What will the right do with the Iseman controversy?

February 21, 2008

There’s never an especially good time for the NYT to run a front-page expose connecting the presumptive Republican nominee romantically to a younger lobbyist for whom he may have pulled some strings. But one can’t help but wonder just how seriously the Iseman controversy will throw John McCain off his game.

For example, much of the right seemed to be slowly coming to grips with the fact that they’re stuck with McCain. But how will the right respond to an adultery/ethical scandal? Christopher Orr put it this way:

One interesting question about the piece is just how it will be received by the considerable segment of the conservative movement that already views McCain with deep suspicion (the Ann Coulters, the Glenn Becks, and other assorted anti-McCainiacs). On the one hand, as Noam notes, being “attacked” by the New York Times is seen as a feather in the cap by many Republicans and, as printed, the story is hardly dispositive. On the other hand, the story does feed into the feeling on the part of some conservatives that McCain is a sanctimonious phony who’s really no purer than the fellow politicians he occasionally castigates.

So, what it’s going to be? If early reports are any indication, the right is far more concerned with the New York Times’ conduct than McCain’s.

* Ed Morrissey: “The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing — only innuendo denied by all of the principals.”

* John Hinderaker: “The Times is a mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, nothing more. Its smear of McCain–not the last, to be sure–is entirely consistent with the editorial policies it has maintained for many years. Tomorrow’s story is just one more reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news source.”

* Townhall’s Mary Katharine Ham: “What’s the quickest way to rally conservatives ’round McCain? … If I had turned this load of crap into [sic] a journalism professor at the University of Georgia, I would have failed the assignment…. Sleazy, transparent hacks.”

One gets the distinct impression that, no matter where this controversy goes or what revelations surface, the right will find an NYT-driven cognitive dissonance easier to deal with.

Well, duh! Of course they were going to go after the NYT — it’s what they do.

Just look at the troll in the thread below going on about Clinton and the “New York Slimes” and linking to his own site and bringing up Clinton again …

They can’t deal with facts (even ones as thin as in the article) and revert back to their normal behavior: ignore the fact, and go on the attack.

As reliable as the tides …

  • You know what’s really pissing them off? This story reminds everyone of the time McCain screwed around on his first wife, when she was about the same age as Cindy McCain. The guy wanted some young action back then, and wasn’t afraid to wreck his marriage to get it, so are we supposed to be really shocked if this kind of story comes out again?

    Bush was a drunk, and at age 40 he almost wrecked his marriage. McCain fooled around and did wreck his first marraige. This is the party of family values?

  • Come on RW, be happy.

    At least it’s not a kid, a goat or those dreaded gay explosions that’s been hitting your seemingly endless supply of closeted guys since 2004.

    McCainiac (allegedly) screwed a woman! A woman! That’s an accomplishment of sorts! Isn’t this the sort of sex scandal you guys can deal with? Right? Right?

    Or are you guys mad because McCainaic (allegedly) screwed a woman? Hard to tell where your outrage lies these days.

  • What will the right do with the Iseman controversy? Mock everybody who thinks it actually is front page “news”. And point out that the Slimes’ use of the ever-reliable “anonymous sources” has all the credibility of The National Enquirer and those ever-reliable “anonymous sources” who told Jason Leopold that Karl Rove had been, or was going to be, indicted…which never happened.

    And then keep repeating this process over and over and over and over and over to show the foolishness of those trying to keep this front page “news”.

  • Is there any surprise here? The facts ARE pretty damn thin.

    Come on. If a right-wing publication came out with the same on Obama, I’d be snorting too.

  • It might be noted that The Times endorsed McCain in the GOP Primary.

    I think that this story may not torpedo his campaign, but it hurts because it brings into focus a different “frame” for McCain. The new frame will portray him differently. My guess is that now when people review his bio they will conclude that he dumped his first wife, (who had remained loyal to him and their children while he was gone for five years and after she got into a car accident and became disabled) for a wealthy woman who could propel his political career. They will have grave doubts about his “authenticity.” In the old frame, this narrative would be too personal and irrelevant. In the new frame, it will help define the candidate’s character. Ouch.

  • Racer X asked (#2):
    “…This is the party of family values?”

    Sure they are.

    The Corleone Family values, only with more death, brutality & corruption.

    What’s the difference between Ted Bundy & George W. Bush?

    Ted Bundy was responsible for less death, but was punished for his crimes.

    That’s how I feel about the modern Republicans. Prove me wrong.

  • don’t most guys who cheat try to screw women who are at least somehow different from their currentwives? mccain seems to be going after the same woman over and over, i.e., the rich-bitch, country club blondie.

  • Bush was a drunk, and at age 40 he almost wrecked his marriage. McCain fooled around and did wreck his first marraige. This is the party of family values?

    Bay Buchanan had the nerve to say “This is not the Democratic Party, this is a party of values. We assume our candidates have been loyal to their family.”

    Please note: Offer of family loyalty may not apply to Sen. David Vitter, Sen. Larry Craig, Rep. Mark Foley, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Speaker-designate Bob Livingston, Sen. Bob Packwood, Rep. Bob Barr, Rep. Dan Burton, Rep. Helen Chenowith, Rep. Tim Hutchinson, Rep. Sue Myrick, and countless other adulterers, closeted gays, and prostitution solicitors who support the party.

  • I think the far right is going to complain about the NYT AND keep the story alive. They want McCain as the Repub nominee and they want him to lose so they can blame everything on him and not the policy and performance of Dear Leader. Crocodile tears will be flowing as they howl and moan that if only the Republican party had listened to them the thousand year reich would still be.

  • Seriously, this will help John McCain. I hate to say it that way, becuase the narrative is always “it’s something bad, so it’ll be good for the Republican”, but in this case it’ll help him.

    McCain’s biggest strike against him from the hardcore-stupid wing of the “conservative movement” (given voice on sites like Hinderaker’s, Capatin Ed’s, Red State, Free Republic and others) is that the press likes him. The press likes him, the press is liberal, therefore John McCain is a liberal.

    I heard this “logic” over and over and over again from my wingnutty brothers in the 2000 campaign as they were justifying their votes for Bush the Lesser. Even today they’re mostly voting for McCain because every other candidate was clearly so much worse.

    So this will bolster his cred with the “stupid wing” of the movement. Because the press is attacking John McCain, the press is liberal, therefore John McCain must be a True Conservative! Wingnut logic at its finest. And tribalism wins out over anything else.

    (Now, if the lobbyist dealings turn out to be as shady as they look AND the media decides to run with that angle, this could hurt him a lot among independents. But I expect them to run with the “sex scandal” and not the “political corruption” angle, and I just don’t think that most indeps could give a flying rats ass about a politician cheating on his spouse).

  • Tr – don’t forget Impeacher Extraordinaire Henry Hyde of Illinois, whose extramarital dalliances were downplayed as merely “youthful indiscretions”. . . because they happened in his late 30s.

  • don’t most guys who cheat try to screw women who are at least somehow different from their currentwives?

    Uhh,actually, no, at least when it comes to marriage, most guys 2nd & 3rd wives strongly resemble wife number 1 … at least at some younger point in her life.

    (parenthetically & wandering OT, most women’s 2nd husbands -dont- seem to resemble their 1st, which might suggest something about the relative gender intelligence gap 🙂

  • NonyNony, I see your point but I think this hurts McCain because he isn’t agile enough to negotiate these waters. If this has legs, it will sorely test his limited ability to hold his temper, his ability to adapt to not controlling the agenda, his ability to manage bad press cycles (and 2000 shouldn’t give his supporters much solace on that score). For the “generic Republican” I suspect your analysis is right; for the geriatric Republican, however, your mileage may vary.

  • I’d encourage you not to run too far with this one until more facts come out. At the moment it doesn’t sound much more credible or well-established than the John Edwards adultery “scandal” that the liberal blogosphere rightly derided. If the NYT can back up its initial article with more specifics, or if other journalists can corroborate the Times’s allegations, then McCain is probably in trouble, in the general election if not the Republican primary (I doubt this will drive enough Republicans toward Huckabee to turn the tide), but it seems a bit premature to assume the truth of eight-year-old innuendo that has been denied by McCain and Iseman.

  • We got a cleanup on aisle four! Spam all over the place! It’s chaos!!!!!

    Meanwhile, NonyNony deserves a gold star for this:

    Because the press is attacking John McCain, the press is liberal, therefore John McCain must be a True Conservative! Wingnut logic at its finest.

    I have never heard it summed up better.

    **polite clap**

  • Nony, you need to remember that the Republican base does care if the guy they’re supposed to vote for cheated on his wife, and if that base doesn’t get out the vote he is toast, independent support or no. And the wingnuts need to be reminded that McCain has already admitted cheating on his wife. Of course that was his first wife, but it’s a fact that he’s done it. If Bill Clinton was accused of cheating again, would we be terribly surprised?

    Some people might think this would be unfair, but I don’t. These people intend to appoint judges who will plague us for life. This is not a game of softball. The fact of McCain’s past actions is fair game, and if they had any such thing on us they would use it to the hilt.

    That does not mean that we should push BS. I was cruising Kos and I was very impressed by this:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/85417/2505/626/461086

    A guy posts a string of unsourced allegations about McCain, and the Kossacks smacked it down HARD. Imagine if this kind of story surfaced in freeperland against a Dem. Would it be shot down by almost everyone for lack of source info?

    We’re better than that, and the independents can see it.

  • Imagine the right-wing outrage if the same story had been reported about Obama.

    Or (horrors) HILLARY!

    But when it’s a Republican, attack the messenger.

  • TR (9): seen dirty laundry list above.

    And you forgot my all-time favorite, Glenn Murphy, 31 yr old chairman of Young Republicans, whose YR buddy allegedly woke up to find Murphy’s lips in a rather uncomfortable proximity to his midsection. This was the second similar complaint filed against Murphy.

    Lukeness (15) Does this help understand what Republicans were telling their children after the Clinton scandal?

  • The Times published Whitewater, it sold papers but was untrue. The Times published Judith Miller, it sold papers, but was largely untrue. Neither story was friendly to “liberal Democrats”. Both were largely false or propaganda.

    We’ll see what the McCain story evolves into, but they seem to have been very careful to allege only that for which they can provide attribution. No “unnamed administration sources” here. The story is not hints of adultery, rather his lobbying for a close acquaintance, or is it his close acquantance with a lobbyist?

  • crap. nonynony beat me to my point. The right LUUUUUUUVS them their persecution complexes. Even at his most popular, when the press was even more deferential towards Bush then they are now (which is very deferential, still) the GOP would spew that tried-and-true liberal media crap to keep anyone with fantasies of being an actual journalism in line. It’s their go-to boogeyman, but one MCCain hasn’t needed because he’s been so successful in courting the press. This is now SOMETHING those who cherish party above country can point to – even if, after this, the media goes back to kissing MCCain’s ass – and say “ya see? YA SEE? THEY HATE JOHNNY BOY! They’re gonna beat him to death over at that there JEW York Times! Rally ’round the flag we use for photo ops, boys! No, not the tattered 9/11-natural disaster “we will prevail” remant flag, the fancy Convention/Victory flag! McCain’s a bona fide Republican! One of us! One of us! Gooble gobble gooble gobble! We accept him! We accept him!”

    Meanwhile, in an empty arid field seized by drought…Jesus wept.

  • I think this will probably rally them around him like nothing else could have. This “attack” from the “librul media” makes him one of them.

    There’s nothing like the perception of being under attack to unify a community. Especially one so focused on violence, conflict, and xenophobia.

  • My Bush-Cheney Patented Gut-O-Meter indicates the McCain/Iseman affair will be proven true. This fits his M.O. He has a history that supports such conduct. She fits his current preferred profile. And it does seem rather unusual that a practicing lobbyist (i.e. not someone who was a lobbyist but who has stepped asside from such work to work on someone’s campaign in an official capacity) would be that visible and in attendance so often during his first campaign for president. Just my BCPGOM’s opinion.

  • James Dillon (16): “I’d encourage you not to run too far with this one until more facts come out.”

    Quote from NYT: “Both (two former associates) said McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman (in 2000). The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.”

    The context is in the six of 59 paragraphs in the NYT story about a romantic relationship. Furthermore, the Wash Post has an article which is largely a secondary report based on the NYT report, but it’s also clear they were investigating the same thing, though with even more emphasis on the lobbying relationship . I would also argue that McCain’s denial falls under the category of “non-denial denial.

    I would argue that the lobbying relationship should be the main story here, but on some level I can’t help but feel that Republicans are inured to public corruption, so let the details fly.

  • Thanks for the additions, but that list was by no means meant to be exclusive (and, full credit, inspired by a list at C&L).

    I didn’t even get into the state level Republicans, young conservative leaders, or Religious Right hypocrites. I have a day job, after all.

  • Oh, I don’t know…I am feeling love building towards Huck, myself. What happens IF McCain drops out? Just wondering.

  • Following the Republican logic… It’s the liberal press that prints unsubstantiated ‘hit jobs’

    So it must have been the liberal press who did the ‘hit job’ on insinuating that John Edwards had an affair, and his vanity ‘hair cut’ topped all other ‘news.

    So it must have been the liberal press who did the ‘hit job’ on insinuating that Hillary Clinton had some ‘weird’ connection to her female handler who seemed to be too close to her at all the events, and her ‘cackle laugh’ etc…

    the ‘liberal press’ being an equal opportunity offender and slanderer, why is the right wing only concerned about it when it is against their own, but loves the neutrality when a Democratic politician is being attacked?

    MIght be a good question to ask the sycophants who defend McCain.

  • What will the right do with the Iseman controversy? Mock everybody who thinks it actually is front page “news”. And point out that the Slimes’ use of the ever-reliable “anonymous sources” has all the credibility of The National Enquirer and those ever-reliable “anonymous sources” who told Jason Leopold that Karl Rove had been, or was going to be, indicted…which never happened.

    And then keep repeating this process over and over and over and over and over to show the foolishness of those trying to keep this front page “news”.

  • Just maybe McCain isn’t really lying about it. McCain truly is against lobbyists and their dealings… that is male lobbyists…. The ‘liberal press’ forgot to ask for the details… He never said he didn’t like female lobbyists.

    🙂

  • Josh Marshall had a post on TPM yesterday about how the NYT story had been in the works for some time and McCain’s team worked to suppress it. As Josh described it, the Times piece read like much of the content had been “lawyered out.” Reading the Times piece, the fact are quite thin and the story doesn’t read terribly well, suggesting Josh is correct about having the stuffing knocked out of it by McCain’s legal team.

    And what’s all this crap about the Bill Kristol’s New York Times being liberal? Not so much.

  • This is a right wing is attempting to destroy John McCain forcing him to broker a deal with a right wing candidate turning over his delegates to a pro right candidate.. Could it be Nute?

  • 1. Certainly someone with vitality enough to keep up with a much younger woman is vigorous enough to be President. Who cares how old he is?

    2. See the liberal media is out to get McCain.

    I simply don’t see the downside to this story for McCain. The fact that Drudge teased it months ago only further convinces me this was a plant to help McNugget.

  • RacerX –

    Nony, you need to remember that the Republican base does care if the guy they’re supposed to vote for cheated on his wife, and if that base doesn’t get out the vote he is toast, independent support or no.

    I don’t think that they actually do care that he cheated on his wife. I think the whole “moral prudery” angle of the modern GOP is mainly dogwhistles to the base to remind them that “libruls” are into all kinds of “perversions” like being tolerant of gays and lesbians, legalized abortions, and funding sex education for teenagers. An old white dude having an affair with a younger woman won’t bother most of these folks a bit because in their eyes McCain is just exercising his privelege as an old white male to trade up on his wife for a younger model.

    Now, I think if the political corruption angle is what gets legs and runs then McCain is toast. Because that part will actually hurt him among voters who care about such things. But the average Republican voter only cares about the whole “sex” thing when it can be used as a justification for not voting for a Democrat. It won’t stop them from casting their ballto for the guy who is promising more tax cuts and more Alitos on the SCOTUS. They’ll justify it somehow – if only by loudly “killing the messenger” and pretending that if it comes from the NYT it must be a “lieburul” plot.

  • The NYT’s had to be drug kicking and screaming to print this, and only after it became clear the efforts to spike the story over the objections of the journalists would go public because of the Paper of record on Whitewater has such high journalistic standards that must be met before they run with something. Accusing them of liberal bias is how they keep the NYTs so conservative, and all their “liberal” non-Krugman columnists spreading their unfounded smears on Kerry and telling lies and exaggerations about Gore.

    Clearly, in addition to charging all conservative groups MoveOn’s original ad rate and all liberal groups advertising in their paper full price, the Time’s will have to not go to the matt for this story as they did for Judith Miller, and again have their ombudsman admit and admonish them for their liberal agenda.

    As for what the GOP does — the only people they hate more than McCain are true, honest-to-God evangelicals who aren’t just playing the rubes, but actually believe their own posturing. Now that Huckabee’s miracle is here, they have to embrace McCain all the way to the convention, or anger the cultists they have convinced are in God’s choosen party. Given a choice between an adulturous, corrupt, hypocrite and a Christian, they’ll go with the one they know: McCain.

  • Why is it that the most burning question is hidden or at least not addressed. Senator John McCain isn’t a “natural born citizen” of the USA and thus can’t run for the White House. Isn’t that a GREATER story?

    Casimir Nystrand

    Stockholm

    Sweden

    4687248058

  • But the average Republican voter only cares about the whole “sex” thing when it can be used as a justification for not voting for a Democrat.

    Exactly. They use it when it’s convenient for them. This, right now? Not convenient.

  • Danp,

    If we’re quoting the Times article, let’s not forget the third paragraph: “Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship.” Those denials are repeated later in the article. I don’t see how that is in any sense a “non-denial,” as it’s about as direct as one might hope for and is more or less the same thing Edwards said in response to similar innuendo– a response which the Carpetbagger and other bloggers rightly defended as about as definite a denial as possible. As for the lobbying relationship, the only firm allegations are that McCain wrote a letter to a regulator on behalf of one of Iseman’s clients and accepted a ride in a private jet for which he might or might not have needed to account in his public disclosures. Again, there’s some smoke here but more facts and substantiation are needed to determine whether there’s anything of substance.

  • will be relieved when we care more about a candidates policies than his sex life.

    Well actually when reading the whole story, it Is about more than sex, it is about the betrayal of public trust in dealings with lobbyists and the companies they work for and in a public official pursuing actions that are the opposite of his words

  • NeilS, ignoring the sex, this goes straight to the heart of McCain policies. He claims to be for clean elections, but one of the charges here is that he’s in bed (figuratively) with a telecom lobbyist, and it’s been verified that he did do favors for her clients. He’s been caught doing one thing and saying another.

  • Why is it that the most burning question is hidden or at least not addressed. Senator John McCain isn’t a “natural born citizen” of the USA and thus can’t run for the White House. Isn’t that a GREATER story?

    McCain is the son of a US war hero who was only outside the continental United States because he was serving his country in the military. So no, thatt isn’t a story at all.

  • It used to be that a powerful Republican could simply snap his fingers, and the lobbyists would jump to attention. But with John McCain, he’s apparently got to sleep with them, just to get their attention. Oh, how the mighty elephant has fallen!

    *evil laughter ensues.

    I’d really like to see this one grow some legs and gain traction. Anybody know Rush Limbaugh’s phone number? I hear he’s been looking for more “anti-McCain ammo….”

  • shaz

    of course you are correct, but this only shows that we need to get the money out of politics.

    Is that possible? I don’t know.

    Is there any way to avoid the appearance of evil even if one’s intentions are pure. Is it not possible that McCain actually favored certain legislation and that was why the lobbyist gave him money?

    But what we have now is similar in too many respects to the early part of the 20th century when politicians represented cartels and not their constituency.

  • If this story was going to break eventually, about now is the best possible time for it as far as McCain is concerned. He’s essentially nailed down the Republican nomination, so there’s no big problem with respect to the primaries. Also, this will be drowned out by the Obama – Clinton competition and the supporting evidence is as yet very slim. By the time the Obama – Clinton dust has settled and we turn to the general election, this will be old news, even if more corroborating evidence turns up later. This is too much like the timing of news about Bush’s drunk driving and Vietnam avoidance. I distrust the timing.

  • I think we all agree with NeilS in principle. It would be great for the left in general to take the high road and say that the issue isn’t who he screwed in the past, but how he plans to screw the country.

  • I’m with N.Wells @ 46

    If it were liberals, we would have kept this powder dry ’til October.
    The same way I think congress is dragging its heels with prosecutions. They may find new energy starting around July so things climax in October.

    It worked in 2006.

    Hey, if the GOP didn’t give so much ammo, it wouldn’t be easy to keep so much in reserve.

  • I am going to disagree. This, if it has any legs at all, will be the final nail in McCain’s electoral coffin. I am surprised that the commenters here are neglecting the biggest lesson Sen. Obama has shown us all. Politics is not just about ‘good policies’ and ‘name recognition.’ If it were, we’d be working for Candidate Clinton right now — yes, her policies might not please us, but they are perfectly satisfactory to the mass of Democrats. (And I might have been working for Mike Gravel.)

    Politics is, as importantly, about enthusiasm and organization.

    And this, more than just their votes, is what the Religious Right gave the Republicans, an eager group of volunteers — frequently, ‘unofficially,’ inspired by their pastors or favorite tv evangelists — who would knock on doors, make phone calls, talk to their neighbors, work the GOTV, etc. That enthusiasm was already cooling in 2006, which is one reason why we won both houses. The war, torture — which does offend many of the sincerely religious, the various sex and corruption scandals — most predominantly Haggard and Foley — and, most of all, the fact that, even after voting in ‘one of their own’ there still was no progress on the anti-abortion front, and definite ‘regress’ — in their eyes — on the anti-homosexual front.

    Even before this came out the RRs didn’t particularly like or trust McCain. (Look at the size of the Huckabee vote even though most of these voters know they are fighting a lost cause.) Add this in, and the effect will be monumental.

    First, a good proportion of the RRs simply won’t vote for McCain. The people who argue ‘they’ll never vote for Obama (or Hilary)’ forget that voting isn’t compulsory. They just won’t vote at all, or will skip the top line. (Some will vote ‘against Obama’ yes, and more would vote ‘against Hilary,’ but a lot won’t see McCain as sufficiently ‘better’ to get them to the polls.

    But more importantly, even the RRs who will vote ‘against …’ won’t be sufficiently moved to get them volunteering for McCain — and I think the pastors who worked for Bush won’t be so ‘encouraging’ this time. (We forget that the reason Republicans thrive on the ‘social issues’ is not because their position is popular — polls show the majority of Americans favor abortion, most gay rights, and marriage is about 50-50, even evolution. The only ‘social issue’ that still resonates Republican might be the death penalty, and even that’s changing. But the supporters, particularly the Christian ones, can be ‘single-issue’ voters and enthusiastic voters for or against candidates.)

    Two quick points. First, yes, the Republicans have long list of hypocrites and sexual scandals, but most of them did not get the person re-elected. The RRs DO have ‘nasty little minds’ and probably expect most of their leaders to have feet (or other body parts) of ‘clay.’ But when it becomes public, its different. They’ll forgive, but not forget to the point of reelecting (or reappointing) the ‘guilty party.’

    And secondly, (especially since the people who hear about this picture McCain 2008 as the male involved and not McCain 2000) this plays strongly into the ‘ugly but powerful old man’ with ‘beautiful younger woman’ stereotype. (Sure, the woman was as powerful, but that it less likely to be noticed.) This increases, in many people’s eyes, the ‘yech’ factor.

    So, if this story has the slightest amount of legs, this might be the end to McCain’s hopes — which I have been arguing were miniscule at best. In fact, it could even bring on a “Livingston moment.’ And then what do the poor, pitiful Republicans do? *giggle*

  • Martin said: “I think the far right is going to complain about the NYT AND keep the story alive. They want McCain as the Repub nominee and they want him to lose so they can blame everything on him and not the policy and performance of Dear Leader. Crocodile tears will be flowing as they howl and moan that if only the Republican party had listened to them the thousand year reich would still be.”

    I absolutely believe that. After all, somebody has to fix the country so they can make huge profits by wreaking it again.

    Read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine, the Rise of Disaster Capitalism” to learn how they work.

  • Let’s recall how the mainstream media treated Clinton scandals in 1992. To screw around is no crime, but putting one’s mistress on the State payroll when she performs no useful services–I mean during the day–is a crime. If the media had been a little tougher, the Clintons would never have been able to get into the White House and the Lincoln Room would not have been desecrated.

    • Comments are closed.