Posted on 02/22/2008 7:35:41 AM PST by jdm
The New York Times may have done the impossible for the John McCain campaign and for Republicans in general. As predicted yesterday when their strange and threadbare allegations hit print, the attack united conservatives behind McCain. It also may have been an act of seppuku for the Times, as its claim objectivity and credibility have been discredited. The Los Angeles Times surveys the damage:
Conservative commentators, including some who previously chastised McCain for not hewing closely to their principles, leaped to the candidate's defense.
Radio personality Laura Ingraham, like other critics, noted that the newspaper had been researching the story for several months and accused the Times of delaying publication to do maximum damage.
"You wait until it's pretty much beyond a doubt that he's going to be the Republican nominee," Ingraham said on her morning radio program, "and then you let it drop -- drop some acid in the pool, contaminate the whole pool. That's what the New York Times thinks."
The most popular host in talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, described the story as standard fare for the paper he accuses of coddling the left.
"You're surprised that Page Six-type gossip is on the front page of the New York Times?" said Limbaugh in reference to the gossip column of the tabloid New York Post. Limbaugh, who previously has ripped McCain as a fake conservative, said: "Where have you been? How in the world can anybody be surprised?"
Bear in mind that both radio hosts had pressed hard before Super Tuesday to keep McCain from winning the nomination. They have no particular love for the Arizona Senator, and had kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism over his record. If the New York Times had actually produced a substantiated scandal involving McCain, they may have been the first to proclaim I told you so! from the tops of their transmitting stations.
Instead, the Times ran a piece of gossipy nonsense that doesn't even have the courage to allege what it only implies. Two self-described "disillusioned" former staffers who won't go on the record alleged -- what? -- that McCain had an affair? No. That McCain did favors for a romantic paramour? No. The Times reported that these two staffers somehow got past Mark Salter and John Weaver to stage a confrontation with McCain over their concerns that McCain might have possibly started to get close to thinking about a romance with Vicki Iseman.
For this, the Times offers no corroboration. They report on a confrontation between John Weaver and Vicki Iseman, but neglect to report that Weaver explained to them that he had heard Iseman brag about her connections to McCain and the Commerce Committee, not about any alleged affair. That didn't make it into the Times' report. Neither did the fact that McCain often voted against the interests of Iseman's clients, and that votes in favor of them matched McCain's often stated policy positions held long before Iseman became a lobbyist.
Bill Keller's crew threw in a rehash of two old scandals to pad out the piece, one legitimate but over 20 years old, and the other discredited when the Times first brought it up in 2000. McCain has acknowledged his role in the Keating 5 scandal repeatedly in the time since, so it's not as if this broke any new ground. And in the second scandal, even Clinton administration figure Lanny Davis claims it baseless, as Hot Air noted yesterday.
So what do we have? We have salacious but completely unsubstantiated gossip, combined with a rehash of at least one old Times smear, placed on the front page of what used to be the premiere newspaper in America. And what exactly does that do for the Times' credibility for the rest of this electoral cycle? They can't run anything on McCain now without it being seen in the context of what the Times itself calls a "war" between the Times and McCain. Keller and company declared war on McCain yesterday, and it fired a bazooka of effluvium as its opening salvo. They've marginalized themselves for the next nine months.
“...what used to be the premier newspaper in America.” ‘Nuff said.
I don't like McCain and I don't support McCain for Prez. But I can still defend him against unfair treatment without all of a sudden being a "McCain Supporter", can't I?
Sheesh.......
McCainbots should not get too giddy. This is an alliance of the moment, not a switch in attitudes about McCain.
They have also slapped McCain awake to the fact that no, the MSM is not going to bestrew rose petals in his path all the way to the Oval Office.
Maverick John will now have plenty of time to go through the seven stages of mourning for the end of his love affair with the liberal media.
This incident can be compared to inoculating the patient with a killed virus. He’ll suffer a rash and a mild fever but his immune system will be reinforced and alerted to the assault to come.
If they wanted to do a "hit piece" on McCain they could have revisited his voting record, or explore the how and why of some of the bills he supported, or his relationship with the left.
.
They did none of that. They "attacked" him with the print equivalent of marshmellows?
So the question is why?
Putting on the tin-foil beanie my guess is that it was not a hit piece at all, but a way to gather some "conservative support".
But the question remains, why?
Back in the eighties, McCain would have had to end his campaign, ala Gary Hart.
In the 90’s, hewould have been shouted down as a “hypocrite”, for not holding “family values”.
But now, cries of hypocrisy are mute, and NYT has propelled a bullet into their own foot by becoming the story themselves.
Time goes on.........
but I am so outraged by the unconscionable, 'sleaze-ball' attack on McCain,,,,,that I, TOO, am one of those rallying to him on this one.
I do not trust any of this bunch including McCain. I would like to know if what got printed was a result of a negotiated settlement by lord McCain 'top-gun' Democrat lawyer. Timing is everything and what a great method and means to use a liberal rag to advertise for lord McCain.
On the Democrat side, Obama merely out-victimed Hillary.
Conservatives are outraged, but McCain is just “disappointed”.
As usual.
Behold the power of the Alternative media. Even as late as 1997-98 they would of controlled the story line. Now days there are too many competing sources of information. It appears the Dinosaur media has still not learned the lesson.
Why am I suppose to rally around Mccain? oooooo da liberal media is slamming mccain now lets support him. Some of you sound just as bad as the clinton supporters. If the allegations are true or not it doesn’t change the fact that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN. And what the hell is going on now seem fox news feels ted turner drinking urine whiskey is a big story.
United? Then why am I still sitting on the sidelines munching on popcorn?
It also may have been an act of seppuku for the Times, as its claim objectivity and credibility have been discredited.
Again.
If they wanted to do a "hit piece" on McCain they could have revisited his voting record, or explore the how and why of some of the bills he supported, or his relationship with the left.
. They did none of that. They "attacked" him with the print equivalent of marshmellows?
So the question is why?
Putting on the tin-foil beanie my guess is that it was not a hit piece at all, but a way to gather some "conservative support".
But the question remains, why?
Marching orders from the Clinton's. Put McCain in the spotlight because of the embarrassing performance in Texas, and also Huckabee is no threat to them but McCain is taking some of the lefty moderate votes from them.
He overstates the case. This didn’t unite conservatives behind McCain. It united conservatives against MSM lies and manipulation. I am no more inclined to vote for McCain then before the story. I am less inclined to read the NYT.
Well, if he wins, this could be a good thing. He has never shown any understanding of the evil that comprises the Old Media. He slept with them and now he is astonished that they are toxic to anyone running against a dem.
If he would act conservative, I would support him 'til the cows come home. Maybe this will drive him to the right as president.
I doubt it though. There will be too many fawning headlines available, such as: "President McCain Signs Bipartisan X Bill. New Era Dawns!!!" where X=Some Socialist Agenda item. He's always been a sucker for that crap.
Oh brother! Just another stupid smear from the NYT. It hasn’t united anything. McCain and his ilk called me a bigot time and time again. You get what you pay for.
I could care less how his buddies treat him.
Just my opinion, but I think the story is a Trojan Horse intended to revive another scandal from McCain’s past, and meant to inflict damage over the course of the campaign.
Google McCain +affair, and the first two links provided point to articles of an extramarital affair he had during his first marriage. That revelation of scandal helped to derail McCain in 2000. If I am correct, the issue will eat away at his campaign like a slowly developing cancer.
Here are those links if interested:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/008013.php
Yup, I would think this would smack John McC a good one; he can start talking to those who will REALLY elect him. Or not.
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.