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.
Better Demo lite than Demo radical!
How many Clinton Judges state department and CIA appointments are we still suffering from?
Well, that’s true. It seems to be all over the news that he’s getting a surge of donations to his campaign, but if you are looking for actual numbers, then I’ll guess we will have to wait.
Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he is indeed experiencing a jump in donations, though.
Thanks!
You're kidding. Guess I'm running with the wrong crowd. ;)
Whatever misley bit of respect I did have for this liberal coddler was completely lost with his gang of 14 stunt.
The rinozation of the republican party has got to stop, and if I'm the only one left standing, then so be it!
Maybe we should compare notes. It seems all too convenient that the weak story can now be used to say that it was all a pack of lies from some disgruntled employee and now it won't be discussed anymore. The story wasn't about a "romantic" relationship anymore than the Paula Jones case was about sex (it was about Clinton lying under oath in a sexual harrassment suit). This article was about McCain's relationship with lobbyists. He quickly trotted out his brigade to denounce the "story" and proclaim his "unimpeachable integrity." Now the media runs scared and won't dare mention McCain's deals with Cablevision and the others. And what about all of the McCain/Renzi legislation involving land exchanges--hardly a peep. This was a well orchestrated scam job on the public to play cover for McCain's weaknesses, IMO. The people lose.
I would agree 100% with your opinion, I have been saying it for days. The NYT and McCain were in this one together.
Sad part is that so many have bought into the scam.
The NYT is a seedy outfit, they love liberals and will do whatever it takes to insure one is elected.
It was a brilliant idea. Maybe it was a Bob Bennett idea.
They know conservatives hate the NYT.
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.