After reading the letter, Keller called Gilbey, a British journalist living in New York, and asked her to coffee at the Times cafeteria. Gilbey, at the time, had a reputation as something of a power-dater; her exes included Senator John Kerry and Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour. An affair ensued, which shocked Keller’s friends. “I felt bad for everyone involved,” says Stephen Engelberg, a former Times reporter. “This was not characteristic behavior at all. I wouldn’t pretend to be Bill’s psychologist, but he didn’t get a red sports car, so …” Link

Not like we expected some sort of act of integrity for the NYTimes. I mean these are the people who were OK endorsing McCain while holding this "Bombshell/Dud". I guess we can chalk it up to the fact that hey, Keller just likes affairs.

H/T: Deceiver.com

There's been some back and forth through email among several Mitt bloggers about the NYT article on McCain's connections to lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Both McCain and Iseman have denied the story. I am no McCain apologist, but in this battle of credibility McCain wins. The NYT has proven sufficiently unreliable in reporting about issues with a partisan element. McCain has also proven unreliable in telling the truth, but less so than the NYT. Obviously, I don't feel overly confident in either source, so both sides need to submit further evidence to bolster their claims.

As for McCain, you live by the MSM you die by the MSM. McCain tried to carry that snake down the mountain and then wonders why he got bit. You should have known better, Johnny. Should have known better.

Labels: New York Times

Ann, as usual, does a great job of breaking down the McCain-Feingold issues into vividly colored commentary. Here are the money lines:

What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)

By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media -- which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.

It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.

You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.

Even after, what was it, $35M of his own money, Mitt Romney couldn't beat what the MSM was going to shove under our noses no matter how we all voted.

Yeah, I know, there are a lot of us, Mitt Romney included, who are telling us to get on the McCain train and vote the party line. I'm so disgusted by the current election system that it will be very hard for me to buy that. However, I made the mistake once, in my youthful naiveté, of throwing away my vote by opting for Ross Perot, thus helping to unseat Bush Sr. and installing a sex fiend in the Oval Office for the next eight years. Except, this year, after we lost the next Reagan (Romney) to a series of scattered, poorly run primaries and MSM chicanery, it's so hard to just hold my nose and vote.

Someone, please, cheer me up about my "choices" somehow.

While Huckabee is trying to claim people want him to stay in the race, there are at least as many people who wish Romney was still in the race.

Here are the Washington results:

48.90% McCain
21.51% Huckabee
19.75% Romney

Thanks to reader Laurenda for the link.