Posted on 02/23/2008 4:02:52 AM PST by Clive
Rarely has a "scandal" faded as quickly as the one in which the New York Times implied Sen. John McCain had a "romantic" relationship with Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman.
After a one-day news blitz of everyone talking and speculating about the consequences of the Times front page "expose," the allegations have not only been scaled down, but are even being used as a fundraiser for McCain among conservatives.
Without a persuasive followup, the reputation of the Times is taking a hit for running a major story based almost entirely on innuendo and insinuations from anonymous sources -- on what was gossip stuff eight years ago.
It's put-up or shut-up time for the Times, with the nation looking at what it will expose next.
So far, nothing. "The Times is making the National Enquirer look responsible," quipped one commentator.
McCain himself doused the flames of scandal by quickly holding a morning press conference with his wife, Cindy. He calmly, categorically and un equivocally denied all allegations in such a way that if he's fudging the truth, his campaign to be president is in tatters.
As it is, the New York Times is now under fire from liberals, conservatives and independents for shoddy journalism -- especially when the newspaper had endorsed McCain: "He's demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle." This, at a time, when the paper had the scandal story ready to roll.
It makes one wonder if the Times knows what it's doing.
At this moment, Times reportage on McCain seems uncannily similar to the Dan Rather fiasco in the 2004 presidential election. Rather ran a story about George Bush's time as a pilot in the National Reserve during the Vietnam War, based on a forged and phony letter from a dubious source.
CBS promptly fired the producer of Rather's evening news, and a short time later Rather was persuaded to retire. He then made a fuss about suing CBS. The end result was the besmirching of an honourable journalistic career -- all because of unwarranted zeal to damage a politician he didn't like.
CBS, like the New York Times is, in Republican eyes, pathologically Democratic rather than fair or objective. Maybe the Times has a Sunday punch up its sleeve in the McCain case, but so far there seems little except vindictiveness in its arsenal.
Irony (and perhaps poetic justice) is that apparently money is rolling in for McCain's campaign from self-styled (and self-important) Republican conservatives who hate the New York Times even more than they are annoyed at McCain for not being conservative enough, and for cooperating with Senate Democrats on issues he thinks are good for America.
The feeling among a growing number of Republicans skeptical about McCain, is that if the New York Times is so intent on wrecking his chances to be president, he can't be all bad. Maybe even worth supporting.
A far greater scandal appeared on yesterday's Times front page, about the Clinton campaign paying millions to consultants and spending lavish amounts on food and drinks, etc.
The newspaper says Hillary spent $5 million in January alone to key consultants. It quotes one disgruntled donor: "We didn't raise all this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now."
So far Hillary has spent about $106 million "on a campaign that is spluttering."
The Times says supporters grumble that "spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment ... a road map of her political and management failings."
It's doubtful if Republicans will complain about that coverage in the Times -- but they may also use it to solicit funds for McCain's campaign.
-
I don’t like McCain, but I hate the NY slimes. This is good news!
Still won’t vote for him. He’s Democrat Lite.
I want to know two things.
1:Why THIS story?
2:Why release it now?
This conservative will never support, nor vote for McPainintheass, ever. What part of fantasy land is this author from?
There’s no basis for the title. Campaign’s attempt to get contributions based on the NYT story does not necessarily mean that the story has caused a flood of contributions or any at all. We’ll know that when contributions are reported sometime in the future unless the campaign lets it be known sooner.
So far I don’t think the campaign has said anything in that regard one way or the other. The story broke only about two days ago after all.
Glenn Beck was saying this last Thursday. I don’t agree. Many people have their minds made up already, the NY Times article didn’t make a difference one way or the other, IMO.
.
Just think what she could do if she got a hold on the federal budget!
Like he was always a straight arrow before.
The NYT did McCain a favor. Question is the timing and who benefits the most in the end?
I have my own theory on that.
Still, there is some truth in the article. I noticed a difference in tone of some of the talk-show hosts and some of their callers. McCain, more likely his handlers, know that they have to get some of the conservative vote. There may be quite a number of these “vicious” attacks (though strangely, not even the left gave the charges any credence) before November.
Glenn Beck, however, gets it. He was the first to say, “John McCain! are you kidding me!!!”
Many people haven't heard that there is an election this year, or who any of the candidates are!
What the New York Times seems not to understand is that every day is "put-up or shut-up" - every article too. Credibility is easy to throw away...
Just wondering.
Is the National Reserve the Canadian equivalent of the National Guard?
The McLaughlin Report last night purported that Romney’s
team peddled this to the NewYorkTimes.
Perhaps that explains why RINO-Romney’s race was
only ‘suspended’, if true.
I caught that line too. Laughable.
Thanks for the link, but it proves nothing. “The aide gave no numbers,”
I think that Worthington just made a slip of the pen. He is a Korean War veteran (infantry officer) so ought to have gotten his terminology correct.
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.