Blowback

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.