Well, she's hotter than Monica
As your longtime source for scurrilous rumors about candidate affairs, I feel obliged to weigh in on John McCain's current predicament, even if I don't have anything especially weighty to say.
My first reaction was, WTF was the Times thinking? It seemed like they had a reasonable story about McCain and lobbyists — which would have been pretty ho hum except for the fact that McCain poses as Mr. Ethics — that they could have dressed up, in paragraph 10, with a fun anecdote: "McCain is so cozy with lobbyists, some of his advisors thought he was having an affair with one!" Instead they ran the story as if they had the goods on the affair, which they didn't, and then weakly tried to back it up with the lobbyist stuff.
Then I wondered if McCain hadn't actually planted this story himself so that we'd all be talking about his, um, vigor. It reminds me of a twist on the old doctor joke.
"As your straight-talking ethics candidate, I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is, I'm in the pocket of big lobbyists.""Oh my God, that's terrible! What's the good news?"
"You see that hot blonde who's half my age? I'm fucking her."
Comments
This story has too much "hum," not enough "pretty ho."
Posted by: Kevin S. | February 21, 2008 5:25 PM
Anyone else disturbed all of the talk of how this story is missing "meat"? We'll all be sorry once Bill Keller trots out pics of the geezer's wang.
Posted by: Fritz | February 21, 2008 5:38 PM
I think McCain's meat has just been recalled.
Posted by: radosh | February 21, 2008 5:40 PM
This is the old joke I thought you were prepping for:
"Father, I gotta confess - I've somehow managed to give a lot of very reasonable people the impression I'm fucking a hot female lobbyist who's half my age."
"But sir, you're not Catholic. Why are you telling me?"
"At my age? I'm tellin' everybody!!"
Posted by: Vance | February 21, 2008 6:19 PM
Vance,
The joke doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Abe | February 22, 2008 6:11 AM
I don't care if McCain is in bed with a loobyist, as long as he's not in bed with lobbyists.
Posted by: JohnnyB | February 22, 2008 10:37 AM
THat first one should be *lobbyist*. Unfortunately my typo dimished the impact (if any) of my comment.
Posted by: JohnnyB | February 22, 2008 10:39 AM
Why hasn't the media jumped on McCain for plagiarizing from Bill Clinton?
"I did not have sex with that woman"
Posted by: therblig | February 22, 2008 10:48 AM
hotter than Monica? well I guess she's a 4 and monica was a 3.5...
i tend to think McCain probably did have an affair with her and the Times just didn't have enough hard evidence to put all the meat in their sandwich. Not that that changes whether they should have run it as they did, but would it be newsworthy to you, Daniel, if it does turn out to be true?
btw, haven't you seen the adds? all those geriatric GOPers are on Viagra...
Posted by: jake | February 22, 2008 11:16 AM
JohnnyB, this also diminishes the impact of your comment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131.html
Posted by: Fritz | February 22, 2008 11:21 AM
Well, shit, that didn't work at all. Just go to WaPo. Article's called: "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists"
Posted by: Fritz | February 22, 2008 11:23 AM
Abe - Don't tell me, tell John McCain.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 22, 2008 11:56 AM
My impression of the NYT story is that the original pre-Kellerified version of the story was 99% about the adultery, and that, while they may not have had more "meat," they had a heck of a lot more bread, mayo, lettuce, and cheese -- and more deli employees alleging that McCain ordered meat on the sandwich.
The entire lobbyists/ethics framing feels like Keller insisted that be what the story be "about" (despite keeping the adultery lede). Especially since it seems as though multiple pubs have been pursuing the adultery angle (*not* the lobbyists/ethics angle) for at least a year.
And, of course, either way, it looks like McCain is lying his ass off.
Posted by: The Confidence Man | February 22, 2008 3:45 PM
(Oops. A little late to point this out, I guess, but that "me" two comments up is me.)
Posted by: Vance | February 25, 2008 11:04 AM
Vance:
Thanks, I was baffled for days.
Posted by: Abe | February 27, 2008 3:24 PM