New York Times Smears John McCain

The New York Times has put out a hit piece smearing John McCain of having an affair with a lobbyist.  This is an indication of what is to come and how the MSM is turning on their former darling. 

Will they remember how Clinton’s affairs were “a personal matter?”  Will they provide any actual evidence (like a stain on a blue dress) or just publish rumors?  Will they

Nah. 

UPDATE: Here’s the response from the McCain campaign.

“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign,” said communications director Jill Hazelbaker, in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. “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.”

As I read the article, I see no evidence whatsoever.  All I see are anonymous sources and innuendo.  Trash politics at its worse. 

1. I’ve been waiting for the MSM to double-cross McCain. Now let’s see him respond!

   Posted by Josh Schroeder on February 20, 2008 at 2301 hrs




2. Josh, go read the linked article… the McCain campaign does respond.

   Owen, you’re going to have Scott up in arms, denouncing another Right Wing blog swipe at the Unassailable and Most Esteemed Mr Clinton.  He’s an ardent defender of Mr Clinton, and won’t rest as long as this well-read political blog denigrates and disparages a great man.  That, and he’s an idiot.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2008 at 2309 hrs




3. I was wondering how this would differ from the smear that they tried to paint on HRC having an affair, or the right trying to build mountains out of molehills. 

   Would you believe someone tried to say Obama plagiarized a movie?  And Obama said that line before the movie was made.

   Not to mention Reagan saying, “Go ahead, make my day.” 

   This is a knee slapper alright.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2008 at 2313 hrs




4. Well it is VERY different in that this deals with an ethical problem of governing….not mere sex. 

   As the article notes…

   But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.

   The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

   All Monica ever offered was a hummer to Bill.

   Is this the conservative miracle that Mike Huckabee was seeking…...

   Posted by Gregory on February 20, 2008 at 2314 hrs




5. Lots of innuendo in that article… 

   No affair alleged, no affair confirmed, only the unnamed sources close to McCain that say it could be potentially embarassing.

   Where are our resident contrarians that bemoan the devolution of politics to denounce this type of reckless and baseless journalism and rumor-mongering?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2008 at 2328 hrs




6. And to think, only a short time ago, they “informed” the country that he was the best choice in the GOP primaries…hmmmm…what a surprise!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 0021 hrs




7. Let’s see, there are accusations of an affair by McCain.  There are also accusations of Obama snorting cocaine and homesexual sex.  Will the NYT or any other liberal media outlet (about 90% of the media) report on both.  Nah!!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 0057 hrs




8. Fortunately, now those unbiased gurus at Associated Press have labeled the NYT piece a “Report” so now we all know it’s no longer rumors or inuendos.  Of course, NYT “reports” only news fit to print.
   Always fun to read my news after being filtered through a liberal lens.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 0244 hrs




9. Is it the time of the election already where everyone has to divulge the “secrets” of the opposing party’s candidate? I wonder who will be the next topic.

   Posted by gina on February 21, 2008 at 0458 hrs




10. 1.  I saw the piece and I thought it was complete bullshit.

    2.  I reject the idea (accepted as obvious fact around here) that the mainstream media has a liberal bias.  All you need to do is visit mediamatters.org to get a sampling of the ridiculous anti-Democrat stuff that streams from these outlets on a regular basis.  The site catalogs only one side, but it proves my point: there is another side.

    3.  Jason, go fuck yourself.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 0750 hrs




11. Uh, I don’t know if McCain had an affair or not, but his non-denial denial was interesting for more reasons than that he did not specifically deny any improper relationship.

    He says that he has never done favors for special interests. Never? Wasn’t he part of the Keating Five? Beyond that, wouldn’t it be fairly easy to find at least one change he’s made to the law in favor of at least one special interest? Or how he’s made campaign flights on corporate jets at cutrate prices?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 0803 hrs




12. Scott, when’s the last time the Times endorsed a Republicasn for President?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 0924 hrs




13. Why don’t you tell me?  And then tell me how it proves a damned thing.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 0928 hrs




14. That would be 1956 Scott.  If you wish to hold on to the illusion of the NYT being an unbiased source, then take it up with them.  Their public editor has admitted the bias.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 0947 hrs




15. What you’re saying is that the Times editorial staff has a penchant for Democrats.  So what?  It doesn’t follow that their news product is biased.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 0952 hrs




16. McCain can’t rally the Conservatives, but maybe the NYT can.

    And, yes the Times is obviously biased.  They put out this weak story just to begin to damage McCain.  This is just a warm-up, imo.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 0959 hrs




17. Another thought occurs.  When the media does a similar job on the Democratic nominee, who here will be so vocal with their outrage?

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 1000 hrs




18. McCain can’t rally the Conservatives, but maybe the NYT can.

    No.  The only person who can do that is senator Clinton—by getting the Democratic nomination.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 1001 hrs




19. Scott, here’s what one of their public editors thinks:

    //query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF93 6A15754C0A9629C8B63

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1008 hrs




20. Scott:

    I do not know you at all, but you seem to be an intelligent guy who, for some reason likes to spend an awful lot of time on a conservative blog, which is fine.  But why do you have to swear so much?  It really lowers your creditability.  I have been reading and posting comments here for about a year now, and you are the only one who consistently has to use profanity.  In my opinion when you have intelligent people discussing something, the one who resorts to swearing has lost the argument or his so closed minded, it is pointless to keep the discussion going.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1045 hrs




21. Well, John, I try only to swear at people when they deserve it.  You may be interested to know, however, that I almost never swore here until fairly recently.  I had grown tired of being personally attacked and one day Owen said that he didn’t’ care what language was used, so I said what the hell. 

    I’m sorry if my spicy language prevents you from absorbing the meaning of what I write, but it’s not going to change a lot.  Perhaps if you’d been where I’ve been, you wouldn’t think so ill of me for doing so.  As a veteran reader of amazingly abusive local conservative blogs, I can tell you this is nothing.

    How do you think it’s best to respond to Jason, who calls me an idiot above?  My life experience has taught me that when someone shoves you, you break their nose.  YMMV, I guess.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 1110 hrs




22. Trash politics

    Is there any other kind?

    Given that where there is power, there IS corruption.  Given the power and abuse of authority the federal government holds.  Its ability to bestow advantage to some with its legislative and executive powers… I suspect that there is not a person in DC that you couldn’t dig up and spin up some dirt on.

    I can’t stand the Clintons, but I always cringed when my friends would go ranting about bill eating pizza in the oval office and getting a hummer under the desk.  Yes, those things mean something, but I’ll be honest… I’ll take a president who gets a hummer under the desk who can protect my rights as a citizen any day over a president who has a spotless past who wants to tax me to death push sensless bans on weapons that I sport with, etc.

    I believe Bill was a horrible president for dozens of reasons.  Cheating on his wife wasn’t one of them. 

    All Monica ever offered was a hummer to Bill.

    How pathetically simpleton of you

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1129 hrs




23. Scott:

    I guess I would just ignore it, especially if I thought that I was right.  Believe me I have been called an idiot many a times.  Sometimes it was even justified. 

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1145 hrs




24. Scott,

    You swear here all the time.  You call people jackasses and tell them to F-off even when they have written nothing to you or about you personally.  Then when JohnP tells you what most people think about this you make excuses, excuses, excuses…

    An adult does not punch someone when shoved.  A child does…

    I’m back to ignore scott mode.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1222 hrs




25. even when they have written nothing to you or about you personally.

    Really?  Where?

    An adult does not punch someone when shoved.  A child does…

    An astonishing discovery.  Here’s another new concept for you.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 1226 hrs




26. Scott,

    I’m curious, is your metaphor hold up for foreign policy as well?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1240 hrs




27. I do not know you at all, but you seem to be an intelligent guy who, for some reason likes to spend an awful lot of time on a conservative blog, which is fine. 

    I’ve always been curious about that.  I mean by no means do I have a problem with Scott being here.  Nor if I did would my having a problem mean anything at all either…

    But it does make me curious.  Generally I know I’m happier when I can find common ground with people.  Its the reason that socially I tend to hang around with people with cohesive interests and shared principles. 

    Other on-line forums I’ve participated in there was generally a great deal of common interest and common sentiment that made people participate.  Surely everyone has differences and it would be pretty boring if everyone were like me.

    And I certainly see the value of challenging your beliefs and one way to do that is to discuss amongst people who have differing opinions.

    But Scotts approach always seems to be more of the consistent whiner.  What fun is it to be the sarcastic devils advocate 100% of the time????  That’s what I don’t get.

    I couldn’t imagine going to a leftist blog and reading all that tripe and hearing all the liberal whining and bashing and all the class warfare and ‘f the rich’ and all the socialism lovers and such (not to say that a liberal wouldn’t be as disgusted coming to a conservative blog) but that is precisely my point?

    I’m very curious what the pleasure/entertainment is in hanging out amongst people who by and large don’t share any common beliefs with you.  If 99% of my posts were as I said before being “the sarcastic devils advocate” I’d feel completely miserable.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1308 hrs




28. xxpilot, I’ve started visiting some lefty blogs recently. I think it’s fun to debate.

    Re: the NYT article, I’ve seen some equally as baseless smears about how Obama is a communist. I think it’s hard for people to stick to issues in big campaigns like this…

    Posted by Matt on February 21, 2008 at 1356 hrs




29. I think it’s hard for people to stick to issues in big campaigns like this…

    It defends on what the definition of “issues” is. 

    We are determining who will lead our nation for the next four years.  It’s a big decision.  It’s impossible for any of us to completely know a candidate or how they will perform if elected.  So we look to hints and scenarios that we might think will shed a little light on the candidate’s character and personality.  This helps us project how the person will perform in office. 

    Let’s use a couple of recent examples.  The NYT publishes a hit piece on McCain insinuating that he had an affair.  McCain held a press conference on the day of the story, adamantly denied the story, and went on his way.  That tells me what McCain is not sheepish about confrontation and responds aggressively to attacks.  I’m not sure if that’s a good thing, but it’s instructive. 

    A few days ago, the Clinton campaign launched an attack on Obama claiming that he plagiarized part of a speech.  He denied it, then said that it was no big deal, then said he had permission, then eventually said that it was still no big deal but that he probably should have credited it.  That tells me that Obama can be evasive and can take a while to find his footing when attacked head on.  Again, how that translates to what his performance might be is debatable, but it’s a sliver of information. 

    In both examples, they are merely one smidgen of information that should be put in context.  But although neither example may be judged “issues” by some, they are helpful to citizens in judging the candidates.

    Posted by Owen on February 21, 2008 at 1418 hrs




30. Or, those two smidgens of information could be looked at completely differently

    The Clinton campaign launches an attack on Obama, saying he plagiarized part of a speech. Knowing that it’s BS, because he and Patrick are friends and share common advisers, he blows it off. When the so-called liberal media keep the story going, he’s forced to return to it and the media frame the story to say he’s unsteady on his feet.

    The NYT publishes a story in which John McCain’s reputation for straight talk is held up to scrutiny.  Part of that story involved whispers of an alleged affair from former McCain staffers. Given his heretofore very cozy relationship with the press, he forcefully denies the charge as if he expects it to believed without question (sound familiar?).

    It’s all in the spin.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1454 hrs




31. In both examples, they are merely one smidgen of information that should be put in context.  But although neither example may be judged “issues” by some, they are helpful to citizens in judging the candidates.

    I agree with you to some extent.  These kinds of things are very important to me with friends, with people I do business with, people I hire etc.

    With politics…  I feel differently… Maybe Obama has bad advisors.  Maybe hes inexperienced…  But I fear these kinds of topics just muddy the water for people.

    I believe every word Obama says. I believe he wants more socialism. I believe he wants to raise taxes.  I believe all of it.

    The fact that he’s not specific, the fact that he waffles and spins…  While for some things, these personality characteristics and behaviors are telling, for other things, I think they are distractions.

    I wish people would judge Obama on exactly what he says he will do.  Drive us towards socialism.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1455 hrs




32. Owen, I think these issues are noise and not signal.  But that’s just me.

    I’ve seen some equally as baseless smears about how Obama is a communist.

    But is that really the same?  The NY Times is establishment, mainstream media.  Where are you seeing this stuff about Obama? 

    is your metaphor hold up for foreign policy as well?

    Sure.  I just want to make sure that I’m punching the correct nose before I start.

    What fun is it to be the sarcastic devils advocate 100% of the time??

    To the entire discussion about me and why I’m here:

    1.  Surely you want diverse opinions here.  Right?

    2.  The internet age allows us to pick and choose our information to such a degree that more and more of us are becoming very insular.  We talk only to people with whom we agree, read news from outlets that reinforce our perceptions, and so on.  In that respect, it’s very healthy to spend some time in a community that believes differently than you do.

    3.  I’m not a “devil’s advocate 100% of the time”—just when I’m here!  And more specifically, I’m not just needling people, I’m really expressing my true opinion.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 1501 hrs




33. Speaking of signal-to-noise ratios, I bet the number of people who know about these petty issues is far greater than the number of people who could tell you about the candidate’s health care reform plans.  And that’s sad to me. And it’s indicative of why these issues are wrong to focus on: they displace more meaningful content in the news.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 1504 hrs




34. It’s all in the spin.

    Agreed.  But so are the “issues.”  The fact that these things are inevitably spun does not mean that they aren’t worthy of evaluation.

    Posted by Owen on February 21, 2008 at 1528 hrs




35. The real story here is that John McCain has a history of accepting money and favors from the telecom industry and that he just voted in favor of giving them ex post facto immunity from pending civil lawsuits for their cooperation with Bush’s secret illegal wiretapping.  It’s a fact that McCain has been in bed with the telecom industry figuratively for years.  Whether or not he beds their bimbos as well is his wife’s problem, not mine.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1605 hrs




36. I bet the number of people who know about these petty issues is far greater than the number of people who could tell you about the candidate’s health care reform plans.  And that’s sad to me. And it’s indicative of why these issues are wrong to focus on: they displace more meaningful content in the news.

    I 100% agree.

    There is no doubt.

    I always say that people form their opinions from Jay Leno and Letterman jokes more than they do from valid issue based analysis.

    But I agree.  All of this noise is a huge distraction.

    The bigger issue here is that what Obama (and hillary) are proposing is blantant socialism.

    I wish we could focus on the dangers of these proposed socialist policies and how it flies in the face of the government our founding fathers created.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1612 hrs




37. No, I think the real story is that he and a lot of other people in congress have voted to do so.  Making it about where they got their campaign money isn’t what makes it an issue.

    Posted by scott on February 21, 2008 at 1613 hrs




38. Of course not. I’m not even saying your spin on these issues is wrong, or that the alternate spin I offered is right. Of course, I think mine’s a little closer than yours.

    I do think it’s interesting that the angle a lot of people are playing up is the alleged/maybe-maybe not/and there’s not a scintilla of proof, anyway, affair. It’s not even the main thrust of the story, although it was one of the first things mentioned. Scott raises a good point about the fact that more people will now know about this than will know about McCain’s plans to deal with the health care crisis or the economy, or any other issue, because this is all we’re going to hear about for quite some time.

    It’s not that the media is biased. It’s that the media doesn’t even come close to fulfilling its duty of informing and placing things in context. Journalistic media have simply become another arm of the corporate entertainment industry, with ratings and profit instead of the public good as the overriding concern.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 1620 hrs




39. At the completion of my investigation, I filed my report with the committee. I recommended that no further action be taken against Senators McCain and Glenn principally because once they learned that there was a criminal referral, they stopped aggressively doing Keating’s bidding [emphasis added] with the regulators. However, I also recommended that the committee proceed with ethics charges against Senators Cranston, DeConcini, and Reigle and hold a hearing to look into their conduct. I believed that the evidence showed clearly that these three had violated Senate Rules and should be held accountable. My recommendation that the only Republican in the group, John McCain, be exonerated caused a big political problem, but my recommendations were based on evidence and not politics. Perhaps those who knew me to be a Democrat thought I would act differently, but they did not know me very well. ...

    An Excerpt from Bob Bennet’s Book on Senator McCain From The Corner

    From the accounts I have been reading the woman was bragging up her relationship with the Senator, after all what do lobbyists get paid for? Senator McCain’s staff got wind of her big talk and told her to stick a sock in it.

    The media is biased and so TFW? The NYT is without a doubt lefty the only reason they don’t think so is the same reason a fish at the bottom of the ocean thinks living under tons of pressure is normal.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on February 21, 2008 at 2229 hrs




40. Uhmmmm   for anyone to argue with a straight face that the NY Times doesn’t have a liberal bias is just hiilllllarious…. 

    
    funny funny

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2008 at 2337 hrs




41. Here is a good analysis of the NYT article from the American Journalism Review. In part:

    So who cares? Here’s the point: McCain, who nearly blew up his career with his involvement in the Keating Five scandal long ago, has for years portrayed himself as a reformer, an implacable foe of lobbyists, an unfailing crusader against the dreaded earmarks. To have such a high-profile relationship with a lobbyist on issues over which he has jurisdiction, replete with a trip on her client’s corporate jet, is an appalling lapse of judgment, regardless of whether the two were sleeping together or spending all of their time playing chess or discussing the works of Hegel and Nietzsche.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2008 at 1438 hrs