SFLSD: Oh! The inhumanities.

[Billy Mays here FOREVER!]

Who woulda thought the NY Times would turn on him as son as it was clear he was the nominee? 

[Groundhog]

Who woulda thought the NY Times would turn on him as son as it was clear he was the nominee? 

I dunno, right-wing conspiracy theorists? That is to say, right-wingers blaming the liberal media?

Edit: I probably missed the sarcasm here...I should stop procrastinating from legal research.

[Billy Mays here FOREVER!]

This happened 8 years ago, and they are both denying it. You gotta admit the timing was quite suspect.

Edit: I'm not a big McCain guy btw.

Double Edit: Half sarcasm, half- sketchy timing

[Gengiswump]

Quick question for the legal writing gurus:

I have 4 factors that I have to analyze for the one of the standards for my motion.  Do i have to quote them exactly when i list them, or can i paraphrase? also, our prof told us to talk about 2 together, can i paraphrase them together or write them seperately in the initial part, then talk about them together?

Gracias!

My LRW prof says quote exactly at least once, then you can paraphrase after.

[pikey]

Quick question for the legal writing gurus:

I have 4 factors that I have to analyze for the one of the standards for my motion.  Do i have to quote them exactly when i list them, or can i paraphrase? also, our prof told us to talk about 2 together, can i paraphrase them together or write them seperately in the initial part, then talk about them together?

Gracias!

My LRW prof says quote exactly at least once, then you can paraphrase after.

Thanks!  Though I'm now completely unsure what to do, since everyone i've asked has given me a different answer! 

[Gengiswump]

Quick question for the legal writing gurus:

I have 4 factors that I have to analyze for the one of the standards for my motion.  Do i have to quote them exactly when i list them, or can i paraphrase? also, our prof told us to talk about 2 together, can i paraphrase them together or write them seperately in the initial part, then talk about them together?

Gracias!

My LRW prof says quote exactly at least once, then you can paraphrase after.

Thanks!  Though I'm now completely unsure what to do, since everyone i've asked has given me a different answer! 

Mine was the most relaxed guy in the world, so if he had a thing that he said one should do, we generally noted it . . .

[mugatu]

maybe now it's relevant? 

[mugatu]

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,102093.0.html

we have friends

[Miss P]

This happened 8 years ago, and they are both denying it. You gotta admit the timing was quite suspect.

Edit: I'm not a big McCain guy btw.

Double Edit: Half sarcasm, half- sketchy timing

Disclaimer:
<-- McCain girl

Supposedly the NY Times "knew for months" that they were going to make this a story.  So what's troubling is that they made him their guy.  AFTER they knew of this story.  Something's fishy.

I have heard from a reliable source that McCain's people have been pressuring the Times not to print this for months and the story was continually vetted and re-vetted.  I do see the liberal conspiracy angle w/r/t the Times' endorsement (though, come on, who else was the Times going to endorse?  Paul?), but I also think the timing of the story is probably as much a result of trying to work with McCain's handlers as it is an effort to shoot him down when he's riding high.

[Gengiswump]

Are you guys following this?  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.htm

It really does remind me of that first Lewinsky story.

::crosses fingers::

Props to Opoto, who first posted it in BLSD's politics thread a few hours ago.

I love that the NYT chose to end with this:

"“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

---

Because it wasn't a half bad story, but I wasn't really surprised or intrigued . . . until that statement, which seems to be overreactng quite a bit to the story I just read.  Which makes a girl wonder.  Which is exactly what the NYT likely wanted, but couldn't have gotten on their own without the McCain camp getting all in a tizzy. 

Whoever tacked that onto the end - my hat's off to you.