NYT: John McCain is a dirty old man

In case you haven't heard, there's a John McCain sex scandal (ewww) in today's New York Times. Well, there's no actual allegation of sex, per se -- but a woman is involved, anyway, and allegations of "romance" ... or allegations of suspicions of romance ... or something. McCain denies everything and says the New York Times smells like poo. Personally, I don't find any of it very compelling, and it does seem rather fishy that the Times sat on the story for months before finally unleashing it once McCain sewed up the nomination. I mean, really, WTF?

Comments

[Angrier and Angrier]

If the New York Times wanted to write a story about conflict of interest or the appearance of ethical lapses by McCain for pushing the agenda of a lobbyist, that would be one thing. But leading with the "suspicion of romantic involvement" thing without any real proof of a liaison just seems incredibly weak, especially for a paper of the stature of the New York Times. Apparently the Times is worried about competing with the Post and the Daily News, because that is what this story sounds like.

[Joe Mama]

especially for a paper of the stature of the New York Times.

Heh. This story fits right in with the "stature" of the NYTimes.

[yea]

i doubt the new york times is just making this story up out of thin air. the paper certainly does slant liberal, but anyone who thinks they would lead with a story like this if it didn't have any legs is deluding themselves. the nyt would take a huge, perhaps irreparable hit to its credibility if they didnt have reliable sources on this. if they really wanted to nail mccain they would have waited until closer to the election. so much for mccain's claims of being able to stand up to lobbyists.

[CD]

The NYT does not compete with the Post or the Daily. It is a national and international paper not a 'New York' paper. You don't read the NYT to find out what is happening in New York (the flimsy 'Metro Section' aside).

Either way, no way they would touch these allegations if they weren't pretty damn certain. In almost every case of sex scandal regarding a politician or major public figure, the news community (and others... for example, fellow politicians) has known about it or the behaviors of the person for quite a long time. Obviously there have been other stories where newspapers have jumped the gun, but with this subject matter I would be surprised.

And, yes, the bigger story is the McGreevy angle... did a relationship with this person (romantical or not) lead to political favors. The article addresses this.

FYI, McCain will hold a press conference to 'address the allegations' this morning.

[4-7]

It's funny how predictable the media has become. They tout McCain and then trash him when the nomination becomes clear. This is exactly what was predicted by talk radio, who said McCain would be the darling of the media only until he secured the nod.

I recomment Ann Coulter this week who discusses how Reagan could not be elected (and would not even run) in the modern age of campaign finance, where, ironically, fundraising has become the candidate's most important job and the media picks the candidates amidst the confusion. Telling and timely. www.anncoulter.org.

[PenguinSix]

It's got to be true... after all, if a woman is attractive, there is no way she can be competent.

Isn't that the message of the NYTimes?

[dcl]

I don't take anything Ann Coulter has to say seriously.

[4-7]

that, is why you fail.

[4-7]

but then again, Bowling for Columbine was on TV last night, and I watched and wondered whether I could ever take anything Michael Moore says as serious. That anyone with human intelligence could find that movie to be a "documentary" is awe inspiring.

[Joe Mama]

Speaking of the NYTimes versus the NYPost, I doubt you'll find this story anywhere in the former. Reverand Al, call your office.

What's more interesting than the lead is the professor rebuffing attempts by authorities to catch the person behind the alleged hate crime. Hmm...

[Marty West]

Who cares?

Johnny likes the ladies! Look at his plastic wife...I hope when I am in my seventies I can pull chicks like that.

[Aaron]

Here's Matt Welch on the story. I'll summarize: the Times piece is sloppy and far from convincing, but anyone who's actually paid attention to McCain's career knows that adultery and special favors for big donors have always been part of the picture. In particular, the absurd claim by campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker that McCain "has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists" is contradicted by McCain's own admissions about the Keating Five scandal.

So the impact of this story, says Welch, "will mostly be limited to people who haven't heard stuff like this about McCain before." Which, judging by the man's public reputation, is quite a lot of people.

--------------

The story does give me a flimsy excuse to link to Mark Schmitt's reporting on the remarkable terms of McCain's second campaign loan. Schmitt writes: I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is a promise [by McCain] to perpetuate a fraud on the American taxpayers: if he no longer intended to seek the presidency, he made a legally-binding promise to pretend to remain in the race just long enough to collect public money to repay the loan.

[4-7]

Joe Mama. I think she is rebuffing attempts to investigate because she is worried that she'll look fat on camera, posting the noose again on her own door.

[Becky]

I wonder if the NYT will push the right into defending McCain, thereby shoring up his support with those pesky very conservative voters. It might inspire Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to think, "Hey, we can attack him but if the NYT attacks him, he must be alright."

[Joe Mama]

I'm not wondering, Becky -- I think the good ol' objective, fair-and-balanced NYTimes will end up doing precisely that.

[Aaron]

Here is the story behind the story of the Times piece.

[CD]

The plagiarism-noose prof is all over the CHE this morning, not surprisingly. However, at this time, there is no evidence that she fabricated or had anything to do with the noose. Until such time, these are two separate investigations, and one should not infuence the other.

I would agree with the above poster that the vast majority of Americans don't know the basic interpersonal facts behind John McCain... he has always been a fast cars and fast women kinda guy and has an acknowledged history of infidelity. Again, once he is running on the national stage, with the close attention of more than Arizonans, people are definitely going to be surprised by what they learn. The same will be even more true for Obama. This is why I keep saying that head to head polls mean so very little at this point, as people outside of political process addicts and people who reside in the states that these politicians come from, know only the bare bones persona of any candidate.

The national attention and media scrutiny will be like nothing else these nominees have ever experienced (well, excepting Clinton, who has obviously been there). We're going to be learning a lot more about both nominees, whoever they end up being.

[Dave]

I am not a big fan of The New Republic, but I found their piece on the development of this article very informative. Thanks, Aaron, for the link.

I have long been an unabashed supporter of John McCain; as a Marine, I've said that if McCain chases bin Laden to the gates of hell, I'd be happy to follow him in the pursuit. So I might be a little biased, but let me try to be as objective as possible in evaluating this.

This report, standing alone, simply doesn't carry its own weight. It is heavy on innuendo - "Convinced the relationship had become romantic..." - and very light on facts. Even if you accept all facts asserted in the story to be true, all we know is that certain unnamed advisers to McCain were concerned about Iseman, who kept showing up to McCain's office and campaign events. In such a circumstance, I think it's highly possible that the "Stay away from him" meeting in Union Station between Iseman and Weaver took place; and I think it's also very plausible that McCain never knew anything about it.

The only other damaging allegation in the story is that McCain wrote two letters to the FCC - in 1998 and 1999 - on behalf of Iseman's employer, and was subsequently rebuked by the commission's chairman. McCain explained this episode in his memoir, in that the deliberations had taken twice as long as normal, and he merely wanted the commission to come to a decision, rather than trying to steer the commission toward any particular decision. Whether you believe him or not is up to you - but as the piece reports, however, this was well-covered by the media in 1999 - and is hardly new "news."

If there is more evidence, other allegations, more aides willing to go on the record, the picture might be a little different. But the fact that this story has been 8+ years in the making - and that 4 NY Times reporters have been working on this since November - seems to suggest that there just isn't any more evidence out there. For my own part, if you are going to impugn the character of a person like John McCain, you've got to come harder than that.

With regard to the fast-living referenced by a couple of the posters above, it's true that McCain's first marriage collapsed after his return from Vietnam, partly due to McCain's infidelity. This is perhaps inexcusable for some, especially after years of Bill Clinton's serial infidelity. In contrast with Clinton, however, McCain has taken responsibility for the failure of his first marriage in his memoirs and repeatedly in public statements, expressing regret and remorse over how that marriage ended. He has also reconciled with his first wife, and his daughter Sidney, and they remain on good terms to this day. There is no evidence - beyond the innuendo in the present article about the concerns of McCain's staff in 1999 - that the Senator has ever been disloyal to Cindy.

There's a certain element of our society that adheres to the belief that there are no such things as true honor, courage and integrity - or perhaps more accurately, that these terms are mere rhetorical flourishes conveyed by men and devoid of any real, intrinsic qualitative value. Having sustained himself for nearly 6 years through periods of torture, disillusionment and despair at the hands of his Vietnamese captors, John McCain poses a real threat to such purveyors of moral relativism. He is an Honorable Man, against whom the petty honors conveyed by men pale in comparison. He has made mistakes, and has not been a perfect husband, son, father or soldier; his enemies will focus on his mistakes, and try to use them to demean his character. But these enemies should understand that he has no greater critic than himself - and that his moral compass has been forged in fires far hotter than anything we could ever have imagined.

[Dave]

Rebuttal by the McCain campaign here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8616.html

[Joe Mama]

Well struck, Dave. I'm not a huge McCain supporter, but count me as one of those who finds this story of the "fast-living" John McCain utterly trivial. Moreover, the notion that adultery has "always been part of the picture" for McCain wreaks of a hungry comparison to a certain serial adulterer (or worse) who previously occupied the White House.

I for one welcome Democrats' newfound respect for the sanctity of marriage ;-)

[Alasdair]

"reeks", Joe Mama, not "wreaks" ...

I eagerly await Senator Clinton's denunciation of Senator McCain's character on the basis of adultery ...

[Joe Mama]

Doh! Thanks for the correction, Alasdair.

[Aaron]

You also mixed your metaphors Joe Mama... reeks of a hungry comparison.? But you're right of course, and like you I don't give a damn about that stuff. There are many, many reasons I won't be voting for McCain. His personal life isn't one of them.

[Joe Mama]

Just wait 'til I weave a story of the Clintons that herds Republicans and Democrats into the same camp ;-)

[Joe Loy]

Dave, that's a very eloquent & Thought-ful defense ~ or rather, Affirmation. Thanks for it.

"I wonder if the NYT will push the right into defending McCain, thereby shoring up his support with those pesky very conservative voters." Shrewd, Becky. From what I've seen on My Beloved Cablenewsies :> today, at least Some of that seems to be Exactly what's happening.

Here's the thing though. Instead of deploying the usual sort of Outrage-accessorized-with-Weaselwords as per the Politico's Playbook for such situations, McCain at his press conference this morning calmy & flatly (flatcalmly? :) Denied Everything, specifically & unambiguously. Did you have an affair? No. Did you do favors? No. Were you influenced? No. Did staff members ever warn you against having further contact with this woman? No. Etc.

Therefore, either the NYT's sources are lying & the Times has inexcusably allowed itself to be hoodwinked ~ or else, now, by virtue of that pressconference, Straighttalk John McCain is flatout lying.

I truly hope it is the Sources and the Times that are thus at fault, not McCain. / With the MSM in an Uproar about this & the NYT's Mount-Olympian Status on the line (again :), I think we are probably going to Find Out pretty soon.

Pending such Discovery process ~ or, Assimilating it if happens first ~ keep your eyes on Texas. And, if the coming Newscycles go badly for McCain, remember: not only is he (obviously) Not Nominated yet, "his" legions of "pledged" delegates have not even Cast their votes yet.

And no, those are Not merely two different ways of saying the Same thing. Just as we were all Shocked to Learn :> re the Pledglings of the Democratic breed, so too for the Republican vassals :} we Must remember this: your word is still your Bond, a Rule is just a Rule, but when Fundamental things apply, that convention Secretary is gonna Count the votes the way the warm bodies in the Seats actually Cast 'em. :|

(And Yes, come September there can most certainly be other Alternatives in Addition to the esteemed Pastor Huckster. / It's a Convention, stupid. :)