So, now the cable news channels are plastering McCain’s alleged mistress’s photograph all over the airwaves, as if they had any proof that she had an affair with the senator. This is some shameful shit. The New York Times better prove there was an affair, or they are responsible for destroying this woman’s reputation based on almost nothing.
Yes, it is significant that former members of McCain’s staff thought they were having an affair. That’s not enough reason to release the woman’s name and put her photograph everywhere.
Sorry to all of you that think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I aim to be a little more consistent. Show me that McCain violated the law and I’ll be interested. Show me that he violated Senate ethics rules and I’ll be interested. Right now, this is nothing more than David Brock journalism. Shameful shit.
This is what passes for journalism these days. The whiff of something, hearsay, innuendo. This is like Fox journalism; raising a point that someone somewhere once said something about someone. It’s Britney without her panties, Angelina adopting another baby, Paul McCartney’s divorce battle, Michael Vick’s pit bulls. Meanwhile, does anyone remember Iraq? Is everything going so swimmingly over there that it doesn’t even merit a mention on TV or in print anymore? Let’s spend a week debating McCain and the pretty lobbyist while more 20 year olds die.
WaPo articles are more substantive.
Journalist relative who covered the Keating 5 story thinks there’s fire behind the smoke, but that the NYT article is weak and has the appearance of being highly edited, as Josh Marshall suggests. People usually don’t lean on the top editor over rumors, or lawyer up, either.
It does seem remarkably insubstantial. That, to me, says that it’s probably an internal GOP hit from the fundie wing of the party.
The underlying problem with respect to the NYT and the media in general is media consolidation. Do any of the candidates have plans to break up the conglomerates? If not, then this circus and the others count as self-inflicted wounds.
according to a piece at Huffpost, Iseman’s bio has been scrubbed from the web.
Note to the Obamas: Get ready. Insulate.
Bingo. Want to know what the Freeper response to this is?
(I will not link to that site)
Not really necessary to reprint all that crap.
But still–I’m glad I have that warning that this crap exists.
Of course, aren’t the freepers the VERY last turds on earth to let their collective imagination run wild when they have some very real crap of their own to come clean about?
there’s lots of crap out there, far reach out there…ya know a friend of a friend of the Minister of his church is a so-‘n-so.
Thing is McCai’s camp will need to be careful hot to wmbrace these smears.
From what I’ve read, the McCain story was about to break by of all places, he New Republic. NYT took the jump on it.
I was disappointed when Countdown spent more than half of their broadcast on this last night.
This is stupid. John McCain is a horn-dog – who new? I have a hard time being sympathetic to a 40 year old lobbyist. Whatever she did, she knew what she was doing (and was probably doing it for the money of her paycheck).
However, McCain previously threatened to sue NYT over this so I’ve got to think that for them to publish anything now there is a lot more behind the story than we know. Especially since the entire establishment seems to have been aware of this for quite some time. The same establishment that sat on the warrantless wiretapping and black-site and Plame leaks for years.
If McCain’s a horndog, then he fits right in, remember?
Rally round the family, pocketful of shells.
You just see things differently than some of us, and I for one appreciate your straightforwardness.
As for me, I enjoy seeing my enemy crushed, having him driven before me, and hearing the lamentations of the women.
After 8 years of “Clinton got a blowjob” and “No controlling legal authority”, I have nothing but scorn and schadenfreude for people like John McCain, finally hoist by his own petard. Maybe if he had kept his big yap shut during the impeachment circus, I’d feel a little sympathy. But he didn’t: he was as much of a moralizing asshole as any of the others. If you set yourself up like that, prepare to get knocked down.
Personally, I think the corruption angle is more important: St. McCain, Mr. Campaign Finance, doing favors for lobbyists? Shocking: so much for that famous “integrity” thing.
Who knows, maybe he’ll drop out and they’ll be forced to run with Huckabee. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants!
Yeah. I don’t think he’s given a single speech where he has not boasted about his great integrity and repeated over and over that he doesn’t do favors for lobbyists, even though he takes their money. That is the meat to this story. The alleged affair is just the sizzle.
And NYT now states that they stand behind the story. They should, as they have been battling with lawyers from everyone involved for months. That’s why it’s so choppy. But they say they can back it up.
Well, of course they can stand behind their story. Their story doesn’t say he did have an affair. It says that former aids said they were concerned he was having an affair and tried to keep them apart. They probably can back that part up – they probably have notes of the conversation with the former aid when he said that.
And one can’t help but notice that at the time Saint McCain was involved with this women he was voting for impeachment.
He evidently thinks a sex scandal is enough to remove a president. So let’s apply the same standard to him.
This woman’s mug would not be plastered on our tv if it wasn’t for the senator’s actions. He only has himself to blame.
David Brock apologized for what he did and has since done great work with Media Matters for America.
Maybe Drudge journalism would have been a happier expression. Just saying.
I tend to agree with you only because they led with the alleged sex. They set out to lead everyone to think there was an affair, without any proof of an affair, in order to sell newspapers. It wasn’t necessary to mention even the suspicion of it unless they had an airtight story that he had broken the law and/or ethics rules by doing favors for her clients. It certainly wasn’t necessary to lead with that.
Here’s the thing. If the Times had written a story that was, from the start, a story of how John McCain violated laws or ethics by doing favors for her clients and it was a conclusively true story – then there is perhaps (perhaps) an argument that it would perhaps be appropriate if they included somewhere later in the story that, in addition, former aids were convinced that they were having an affair but the parties denied it. And if that were included her name and picture would still be plastered all over. And cable news would pick up on the alleged sex part. Unfair to her, but predictable.
The thing that’s wrong with this story is that the story is really all about allegations of an affair with the ethics portion tacked on. You don’t open someone up to this kind of media attention unless there is a real reason. But once there is a real reason the allegations of an affair are going to come out and the same cable stories would be out there as there are today.
While I should never be forced to think about McCain’s dick, I read the article going, “What the hell? There’s nothing here about an affair from 8 years ago.” But I also know it’s the NYT and if they have something, they wouldn’t have made that a major focus. No matter what one thinks of the NYT reporting,there is usually a logical layout to their articles. The LA Times articles usually are written as a kind of present view narrative with flashbacks. The NYT usually puts the meat up top, then fine-combs each point thereafter. Over at First Read, for once, they’ve posted something that I agree with:
There’s 3 more questions after this, so go on over an read them if you’re interested.
Your link doesn’t work, can you try another.
Their trackback links never work.
Let’s try this one and this one.
Obama could score big here if his reply was that he won’t allow his campaign to be sidetracked, that he’s focused on the big issues this country has to address. Let the Republicans fight it out while Obama gets something done.
This morning I notice that Buchanan is leading the charge asking Rep to coalesce behind McCain. I can never understand Rep logistics but it’s almost as if Buchanan was asking all the factions to get on board with McCain to fight the evil liberal NYT. FINALLY, the Rep have found a cause the Dems don’t want any part of.
If there’s anything the GOP automatons don’t like it’s reportage on GOP sex scandals. Fingers in the ears and all that, they’ll rally behind McCain just to prove that they don’t listen to the NYT. Ha. This story should have come out before Iowa, McCain probably could have gotten a clean sweep throughout Jan. and Super Tuesday.
That second week of December, instead of talking about Huckabee’s creepy Christmas ad, we’d all be “Huckawho? McCain’s in bed with a lobbyist! Literally!”.
Can’t remember the timing but I’m thinking that it would have been competing with the Romney dog on top of car story.
Romney’s gotta be furious and Guilliani’s probably just saying, welcome to the club.
I think I like this story better than Romney being caught using undocumented workers at his house.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/21/MNQBV5RJR.DTL
Grover Norquist’s lobbyist was an illegal immigrant
Damn foreigners, coming here and taking the jobs Americans can’t or won’t do.
Yeah, I had to make the drive down through the apple capitol of the world beginning of week and it’s an incredible sight to see mile after mile after mile of orchards where it’s freezing cold, lines of beater cars, and hundreds of ladders set up in the orchards as the Mexican workers face the freeze head on to prune the trees. There was a girl on a white horse, she was riding bareback down the rows of trees, a white girl, and somehow it was very surreal.
Unlike Grover’s pal, these are the people who, believe me, are doing the jobs white folks would wuss out before even attempting.
I agree that there is little journalistic merit in a sex angle. However, it does appear the Senator went out of his way to help this woman’s client. He was even rebuked for his efforts to help her. I think this is worthy of a story. Just because the senators weakness may be sex instead of say, money, like Duke Cunningham, doesn’t make it off limits.
Plus. I have zero sypmpathy for the republicans. They created this monster. The democrats don’t need to be as sleazy as the republicans are but they also don’t need to rush to McCain’s defense. Hitting below the belt and sex accusations have been part of politics forever. The democrats don’t need to hit below the belt but they also don’t need to help the senator heal his wounds. He voted for impeachment for crimminy sakes.
I was not aware that lobbyists had a reputation to ‘taint’.
I see nothing ‘wrong’ with the story. It’s entirely consistent with what the MSM has become. All implication and smoke. In a way it is the Times way of going ‘Look! We can imply nonsense to BOTH sides’, This will insulate them when they do a story on Obama and his Islamic ‘connection’.
It’s the hypocrisy that is the real story. How republicans are going ‘It was EIGHT years ago! Who cares!’ THAT is the real story.
In a way it is all a set up.
nalbar
On a “journalistic” level, I can’t help but wonder if the New York Times and Bill Keller decided to run the story in light of the fact that they ran a similar “story” delving into the sexual lives of Bill and Hillary in May of 2006. At the time some of us were outraged that Bill Keller (who has his own history) would put a story on page A1 that consisted of an investigative report on how many times the Clintons shared a bed. I wrote Mr. Keller a nasty little e-mail about how he would never run a story on the republicans like he did. I guess Mr. Keller listened to me. I wish the NYT wouldn’t engage in this type of journalism but at least they are being a bit more fair about it.
Here’s the NYT hit piece on the Clintons:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/nyregion/23clintons.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5090&en=9145b8396
9d6cfb4&ex=1306036800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The New Republic has released their story about the controversy that went on within the NYT over this story.
If interested, it’s here.
I’m still reading it, so no thoughts yet.
Booman, I agree this is shameful shit – not out of love for politicians being in bed with lobbyists, or for McCain, or the NYT…. but because I’d love to see media reporting about SHIT THAT MATTERS. This is another strike against that, IMO. How many more important stories did this bump?
Has anyone stopped to think… about Dan Rather?
If this blows up in the face of NYT then the wingnuts will hang another scalp on their belt.
And, it could redound to favor Grandpa McCrazy’s favor. The wingnuts may forgive him for his transgressions when he give them another great meme for indicting the MSM and close ranks to support him. Plus, it could make other media more gunshy about following the obvious leads in the article.
I’m just saying…
Have you guys noticed that NYT is now taking questions from readers to be answered by reporters on the story, over 2000 comments were made on the site re. this, which is a huge number for the comment section over there.