Watching MSNBC just now it was Tweety and Pat Buchanan deciding the story wasn't true.

LAMBERT: Well that's good enough for me.

I assume when you are speaking of "big money cronyism" you include Senator Clinton?

LAMBERT: Are you comparing Whitewater to Charles Keating and The Phoenician resort?

The Times story itself is fairly boring. My reaction was 'so what?'. I hope for McCain's sake he got laid a few times, if only because I'm so tired of watching the 50's-like robotic adoration in the eyes of his wife Cindy at every one of his campaign stops. Gag me. I'll vote for free love any time. More power to you, old man.

LAMBERT: As I say, the gist of it is cronyism ... with a blond chaser.

Uh, Bri, despite your "coincidental" mention of this NON-story with that of the NYT today, McCain can not be derailed.

Sorry.

LAMBERT: Apology accepted.

Dude: Marc Cooper makes a good argument that the NYT editorial brain trust ill-served the voters by first endorsing McCain and then, when it was too late for the voters, waiting to drop this turd in McCain's victory punch bowl. Thanks, Keller. What's next, Judy Miller coming back to work?

LAMBERT: The "adequate window for response" argument is a valid, ethical concern. But come on, McCain has been asked these questions and given every chance to respond. What you smell more is the Times timidity over being accused of election "tampering".

This shouldn't be too surprising lobbyist angle or no lobbyist angle. McCain has been known to have chased and caught a few skirts around D.C. ever since he arrived in the early to mid-eighties. Don't be surprised if we hear more of McCain's "daliances."

I love how Cindy McCain came to his moral defense seeing how it was John's affair with her that broke up his first marriage.

LAMBERT: The New York Times would not have trotted out this angle if they didn't have PLENTY to back it up.

When I read the NYT article this morning, my immediate thought was, "What a field day the conservative radio hosts will have with this one!" Since I quit listening to talk radio when Lambert and Janacek were cancelled, I haven't caught wind of the hot air that this likely generated. Ann Coulter must be pissed that a fellow blond was the object of McCain's attention. I wonder how she feels about Cindy McCain. It might be time for Ann to go brunette or redhead.

LAMBERT: I always thought Coulter was vamping for a guy like Francisco Franco, or Ceausescu. Now those guys ran tight, small government, no liberals-allowed ships. Or maybe it was Vlad the Impaler.

In regards to Cindy McCain looking robotic as Son of Mississippi mentioned above, go to IMDB and take a look at some of the still shots from the movie Terminator III. You'll want to find the T-5, the evil terminator that our good friend Arnold had to defend John Connor against.

-Red Leather outfits....check
-Robotic Eyes....check
-Blonde hair pulled tight to her head....check
-Ability to destroy men with her bare hands....don't know, I wasn't around when John mentioned this NYT article and what it might contain to her.

Yep, Cindy and the Terminator are pretty much dead ringers. So that seals it for me Bertram Jr. I can't vote for John McCain because his wife was sent from the future to kill all of us. But as you say, maybe that's why he can't be derailed? Is there something you're not sharing with us? It would actually, ummm, explain a lot.

LAMBERT: Always dicey encouraging "bertram jr" to "explain" more.

I would call the Times story bad reporting, not something with future revelations. A good story would have included sources, facts, specifics, etc. The times article read more like a National Enquirer piece.

O'Reilly last night reported that the Times moved due to pressure from The New Republic. He said they had the same information. Not sure what of that is true, but The New Republic has a strong reaction to all of this on their website today. And they are left-leaning to boot.

I'm not trying to put up a standard Republican defense. If McCain really engaged in hanky panky, then he deserves the same treatment the Republicans gave Clinton.

LAMBERT: Point "A" -- The Times story is about cronyism (and hypocrisy -- always a publishing driver) far more than sex.

Point "B" -- Even The New Republic piece suggests the Times (Bill Keller) insisted on more and more corroboration. Keller is highly sensitive to the Times Jayson Blair/Judy Miller fiascos, and he is anything but a reckless risk-taker. I find it almost unimaginable that they don't have the "documentation" on the blond lobbyist business, and will play that card if they must. But since their point was favoritism for those with access, not sex, they probably held back rather than unnecessarily inflame that angle.

And Dave, really, Bill O'Reilly? You're a bright guy ...

McCain is no saint. I am suprised the Times didnt gather more evidence and drop this bomb next October.
As far as Hillary is concerned and to answer your question on comparison it would be too cliche to bring up Whitewater or Cattle Futures.

I was refering to her lobby dollars rolling in from the HMO's and to a lesser degree Norman Hsu.

The story that should get more press is Hillary trying to flip flop on the delegate seating. Her team was instrumental in stripping the delegates away, and now when she is falling behind in delegates she resorts to her typical hypocracy and now try to legally maneuver them back to her. How much time did Oberman spend on that story?

LAMBERT: The Democratic race is over. There is no way Clinton can win enough delegate support, what's worse for her she can't buck the popular tide. She should bow out gracefully after Texas-Ohio on the 4th.

That will please you, yes?

Ceausescu was a communist Brian, and Coulter detests communists. Maybe she'd vamp for Franco, even if he still is dead.

This smacks of some bias. I'm not a believer in conspiracies, so I think its innate rather than intentional. The rumors of John Edwards fathering a child outside his marriage in the last few years were at least as well substantiated as the McCain story - which is to say not substantiated at all - but the times gave Edwards a pass.

I know the other thing is of course that journalists think any hypocrisy is fair game. Well, McCain's not a social conservative, so the Times misses the mark there.

This will have no traction, even if true. He wan't caught doing something in a bathroom. We can all thank Bill Clinton for innoculating politicians from charges of womanizing.

As for the cronyism - I dont see it. Thin. Its just a restatement of the obvious interactions politicians will have with lobbyists over time. Maybe Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich or Paul Wellstone would be immune from that, but all the rest of them do it and we don't explicitly call that cronyism.

LAMBERT: Who tried to play the Edwards love child story? The Enquirer? Drudge? It wasn't the New York Times, which as I say, is run by complete idiots if it isn't being extra-careful and cautious with this story. (That certainly sounds like the root of its reporters' frustrations). Everything about this suggests they've got more than they would ordinarily need to make the sex case if they wanted, but the story is McCain (of the Keating Five, etc.) falling in and out of the figurative beds of lobbyists and contributors.

"Thin" you say.

"Precisely to the point", I respond.

As for Ceausescu; in my mind a fascist oligarch, trumps any semantic description of a "communist". (What "communist" didn't fundamental redirect all national wealth to advantage of a few to maintain power.) The mere thought must throw Coulter into palpitations.

I personally am pleasantly surprised the Democrats will go with the superior candidate. I like Obama in many ways.

Brian, I don't know if you went to J school (even if you didn't, I by no means think that disqualifies your opinion). I did go to J school. Heavy on ben Bradlee and Marshall Macluhan (do I get that right 15 years later?). What is the point of accumulating a bunch of corroborating evidence and not printing it? This whole thing is innuendo masquerading as a narrative.

LAMBERT: There are two potent angles here. A sexual dalliance and repeated, highly hypocritical misadventures in cronyism. Understanding our culture, the Times, I'm guessing, underplayed suggestions of a "romantic" relationship in order that it not overwhelm the larger more relevant point. To lay out chapter and verse (and hotel receipts, phone records, whatever) would have suggested that infidelity was the primary issue. It is not. But I will be astonished if I ever hear that the Times didn't have locked down, dead solid confirmation of a "close" McCain relationship with "that woman".

Hillary not becoming President may be the only shred of light I have come November.

LAMBERT: Well that and no longer being automatically associated with Cheney and Bush everywhere you go.

Brian, ts not a semantic description. Ceausescu operated Romania in the Soviet sphere of influence. He was in fact a communist.

But you're correct in equating Fascism with Leftism / Communism / Socialism.

LAMBERT: I'll stand by my previous description. There wasn't much about the "Soviet sphere" that had much to do with bona fide socialism. Most of the goodies floated to the upper 1%.

Brian,

Do you have a job anywhere?

LAMBERT: Is this a trick question?

Yeah...a good blond story for cable. Now if she would just go on a Caribbean vacation to say... Aruba, drink shots all night with the locals and...oh...yeah...that's been done.

Well, Give the Republicans some kudos for trying to close The Dalliance Gap. It's been ten years since Bill "Is that my cigar in your mouth or are you just glad to see me?" Clinton lowered the bar.

LAMBERT: Well, he, or his Republican persecutors may have raised the bar in terms of public tolerance/proportionate interest in mere dalliances.

Um, Bri, my previous inquiry about this being the time I would expect you to trot out your "it's only consensual sex" excuse...must have been "lost"?

Because I certainly recall you using it every time the Clinton / Lewinsky FACTS came up.

But I'm willing to move on:

Why is the Strib hiding the fact that the alias using Cottonwood Bus Killer is an illegal immigrant?

LAMBERT: I had a bet that YOU would be the first to trot this out. Weren't you the same one claiming the mainstream press was hiding "the fact" that last fall's California fires were set by "illegals"?

108:

Would that you or ANY obama-lyte might actually DETAIL the reasons why he is a "superior" candidate, for anything more than president of the Lincolnwood Jaycees.

Or anything, ANYTHING that can as a qualification for him to be Commander in Chief.

LAMBERT: Post-W* the head of the Montevideo Kiwanis Club is a quantum step up in terms of both competence and legitimacy.

Quite seriously, Lambo - why don't you do some digging and find out why the Strib is not willing to headline the fact that the Cottonwood Child Killer is an illegal immigrant?

Surely this fact was sussed before they went to print today? As was the fact that she is using an alias.

Could it be yet another concerted editorial attempt to protect the criminal?

LAMBERT: "Child Killer". As in she set out that day to kill children?

Well, first of all, that's a mean-spirited putdown of Sparky in Monte. But back on the McCain story, big piece today in the WP about the fact his campaign is basically run by lobbyists. They may not be wearing thongs, so it's less likely he's breathing softly in their ears.

LAMBERT: "Sparky"? Never heard of him.

Bertram, Jr., I wasn't aware that Monica Lewinsky was a high-powered lobbyist for anyone back in her maiden years. Please fill me and everyone else in on her clients with business before the federal government so I'll be able to follow your equating of these two otherwise wildly disparate scenarios.

Meanwhile, please address this: "The head of the Federal Election Commission told Sen. McCain he "cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall," as the Washington Post reports. And as the Times story illustrated, while Sen. McCain has railed against lobbyists and special interests for years, virtually every one of his closest advisers now is "part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried," the Post adds."

The NYT Times piece has rather more to do with this than any sexual dalliances. Ever heard the expression "don't shit where you eat"? McCain's the guy who rides around in a bus he calls the Straight Talk Bus and likes to tell everyone how he's the answer to the self-dealing and corruption in DC, that he's not just another long-tenured insider feathering his own nest. And yet, there appear to be facts that bring that lofty claim into some doubt. Hence the point of the story. Try to keep up.

LAMBERT: Don't confuse bertram jr with more "lies from the MSM".

Bertram Jr. Here's the head, subhead and a link. Now all you have to do is get someone to read it to you:

Woman charged in fatal bus crash; she's using alias, in U.S. illegally
The woman, who is using the name Aliannis N. Morales, is charged with four counts of criminal-vehicular homicide, running a stop sign and driving without a license at the time of the crash Tuesday afternoon near Cottonwood.

LAMBERT: But is the Strib referring to her as a "child killer"? If not, why not?

http://www.startribune.com/local/15877297.html

I will help Leinfelder out by typing this as slowly as possible:

The Strib did not "reveal" the immigration /alias status in the PAPER today, waiting until 11:30 today on their WE SITE..I posited that they full well knew it by print deadline.

I challenged Lambert, who was raising the spectre of a sex issue re: McCain, to react as he always does, when confronted with the FACT that the former PRESIDENT engaged in extra-marital sex acts.

Got it?

Now go and dig back to page 20 of todays NYT and explain why the McCain response was placed there.

LAMBERT: Was the driver's real name and legal status KNOWN to anyone else prior to late yesterday/today? Usually newspapers like to print information they know to be true. Not that that's a big issue with you.

Bertram Jr: Oh, you "posit," do you? Well, while you're at it, care to wow us all by sharing your sources at the Strib who told you they held the story. Wait, don't tell me, the voices only you can hear told you.

How does it advance whatever agenda you're imputing to what's left of the Strib's newsroom brain trust to run the story you're baying for on the website today where it will get wider exposure?

As for McCain, the issue here is not whether or not McCain has ever had extramarital sex (who cares?), but, rather, his apparent inability to square his sanctimonious rhetoric inveighing against those vile lobbyists and the moneyed interests for whom they loiter in lobbies corrupting government and his actual much cozier behavior with those very same lobbyists.

You need to start posting on the "special" blogs. You're holding back the rest of the class.

"You need to start posting on the "special" blogs. You're holding back the rest of the class."

Jim, just take final step and call him a Nazi.

LAMBERT: Is that unfair to Nazis?

Even Hillary copped to being lobbied and even tried to spin that lobbying is a fact of life in D.C. and that they do some good things.

That said, McCain has a looonnngggg record of writing on behalf of interests,and all those lobbyists running his campaign certainly won't care much for "straight talk" when it all goes south.

And check out Newsweek.com today...its not about sex and funny how McCain only really addressed one part of the allegations in his press conferenc the other day...

LAMBERT: The Times may be taking a beating over this from some quarters. But I don't find it difficult to grasp their central point, and I say that as someone who finds many admirable qualities in McCain -- certainly in comparison to blithering haircuts like Mitt Romney. But the notion that he is a man of "unimpeachable integrity" requires ignoring the facts of history, for which he himself has apologized. And as disquieting as reminders of his relapses into extreme coziness with DC power brokers, I can't help but note that the Times ignored the recent matter of McCain caving on using the Army field manual for interrogations ... (i.e. torture.) THAT's the kind of (lack of) integrity that bothers me.