Insiders on Capitol Hill are buzzing about an upcoming New York Times exposé that will detail an alleged Boehner affair. Sources say the Times is looking for the right time to drop the story in October to sway the election, similar to how the Times reported during the 2008 presidential campaign on an alleged John McCain affair that supposedly had taken place many years before and that was flatly denied by the woman in question.
"Catching Boehner with a mistress is the only way to destroy him politically before the election," a source said.
As if that will save the Dems at the polls in November. It will only take down Boehner. Outstanding.
11 comments:
McCain-Feingold lobbyist political speech rationing is still with us, and the basis for the hoped-for "dialing-back" of individual political speech. The media ignored that and focused on possible sexual indiscretions by McCain? No wonder 80% of those surveyed say they don't trust the media. We knew what Lindsay Lohan had for breakfast, lunch and dinner in rehab but not what's in the health care bill.
Boehner, boner. Whatever helps alternative candidates.
It will be nice if John Boner bits the Bullet. It wil open the path for another Tea Party Conservitive Constitutionalist. Three Crears for Boners of the Repugnican Party.
Dennis
III
Texas
I don't think it will even take down Boehner - people have simply realized the mainstream media is just a wing (and the least effective wing, probably) of the Democratic Party.
This could prove to be fun. Even if it succeeds, the only one it would really hurt would be Boehner, who is pretty safe in his district, so I doubt it would happen. Just for sun though let's say that because of the "scandal" Boehner decides not to seek the Speaker of the House position.
That would clear the way to elect Michele Bachman. "sloding liber heads freakin' EVERYWHERE! Dear God! I need more popcorn!
Perfect! The Tea Party needs all the help they can get if they are to restore the Republican party... to be honest, I don't think it can be done... but we must try.
"...Sources say the Times is looking for the right time to drop the story in October to sway the election..."
This SHOULD be the subject of the most intense Congressional investigation since JFK.
If this is in fact TRUE, all involved should be in prison - as they're involved in major violations of various Federal "campaign finance" and other laws.
Seriously -- what am I missing here?
Some bunch of Citizens gets together, films a hokey "commercial" for their favorite candidate, and scrapes up the coin to put it on their local cable channel. If they're not careful, they end up in Federal PMITA-Prison.
The NY(f)T - with their billions of dollars, and millions of subscribers - does this, and it's OK?
How in the hell is that OK??!!
The "selective reporting" is one thing, the "biased journalism" -- etc. Since it's all (supposedly) "subjective" then there's nothing that can really be done - legally - about it.
But what we're talking about here is a DELIBERATE conspiracy - collusion - among a number of people to change the results of a national Election.
RICO, anyone?
What am I missing?
DD
"Sources say the Times is looking for the right time to drop the story in October..."
Why wait until then? If the newspaper can make good on its threat to force Boehner's early retirement, it will go a long way toward relieving taxpayers of additional future indebtedness.
MALTHUS
DD;
That a news organ SHOULD try to influence the outcome of an election is the reason behind the First Amendment. The alternative is the blatantly unconstituional McCain-Feingold (and all it's predecessors), which asserts that it is proper for the state to dictate who may say what and when.
That there is no equivalent countervailing force in the national media to the NYT might be seen as a shame to the Republic, or it might be a portent that the Times' days are numbered.
As others have said, Boehner is not really vulnerable. But if there were to be some combination of events and effects to remove him from contention for Speaker, um so besser, as the Germans say. So much the better, because there are myriad better candidates who must needs give way before him -- Michelle Bachman, Paul Ryan, and so many others.
If he were to lose his seat altogether -- an unlikely proposition -- it would be more likely he'd lose it to a libertarian or another Tea Party type, given the constituents of his district, than to a Democrat.
M
@ Mark Alger: I'm fully aware of the disgusting horror of unconstitutional tyranny that is McCain/Feingold - but I wasn't debating the morality of the law.
I was pointing out that IT IS THE LAW. The Dems don't HESITATE to use it to punish a pastor for a political comment from his pulpit - which was heard by less than 100 people.
How can it not apply to the NY(f)T??
DD
The important thing is to identify the people who are doing the dirty. They are the people involved in killing our country and Constitution and will be wearing their red berets, 20 seconds after it's too late to stop them.
Most of them have 'em in their pockets right now.
DD;
::shrug:: It could -- if it were lawful. But, to paraphrase CJ John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, it doesn't comport with the Constitution and is therefor null and void. And THAT should be the defense against prosecutions under it, no matter whether the defendant agrees with you or not.
Now, if you want to talk prosecuting writers and editors at the NYT for treason, I'm right there with you.
M
Post a Comment