Moderately Not Guilty.
Posted on 02/21/2008 7:06:35 AM PST by jdm
The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing -- only innuendo denied by all of the principals:
Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.
Got that? Nothing actually happened. The big story here is that there may have been an "appearance" of a "close bond".
And where did the Times get this information? Well, you have to read past the rehash of the Keating Five scandal of the mid-1980s, past a strange accusation involving McCain's use of direct flights from Washington to Phoenix, and past his crusade to clean up Washington through the BCRA (which I adamantly opposed and still do) to get to the Slimes' sourcing. It turns out that they talked to two anonymous former staffers -- neither of whom allege that the relationship actually became romantic -- and who describe themselves as disgruntled.
Great sourcing there, guys. Way to corroborate a non-story. I guess Lucy Ramirez must have been hard to find this time around.
Let's give credit where credit is due. JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON all show the kind of journalistic chops that made Us such a must-read in doctor's offices and lavatories around the world. The next time, they need to include more pictures of Britney Spears exiting limousines to capture the essence of this kind of reporting.
LOL!
Just came across this too:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8616.html
Aides to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have released a remarkable 1,500-word document outlining what his campaign calls “some of the facts that were provided to the New York Times but did not end up in the story.” Here is the full text:
The New York Times article states, “A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.”
~snip~
All the info posted at the link
This is starting to make me mad enough to think about sending the GOP & McCain more money. This is like some neighbor going after your kid over nothing. It really irks me.
“the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is”
True.
I’m wondering if the Times is doing this now to deflect attention away from the story that was surfacing yesterday about Obama and gay sex. I didn’t believe a word of that, but now I wonder.
re: larry sinclair story & obama.
That was my first thought, too.
It is all over the internet. I called in to the BIll Press Show this AM asking to talk about Larry Sinclair and it was obvious they knew the story. Obviously they never let me on the air either..........
How many of us here predicted that when McCain secured the nomination, NYT would immediately trash him, in spite of their endorsement a month or two back?
It will get nasty.
This is surely only the beginning.
“the kind of journalistic chops that made Us such a must-read”
The NYT is much worse than Us. This is not about journalism, this is about using any means possible to destroy the Republican candidate and make sure the Democrats win in November. The NYT endorsed McCain just a few weeks ago. Now that he has the nomination they will trash him.
Moderately Not Guilty.
And slowly, ever so slowly, common sense returns.
Those ‘journalists’ (and I use the term advisedly) should be ashamed of themselves right now. So should anybody who, in a knee-jerk reaction, believed this story without weighing the non-existent evidence.
To those who hate John McCain, I say, have at him. It is your right. I’m sure you have many reasons to dislike him based on his record. You do not need to leap with enthusiasm on transparent, pathetically biased, and poorly researched attacks by the New York Times.
When you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
It doesn't matter if there is truth or substance to these innuendoes.
It's not what you say.
Its the perception that counts.
Of course McCain and his supporters deny any wrongdoing -
wouldn't anyone?
It may even be true that he did not have an affair.
But as we have found out in recent elections - you cannot prove a negative.
Too bad he has spent his time poking conservatives in the eye every chance he got or more of them might come to his defense.
Reach across the asile for defenders, John.
More evidence is needed...
The idiots were supposed to wait until AFTER the nomination.
The Old Grey Whore just gave McCain a free one.
Attractive enough ... after a martini or two, who knows?
If an anemic smear attempt like this is the best that a propaganda organ like the New York Times can come up with, McCain must be doing okay.
Of course, the Clintons could be saving the real dirt in his FBI files for later. The Clinton Machine is far more adept than those Neanderthals at the New York Times.
If you don't know who Walter Duranty was, click the link to find out. Executive summary: he was the Times correspondent to the Soviet Union during the 1930s who reported absolute bravo sierra about the Ukrainian Famine because of his political leanings (and, presumably, the Times's political leanings). He won a Pulitzer for his work. When it was later proved Duranty was reporting 100% bravo sierra, the Times refused to give back the Pulitzer.
That’s what I was thinking...better February than September.
Well, John now that you are probably the Repubie Candidate for 2008, you will find out how friendly the sharks in the MSM are.
John, your MSM buddies have a long list of imagined sins, possible sins and real sins to destroy your run. Enjoy the fun ride.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.