that their relationship as Senator and lobbyist was inappropriately “close” and that some McCain staffers were worried that it might have turned romantic."
Reply
Sort of sounds like an old Alpha Gnosis post...remember...when she posted the "whitey" video tape story about Michelle Obama, and Alphie later said that it wasn't necessarily "true", just that it was rumored... -
-
100%
mesodude11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LMAO. pc you're a trip. Why didn't you mention the New Yorker article (linked below) which was also mentioned in the story (and which discusses falling advertising sales *across* the newspaper business) rather than just the one you thought would lend the impression that falling readership is only happening with the NYT and that it's entirely due to people being fed up with the paper? Exactly... Because you're desperate and dishonest in the extreme.
Reply
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/12/22...
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
43%
Wolfie200711 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gee, since the NYT is so judgment proof because of it's pitiful financial condition then maybe Ms. Iseman can just take over the paper. Whatever happens I hope Ms. Iseman is very happy with the results and the NYT's and it's staff are very sad and out of work.
Reply -
55%
DenCuddy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems to me from the article, that no mention of an affair was ever mentioned. Just the act of being "way too close" to the point of inappropriateness even by the standards of McCains own staff. Read what you want into it, but I don't think being way too close to any lobbyist is a good thing, unless you are their spouse. McCain also has a history, had the leopard changed his spots?
Reply-
-
36%
lovemylibs11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think you read the story with an open mind, DenCuddy. Here's the NY Times article in question and it was linked in this story:
Reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mc...
It mentions a romantic relationship a few times. The Times' source was always the "anonymous" McCain staffer, etc. Look at the end of the Times article closely. It has a correction made after the original story was published. It is indicative of the Times lack of journalistic integrity.
Next: "had the leopard changed his spots?"
You are not saying, I hope, that the Times should publish a story about Obama's alleged current drug use? That would tick me off if they did that under the guise of a leopard's spots. Wouldn't it you?
-
-
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.