NY Times Slimes McCain
Posted on February 21, 2008
Based solely on rumors and gossip the
paper that endorsed him now throws slime on his reputation. Of course McCain denies the allegations vehemently.
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.
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.
There are actually no direct allegations of any sexual scandal here, and mostly attacks his ethics on dealing with lobbyists. The allegations are paper thin, and should be easy enough to brush off. It’s curious to me though, why the NY Times ignored the allegations against John Edwards. The allegations have no meat, but they decided it would be fit to be front page above the fold. Anonymous sources delivering nothing of substance is just irresponsible.
Will this hurt McCain? Not at all. First, this is even older than the smear job the Times did on Rudy Giuliani last year. Second, they don’t have a single named source for this story. Third, the Times left out numerous examples where McCain acted against the interests of Iseman and her clients. The effect is likely going to produce more support for McCain among the GOP base, especially given the egregious and salacious nature of the controversy.
Looks like the story is fizzling out with liberals and conservatives alike.
Hot Air wonders if Huckabee knew about this before.
Michelle Malkin has a great roundup.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Elections, Illegal Activities, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Stupidity
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “NY Times Slimes McCain”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I would like to thank this site for doing the right thing and fighting back against the NYT for this repulsive trash. I am aware that you guys have not always seen eye to eye with Sen. McCain, but it was a stand-up thing you did calling this filth what it is. Thank you.
To paraphrase your own paper regarding Sen. McCain:
“As your relationship with the reading public underscores, your confidence in your own integrity sometimes seems to blind you to potential conflicts.”
Whether its betraying your country’s national security or slandering and libeling people seeking to guarantee that security in a blatant and obvious effort to prevent their inevitable landslide election, your newspaper makes it evident that you are a devoted enemy of the United States.
As they say, you reap what you sow. Don’t be surprised when your personal lives are splayed out for all to see, whether true or not.
You sought readership…what you’ll get is a boycott. I guarantee it.
This isn’t the NY Times, and I won’t claim them to be my paper ever. You must be confused.
Personally I believe the New York Times likes McCain and this is just reverse psychology that is meant to get real conservatives to back McCain because he is under attack by liberals. The timing is a red flag as it is too early to harm him in the general elections and too late to harm him in the primaries. There is a worse case scenario where it might harm him but only if Huckabee stops him from clinching the nomination. Another red flag is the New York Times knew this when they endorsed him and still did not release it.
Kerwin has a good point, but would they damage their reputation to promote a republican candidate? Their reputation as a left-wing liberal rag is well established, though, so I guess no real harm was done
What ever can you ever expect from this liberal left-wing news rag birdcage linner and fish wraper