SubscribeNYT Invents A Sex And Lobbying McScandal
In case you haven’t read this preposterous smear from the New York Times:
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON
Published: February 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — 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.
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…
Former McCain presidential campaign advisor John Weaver reads over papers during Senator John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign in New Hampshire January 27, 2000.
And it goes on like that in typical New York Times fashion for another four pages of meandering and opaque verbiage.
It is a classic New York Times “hit job.” Full of lurid innuendo and anonymous sources, but nary one shred of evidence, no proof of any wrong-doing. Indeed, there is not even any clearly articulated accusation.
And it is about events that supposedly occurred eight years ago.
But it was such pressing news that The Times sat on it since December. (Note, however, that the New York Times “endorsed” Mr. McCain even while they were sitting on this story.)
More likely The Times was only waiting until Mr. McCain was assured of the nomination. Or maybe they hoped this would Michelle Obama off the front page.
Or maybe they are now finally convinced that Obama will get the nomination instead of Mrs. Clinton, so that it is safe to bring up sexual affairs again.
Related Articles:
13 Responses to “NYT Invents A Sex And Lobbying McScandal”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:25 am
A story with about as much nutritional content as an Obama speech.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:47 am
Shameful. Naked bias. The NY Times has become a tabloid.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:10 am
Just what many of us predicted: McCain becomes the presumptive Republican nominee, his buddies in the libagitprop industry turn on him.
Hey, John! Where’re your lefty buddies NOW???
February 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Sharps Rifle;…”Hey, John! Where’re your lefty buddies NOW???…”
How could he not have seen something like this coming? We’ve all said it before. When the NYT endorses a Republican, both the candidate and the party need to beware for there is no good to come of it.
“Caveat Emptor”—or “Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.”
February 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
It looks like the New York Times are being called out for being the liars they are.
From the Washington Post:
February 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I hear that this whole thing broke because that other stellar media giant - The New Republic was going to out the NYT for their whole dysfunctional operational situation in regard to this non-story and it’s complete and utter return to NYTs former way of writing stories (bogus reporters phoning in stories, unsourced and unnamed sources etc) - so once again we have a ‘the documents might be false but the story is true’ bogus garbage during an important part of an election cycle. . .Politics as usual American style now days.
Sadly some people won’t get past the headline and since the msm will beat them over the head with the ‘talking point’ - McCain will become a hypocritical cheating Republican in the eyes of the foaming at the mouth fiberals - who still hold WJClinton up as the best Prez ever - stained dress and all. . .
February 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Do any of us really believe that the reason the Slimes broke with this story is because they were afraid of being intimidated by the New Republic? Come on, folks, that bucket won’t hold water. All the Times had to do was beat TNR to the draw and come out with an article saying that they were working on a story and if the NR did not like the time frame, so what? The Times could say that they are not willing to publish any article until all the facts are concerned, TNR be damned. What would that have done? It would have lended an air of creditibity to a publication that after Judith Miller, Jason Blair and the NSA leaks has none. It would have also given some curosity to what that article was.
Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.
But what this article did do, that no one is talking about, is take Michelle Obama and her “first time in my adult life that I have been proud of my country” gaff off the front page and stopped the bleeding in the news media. Think about it. Have you heard one word of Ms. Michelle today? Nope, and you are not going to. The NYSlimes will take the hit, but believe me, they have acheived what they intended to do. Put a bandaid on Michelle O’s mouth and end the controversy. Now they will take the heat, may even fire a few people (who were probably leaving anyway), make nice and they have saved Obama’s bacon while casting doubt on John McCain’s moral ethics.
This kids, is Marxism in it’s purest form.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Retire - I agree - given how the msm covers for each and every Dem theft, lie and crime - I too believe that the real purpose of this article was to take the Mrs Empty Suit’s comment off the ‘news’ cycle. I was just saying I heard that there is the ‘claim’ that the NYTs ran it because of the NR article - which is all a crock since the NYTs endorsed McCain in Jan (after they’d been cooking, oops researching this story) and oh btw - this story is 8 years old - exactly what was the purpose, why did they not run it in 2000 and does that not lend more credence to the get Mrs Empty Suit out of the ‘news’ more than any other reason to publish this faked non-story exactly at this time?!
February 21st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
wardmama4,
I spent 10 years with the WSJ. Many times the Journal would be called and asked if they were working on a story. They just said “no” and went on about their business.
This was designed to stop the bleeding for Michelle Obama and it totally amazes me that no one is picking up on this. All the pundits are jumping on the NR angle. It’s totally bogus.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
retire05;…”This was designed to stop the bleeding for Michelle Obama…”
The empty suit said today that what she meant was blah, blah, blah,……What a crock!
I, for one, don’t care what he says she meant, what a campaign source says she meant, or what any of the talking heads say she meant. I want to hear it from her. But why should she have to repeat it? We KNOW what she meant…..exactly what she said! She thought she could get away with it and not be called out. Total, unrestrained arrogance!
February 21st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
It took four, you can count the names, journalists to say nothing.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Maybe the 8 year hold up was a Y2K glitch.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
In case you haven’t seen:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n.....l-activist