The Discerning Texan

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Generating still more support from Conservatives, the NYT drops an Unsourced Hit Piece on McCain

A month ago, the New York Times was proudly proclaiming its support for John McCain in the primaries. Now that that nomination has been all but locked up, the Times has now dropped an unsourced, unsubstantiated story about so-called "ethics" violations, including a completely seedy reference to a supposed affair with a Washington lobbyist (never mind that he did not support her bill...). It is so obvious that it is more likely as not to rally more conservatives behind McCain, as Allah points out here:
NYT: McCain may have behaved unethically and cheated on his wife, but we’re not sure; Update: Pressured by the New Republic? Update: McCain responds; Update: Carl Cameron video added

A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record.

The media halo’s gone, Maverick. Nothing personal. Just business.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”…

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others…

[McCain advisor John] Weaver added that the brief conversation [he had with Iseman] was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate…

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries…

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman.

The juicy stuff’s at the end, including instances of McCain acting against the interest of Iseman’s clients. Exit question: Is this really the tack the left’s going to take against the guy who co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and about whose “sense of honor” Russ Feingold testifies to in this very piece? That he’s unethical?

Update: Remember this? This story’s evidently been in the works for two months, and if you believe Drudge’s teaser from back then, it was initially going to accuse McCain of having let Iseman write parts of his telecom bills. How thin must that angle have been if it didn’t make the cut for an article this thin on other details?

Update: Among the various ways to get the base to rally behind Maverick, a New York Times hit piece surely must be one of the most efficient.

Allah also has some video from Carl Cameron on the story at the same link, suggesting that the New Republic "double-dared" the Times to run this...and he continues to update as we go.

We knew the press would turn on McCain--but this?? What it tells me is that they have next to nothing on the guy.

Anyone reading this blog knows me and undoubtedly knows that McCain is not one of my favorite people. I am supporting him because the alternative is the most terrifying major party candidate this country has seen in my lifetime. McCain can be a real pain in the butt, and I often become furious at his self-serving antics. But for the NYT to kind-of sort-of infer that he might be "corrupt" with this piece of bat guano? If that's all they have on McCain, it's going to be a long year for the brain-dead Grey Lady.
DiscerningTexan, 2/20/2008 08:37:00 PM |