NYT: McCain's Gambling Problem

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

Not even close. You cannot compare Sen. Obama involvement in an organization that primarily helped people in one city to what appears to be a nationwide relationship.

Everyone should read this article. While the focus is on Sen. McCain's ties to the gambling industry, there are some references to concerns that his staff had/has about his propensity to spend a bit more time than 'comfortable' at the tables.

Whoa you may be off target on this one. The Times has a history with McCain and it has been questioned before in reputatable circles. I offer the following condemnation of them as an example for readers to refute or concur with:
Evangelicals for Mitt: AM SPEC: NYT COVERS UP McCAIN AFFAIR WITH LOBBYIST
Here's the deal, folks: The New York Times has some damaging goods on John McCain, reportedly involving a female lobbyist. McCain threatened legal action if the Times printed the story. The Times backed off... for now. But you can be sure the Times will unload on McCain if he nails down the GOP nomination. Meanwhile, Tim Carney (of the Novak report) highlighted a smelly McCain deal in the Examiner last week. And today, the Washington Post reports that David Keene of the American Conservative Union "is examining a loan McCain took out to keep his campaign afloat."

Then, of course, there is his legendary, out-of-control, inexcusable temper. His profanity-laced tirade against the unfailingly decent John Cornyn last year during the immigration debate was something straight out of the Captain Queeg playbook. He was one step short of demanding that Cornyn be court-martialed for swiping the strawberries.

When John McAngry loses his halo, he has nothing left. He will be mincemeat for the liberal Democrats in the fall.

Can any of you challenge and question this link?

[TigerLily24]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Whoa you may be off target on this one. The Times has a history with McCain and it has been questioned before in reputatable circles. I offer the following condemnation of them as an example for readers to refute or concur with:
Evangelicals for Mitt: AM SPEC: NYT COVERS UP McCAIN AFFAIR WITH LOBBYIST
Here's the deal, folks: The New York Times has some damaging goods on John McCain, reportedly involving a female lobbyist. McCain threatened legal action if the Times printed the story. The Times backed off... for now. But you can be sure the Times will unload on McCain if he nails down the GOP nomination. Meanwhile, Tim Carney (of the Novak report) highlighted a smelly McCain deal in the Examiner last week. And today, the Washington Post reports that David Keene of the American Conservative Union "is examining a loan McCain took out to keep his campaign afloat."

Then, of course, there is his legendary, out-of-control, inexcusable temper. His profanity-laced tirade against the unfailingly decent John Cornyn last year during the immigration debate was something straight out of the Captain Queeg playbook. He was one step short of demanding that Cornyn be court-martialed for swiping the strawberries.

When John McAngry loses his halo, he has nothing left. He will be mincemeat for the liberal Democrats in the fall.

Can any of you challenge and question this link?

Sorry, I don't understand the point of your post.
I said that I don't think that Sen. Obama's involvement with ACORN can be compared to Sen. McCain's involvement with the gaming industry.

Then I said that I thought that everyone should read the article posted by the OP. Sen. McCain's personal and professional actions, as noted in the article, raise issues in my mind about his judgment. That was all I was saying.


Again, I had a little trouble following your argument, but, are you suggesting that we should ignore the article because of Sen. McCain's difficult relationship with the NYT?