It seems that the New York Times is up to their little games again, having shed the mask of “what me care?” neutrality that got them through the primaries. Citing sources so thin that envious fashion models and socialites all over Manhattan raced from supper to their bathrooms, the paper of record intimated over a 3,000 word essay that 71-year old Senator John McCain might have been sharing the sheets on an irregular basis with a 40-year old female lobbyist back in the day. Or not. Hard to say.
The conjecture proved a perfect handle with which to re-open the door on a 20-year old scandal that McCain was tangentially drawn into, along with four clearly more culpable Senators from across the aisle. About which the Arizona senator has publicly hairshirted himself ever since.
Mitt Romney’s camp is left to fume meanwhile that they had been begging the paper to blow the seal on the story since before the New Hampshire primaries to no effect. I guess their man wasn’t mavericky enough to justify the newsprint, and anyway character assassins only get so many shots. Timing is everything.
The editorial staff apparently spiked the story earlier in the year after having realized that there was no real “there” there, but that was before The New Republic smirkily hinted that they were going for the scoop, firing up the Gray Lady’s aetherosclerotic competitive juices. Neither Stephen Glass nor Scott Thomas Beauchamp could be reached for comment.
Meanwhile, Washington insiders practiced making surprised faces in their mirrors over the possibility that a US senator might, on the behalf of a contributor, write a “what’s taking so long?” letter to a federal agency which had for two years been squatting in bovine stupefaction over a business deal.
Shocked! Shocked, do you hear?
Here are your winnings, monsieur.
Nor is it particularly surprising that a Washington lobbyist who earns her bread by convincing prospective clients that she has special access to influential politicians might, for reasons of her own, make a dubious claim of special access to an influential politician. If name dropping were a federal crime, K Street would be a ghost town.
The real absurdity of it all is that the paper has given previously irreconcilable hard core rightists like Rush Limbaugh, et al an excuse to swallow their pride and finally clamber aboard the Straight Talk Express. The enemy of mine enemy, and all that.
The story will make no never mind to committed partisans on the left, who never would have voted for McCain anyway. And the sight of Mrs. McCain standing by her man in a rebuttal news event today ought to be enough to turn to to dust the japes of those who once passionately argued that Bill Clinton’s infelicities were between him, Hillary and God. Ought to be, but probably won’t.
On the other hand, the mere possibility that that the septuagenarian McCain might have had the energy for a cross court liaison with a 32-year old back in his sexagenarian days might sway the less morally inflexible and uncommitted members of the critical middle, who otherwise might ponder the wisdom of pulling the handle for the oldest man ever to run for president. Shoot, the French might even vote for him now.
I don’t know whether or not Senator McCain and Ms. Iseman got out of bounds. Neither, it appears, does the New York Times. I guess that’s not a good enough reason these days for a newspaper not to speculate on what might have happened. Maybe.
So long as it fits the overall agenda.
Whenever I see a story from the NY Times any more, I immediately wonder “What, if anything, might be true in this story?” Usually very little, if anything, as confirmed by this despicable case of “Borking” a Republican with lies and innuendo.
I don’t even like McCain as a candidate, although I respect him,and he is far preferable to any of the donkeys. Still, this story was as blatant a cheap hit job as the discredited Dan Rather “Bush National Guard” crapfest.
Sadly, many in the uninterested and uninformed electorate will be swayed by nonsense like this, picking up only the breathless media headlines “McCain scandal”.
And, many of them vote!
Mission Accomplished, as far as the Times is concerned. And, it does not even count as a campaign contribution.
Mission accomplished indeed. The NYT got just what they wanted. Sen. McCain. Now that they have him, they’ll do what they do to every other Republican candidate. They’ll rake him over the coals.
I really home he saw that coming.
They got squat and we all know it. This is simply part of the vast left wing conspiracy. Which actually exists. LOL.
The hypocrite innuendo game- ho hummm. What a crock. Have they ever run a story on Barracks ties to the dirty developer that Clinton brought up? Hell no. They are the Left’s Pravda.
They do it because they can get away with it. The ONLY way to fight back is economic. Any of their periodicals, any of their products must be scrupulously avoided even IF it hurts until they fold. We must scrape their livelihood from them.
“Public hairshirting”- nice one Lex.
b2
The New York Times: All The News That’s Fit to Fabricate.
I certainly don’t consider myself a McCain supporter, but this attack is perhaps the most factually tenuous news story I’ve read in a long time.
At least the Bush “AWOL” story had some badly forged documents and a liar with a name to support it.
I wonder what they’re holding in reserve for October. This one was just a lowly, easily expendable pawn.
Personally, if McCain was with the good 40 year old-it raises his stature in my book. I’d rather have a president with red male blood flowing through his veins than one with ice and estrogen flowing through hers. ( Rumor has it the estrogen supply may have been diminished for sometime now-leaving only ice water).
Its time for the middle ground of the Republican party to rise up and say it just does not matter. Just like with Giulani-too much private morality is considered public property. The middle should tell the morally rightgeous right to put their stones back in their pockets. Hey at least this time the scandal is with a woman-and she is of age. For Republicans that might represent progress.
Let the Angry White Men rise to his defense. “Yea, I did her! You would too-you know it! Vote for me!”
What are you going to do? Vote for Hillary?
No matter how beautiful the woman-somewhere, someone is tired of sleeping with her. Tell me where McCain stands on (fill in the blank). That is more important to me.
But then I have always had a certain lust for life.
Skippy,
before you go off on the religious right, I might remind you that it’s a left wing rag – the New York Times – that published this bunch of bovine excrement… Not a religious publication. Just sayin…
Jim C
I guess I don’t rag on the Times so much-if it was not them, it would be someone else. The story is out there-somebody would have printed it. I need to see more of the details because over in Japan more Obama news comes over here than McCain news.
Seems to me this will be old news by the weekend-unless whoever is behind this story can have it gain traction. And I could picture some on the right planting it just as easily to as the left. The Times still has to live with libel laws-they have to have some proof or they will get sued.
Hell they are probably going to get sued anyway. The message is the issue-not who the messenger was.
My take is… ‘why now’? Why are they pulling this out now? It will be dead later. Nobody will remember this crap in 3 months. Closing in on November… that makes more sense.
And I saw it on MSN this morning and rolled my eyes and thought, “Right”.
There is a great quote from a comment on Matthew Yglesias blog:
“can we stick to the sex aspect please? I told my wife about it last night, and her instant reaction was that it would help put to rest concerns about his age. “
Hey now, Skip, can’t do that. U wuz wrong, and all. (And how do you folks do the lolcat stuff, anyways? It’s like chewing glass for me to write such crappy English)
The fact is, the NYT broke the news. Well, that’s not fair, since it’s not exactly news, considering someone sat on it for 8 years!
And seeing as he wasn’t running on a Christian platform anyways, yeah, more power to him. Not that it matters to this Malaysian…
Well, I think I’m entitled to think any old farts who can score hot (well, even moderately hot) women are lucky SOBs and REMFs, I think… (McCain might even qualify for the latter!) Right? Right?
Now McCain, a few months ago it was Fred Thompson’s wife deemed a trophy.
If you’re gettin’ some and you’re a Republican, it’s a scandal. If you’re getting somebody else’s and you’re a Democrat, it’s a private matter.
Thanks, Times — you’ve just allowed me to vote for McCain with a clear conscience. I respected him as a man prior, genuflected at his service, thought him honorable prior to this.
Now that this story has run, I’m certain he’s the better choice. Odds favor the house, and likewise if the Times is telling me something it’s not in my best interests.
– Max
Think about it – it is just a weird, leftish, support by the NYT for her choice of republican nominee, McCain, and they must have known it.
Perhaps the GreyLady is somewhat peevy that the democratic base seems to reject her choice for the democratic nominee, Clinton?
Ok, yes, it is a totally unsupported conspiracy theory.
Actually, when he gets inaugurated next January-he’ll have to send the Times a thank you note. The NYT has probably done more to unite the Republican party than any other thing this year-so far.
If nothing else, though, it does indicate what we might expect from a McCain administration. These were his people that took this tripe to the Times. I was kinda sorta hoping our next Executive would inspire a tad more loyalty in his troops than we’ve seen of late.
Yes, I’m exactly that naive.
“squatting in bovine stupefaction”. Love it! made my snowy morning.
Thanks again LEX.
Seriously, the weakness of the story and its timing make it look like a deliberate vaccination against political influenza – if McCain survives it, other fortcoming charges of adultery or illegitime lobbyism are likely to be taken by the public with a yawn.
The Times piece has as much substance as Obama’s resume…
John S and skippy-san,
I think you can put your fears to rest – hajo-hi is likely on the right track about this being a vaccination. The kind of wise/inattentive voters your thinking of, who would be swayed by this story are demonstrating why we can trust democracy – they are smart enough not to be following the minutiae of a presidential contest 7 months in advance.
On a different note, skippy-san, given how elements of the religious right were willing to support even Giuliani who is quite wobbly not only personally but even politically on some of their core issues, how does this square with your take on them? It seems you’ve set up a perfect feedback loop to keep any discordant thoughts about your fellow Americans who happen to think there is a moral component to democracy and personal honor that includes keeping one’s word to one’s spouse- if they try to support a candidate about whom they have reservations like the good mayor, they are hypocrites, but if they do raise problems and concerns they are holy-rollers. I admire the crystalline perfection of your defenses against the possibility that people who don’t share your sensibilities might have a point, even if I don’t envy the way such defenses keep complexity and ambiguity from entering into your calculations. And it was a nice touch to note how this “could have been planted by the [religious?] right” – in other words people whom I dislike are so reprehensible that even when their enemies (fair description of the NYT’s attitudes to the religious right?) do something, it is still likely their fault. Using a smear to smear those you don’t like is a sign of contempt that is getting out of control.
Hehe…nice comments David C.
Congrats, Lex!!! Your one millionth visitor:
State : New Jersey
City : Liberty Corner
I missed it by that much…
Should have included the time, sorry. Here it is:
Time of Visit Feb 22 2008 7:32:38 am
Nose- I would add: “or Hillary’s resume”.
GEO,
I’m certainly no fan of Hill, but I do begrudgingly give her some credit for being a White House insider for eight years (well, everywhere except the bedroom). It is thin, but I think it gives her cred over Obama and ex-rival Edwards.
PS Now that Edwards is out, who gets the wuss vote?
Lex and friends … so many wonderful zingers in Lex’s basic document on this tired, evanescent non-story and in the comments on it by his readers. As Lex notes, there is no ‘there’ there as far as the story goes. The NYT had eight years [eight years, folks!] to investigate and anchor these wisps in solid fact and failed to do so. So they printed it anyway.
And I loved Skippy-san’s great aphorism: “no matter how beautiful the woman, somewhere, someone is tired of sleeping with her. ” Tucking that away in our wonderful quotes file, we are.
And by the way, Skippy, that can, and does, go both ways. But a good shot, nonetheless.
Marianne
LOL, Marianne! Talk about a good shot…
Marianne,
I’m sure it does-however that assumes that I would notice……………..
David C.- Call it contempt if you wish. However I am convinced that there are elements within the Republican party who would love to sabatoge McCain-if their public commentary is any indication. He’s a unifying candidate IMHO and good for the party and he should stick to the positions that made him a “maverick” and that includes opposition to tax cuts in the middle of a war.
As for the moral component of a democracy-I’m not buying that. Giuliani was not “wobbly” as far as I am concerned. The only question to be answered was could he govern. I could care less about how many times he’s been married. He’s paid and re-paid for mistakenly marrying and its his personal business. I do believe there is a distinction between public and private matters. That’s all.
America is about the freedom to sin just as much as it is about the freedom not to.
Skippy-san,
But Guiliani from many social conservative’s perspective is not just personally at fault (and very few if any harped on that at all) but also has publically stated he is pro-choice, for civil unions, etc. You might think those are wonderful, but social conservatives have problems with those things and yet were willing to support the mayor – hence they are willing to subordinate even key issues for the interest of the party. (Maybe because many of them love the country as much as you and want it defended?)
But you went even further with Sen. McCain than the “freedom to sin” – you actually said his potential adultery made him much more attractive. I understand and grant you that there is an important and necessary distinction between public and personal morality, but there are points where the two do connect. I’m not going to try to use the law against adulterers, but I certainly don’t respect them as much as I respect men who maintain personal honor in their private lives – and I have real problems when someone uses public power and trust both for private betrayal and potentially for the betrayal of the public interest. I don’t believe for a minute that Sen. McCain has done this, but it would matter if he had.
And the problem with your freedom to sin line is that many of us see the broken wrecks of kids whose parents celebrate (instead of mourn) their freedom and the broken vows which result. Such freedom does lots of damage to the innocents. Even freedom to sin is real freedom, but it is not precious, just a necessary evil and shouldn’t be put on a parity of esteem with the freedom not to sin – i.e. demonstrate the kind of commitment in personal fidelity and relations in private that we also demand of people in public affairs and trusts. I don’t want to use law to outlaw sin and I don’t pretend I would make out like a bandit during any reign of virtue, but I simply don’t buy that sin is as admirable as virtue, as healthy for democracy as vice, or even, as you stated, believe that adultery if it were true demonstrates Sen. McCain is more of a man, rather than less.
And when I don’t have any evidence that people I dislike are doing something reprehensible, I usually don’t accuse them of it as a kind of preemption. But then, it might follow that if freedom to sin is as valuable as freedom not to, then justice even to enemies (perhaps esp. to them) isn’t that important? Is all that matters is to paint the enemy in as black as colors as possible/throw enough mud, knowing some will stick? ‘Cause it seems it is the liberal, progressive and sophisticatedly progressive NYT that is after the good Sen. on ground of moral terpitude, not “the right” which on the whole seems willing to rally round him.
I’m really not trying to pick a fight, but one of the things that drives people further right is when any concern over decency or faithfulness at all gets one labeled as a troglodyte.
David C,
good points all.
Skippy,
In regards to the tax cuts during war… did you hear that government revenues are up thanks to the tax cuts? It’s been proven time and again that tax cuts not only stimulate the economy, but result in increased tax revenues for the government. The big difference is whether big brother gets the money up front, or has to wait.
In addition to the above, if defense spending is so important, and IMO it is, then what’s wrong with trimming the fat elsewhere? For instance, the billions that are spent on pet pork every year.
Jim C
David and Jim,
First I agree that it has not been proven whether McCain actually did this. I do not believe he did and the best evidence does not conclusivley prove otherwise.
However I think the so-called values voters are holding politicians to an impossible standard these days. IMHO the very term is offensive to those of us who don’t share the pre-set positions of the values voters-the rest of us don’t have values? Because we believe that there is no need for as many handguns as are in circulation, that the budget should be balanced, that abortion-while regrettable should not be illegal, and that personal matters are exactly that personal.
My big complaint with the social conservative movement of late is that they stepped across the line from saving one soul at a time and staying out of politics-and moved to publicn intervention into politics-with the implied perception that one who did not take the same positons as they did was somehow an outcast, a heathen or worse. IMHO the train went off the tracks at that point. They were more effective when they were convincing those one souls at a time that there was a better way.
Plus, before we get all misty eyed for how much better society was in the good old days-I would recommend we all go back and look at the history. The old days were not good in many ways. And yet America survived alright and for the most part the “misspent” youth turned out all right. Same thing is going to happen with Gen Y if you ask me. ( Although I’m glad I came of age when I did and not now-the bad old days were more fun).
Re: Tax cuts-I submit the jury is actually still out on that one. Increased revenues may also be a function of a growing economy that is triggered by both governmental and non governmental spending. A balanced budget though drives down interest rates and that in turn promotes a healthy economy as much as cutting taxes on the top 1%.
Furthermore-unlike some-I believe that there are things that government needs to do and it needs to be resourced to do that. We both agree that pork spending needs to be trimmed-but a tax cutting president and a Congress of both parties really has not put a dent in it has it? That is McCain’s main point.
I disgree with McCain about some big things-but I will probably vote for him. I would have voted for Giuliani too.
Skippy,
I want to make clear that I don’t oppose McCain on moral grounds. Quite Frankly, my opposition to him was based more on issues like McCain – Feingold and McCain – Kennedy. I won’t even touch on the “affair” story reported in the NYT, as I think it’s clear that this was a thinly sourced attack job. There really is no there there. I can completely understand why some would be opposed to Guilianni on moral grounds as well. I, however would have voted for him in the end because he is strong on the war and national security… had he become the nominee.
As far as values voters convincing one person at a time and not being involved en masse in the political arena; why is Dr. Dobson’s (for instance) involement in politics any different than Cindy Sheehan’s or Media Benjamin’s, or abortion proponants? Couldn’t the same thing be said for them? That things would be much better if they concentrated on convincing one person at a time, rather than being involved en masse? My point is that values voters, or the religious right, or whatever you want to call us, have just as much of a right to be involved in politics and openly state our opinions on political matters as anyone else in this country.
I would like to see a balanced budget as well. I also think we should give the President the line item veto. And, yes, both parties need to pull their collective heads out and get rid of the pork. We need to quit this bridge to nowhere, and woodstock museum BS and fund more important things… like our military.
If we were to really get serious about this kind of stuff we wouldn’t have to have these debates about whether or not a tax cut is a good idea.
This brings me to my last point; you said that the tax cut was only for the top 1%. I hardly qualify as the top 1%. At the tome of the initial tax cuts I was making 45k per year before taxes driving truck over the road, and I recieved a portion of that tax cut. Everyone who paid taxes recieved a portion of that tax cut. So, I find the top 1% argument unconvincing at best, and needless class warfare at worst. I might also remind you that the top 1% pay over 50% of the taxes in this country, and have every right to expect a larger portion of the tax cut.
Jim C
That last paragrapg should read “At the time of the initial tax cuts…”
Sorry about that.
Jim C
I just did my taxes. Thanks to the wonders of alimony I am at a loss to see what the tax cut did for me, they are essentially the same as they were last year and if it were not for the IRA deduction they are actually more than I paid last year due to lack of ability to exclude a couple months income because of no trips to the middle east. My taxable earnings are in the middle range. I don’t see any effect-save for the increased standard deduction.
Here is the difference between Dobson and Sheehan-Sheehan does not tell you that you are going to hell if you do not agree with her. Dobson does. That is a big difference.
Skippy,
I’m a little hesitant to use our host’s bandwidth for preaching without his permission. Needless to say, I disagree with your characterization of Dobson. If you’d like to continue the conversation (and I would), perhaps there’s some way I can get you my email address, and we can continue it that way.
As far as the tax cut, the fact that paying alimony cut into what you would have recieved doesn’t change the fact that we were all given a tax cut.
Let me know if you’d like to continue the discussion about Dobson and his right to be involved in the political process.
Jim C
You can insert in the comments on my blog. I’m not a Dobson fan for a lot of reasons though that have nothing to do with politics.
The answer to why the NYT published the McCain story is simple. They had a story and they were sitting on it. Fine. The New Republic gets wind of it and decides to write a story about the NYT newsroom sitting on a story.
So now Keller faces a dilemma –
Publish the story with little substance and lots of innuendo. The right will be up in arms that you took a cheap shot.
Continue to sit on the story while the New Republic writes about you sitting on it. The left will be up in arms that you are giving McCain a pass.
Clearly, peeving conservatives is the lesser of two evils to the NYT. Who here couldn’t have called that one?
As far as the allegation of the affair, The Corner had the best take on it.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWNkZmIwN2I3MzdhZWRlYjAwNGNiMzIyYTJiOWFlYzU=
**For some reason, I can’t think what, that story in the New York Times brings to mind one of the classic anecdotes about Disraeli. The background to it was that the Tory leader’s principal political opponent, the 70-something Lord Palmerston had (as a writer in the Daily Telegraph put it a couple of years ago) “been caught with a chambermaid on a billiards table in a stately home in Suffolk” (as it happens, I’ve read other, marginally less colorful versions of what it was that Lord Palmerston had been doing, but let’s just say that all of them would have been disappointing to Lady Palmerston). One of Disraeli’s advisers then suggested that the story be spread around, to which the great man replied: “Good heavens, no! If this gets out, he will sweep the country!”***
Of course, I didn’t need any help deciding to vote for McCain, I was WMBNH.
Skippy, WTF? “Because we believe that there is no need for as many handguns as are in circulation…”
Mine aren’t in circulation, they’re securely stored, and occasionally taken out and exercised. And yes, I have more than one.
Unlike Condi, I actually _am_ a Second Amendment Absolutist, and that’s how I vote.