Why would anyone expect anything else from the NYTimes? They've long been the replacement for the National Enquirer. Salacious "half-truths" and inuendo make up the half of their reporting that isn't flat out lies.
So, just to sum up: The New York Times' big story Thursday was that several unnamed sources were concerned eight years ago that there might be an appearance of impropriety in a relationship between John McCain and a lobbyist.
That's it. No proof. No new angles. No actual allegation by any reliable source on or off the record that the Arizona senator had done anything in either his personal or professional life that was wrong or unethical or illegal.
Just a laundry list of sometimes salacious innuendo wrapped loosely inside vague "concerns" of anonymous sources, all of it warmed over from two presidential elections ago.
We don't know if there's anything more to it than that. But The New York Times had better hope there is. In quite purposefully and consciously calling McCain's integrity into question, The New York Times is putting its own on the line.
In fact, the main reaction of conservative opinion leaders around the country on Thursday was to rally around McCain -- something even he hadn't been able to accomplish.
"The New York Times may have done for John McCain what John McCain did not, up to this point, do for himself," said commentator William Bennett, "which is bring a lot of conservatives in."
"This story could actually help John McCain," wrote conservative blogger David Brody.
The Christian Broadcasting Network called the Times' attack on McCain "a conservative badge of honor."
Others, such as radio host Laura Ingraham, found it interesting that the story, which the Times had been working on for months, happened to be published just as McCain was sewing up the Republican nomination for president -- presumably after it's too late for the party to switch to another candidate.
The Times' meandering, multi-reporter story also went to great lengths to dredge up the thoroughly vetted "Keating Five" story of the 1980s, in which McCain was one of five senators who went to bat for the failing Lincoln Savings and Loan led by campaign contributor Charles H. Keating. In truth, the Keating Five are about as relevant to this election as the Jackson Five.
But it must be said that digging up the savings and loan mess of two decades ago certainly is a baffling tack even for the Times to take, since the liberal news media seem to think all the questions surrounding Hillary and Bill Clinton in the 1990s are irrelevant and ancient history.
May we now expect the same sort of media scrutiny Sen. McCain was put under on Thursday applied to Democratic contenders Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama?
Not much is known about Obama. But we know enough about Mrs. Clinton to launch a New York Times probe or two. Or three. Or four. How about the Rose Law Firm billing records she mysteriously lost then found during the Whitewater investigation? How about her miraculous financial success in cattle futures? Or "Travelgate"? Has anyone investigated her involvement in the slander and intimidation of the trail of women her husband left behind?
Author Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame has indeed looked into Hillary Clinton in depth -- and reported recently on CNN that she "has a difficult relationship with the truth." What the heck does that mean? Isn't the press just a little curious?
Carl Bernstein is hardly a conservative, either.
The point here is simply to ask whether the media will be content merely to put John McCain's few remaining hairs under a microscope -- or if they will apply the same decades-ago sleuthing to the Democratic candidates?
We don't know that either.
But we've got a pretty doggone good guess.
Comments
Why would anyone expect anything else from the NYTimes? They've long been the replacement for the National Enquirer. Salacious "half-truths" and inuendo make up the half of their reporting that isn't flat out lies.
As long as they bad mouth a Republic War Party candidate it's ok.
Please note the person posting at 5:53 am EST is not me but someone using a close approximation of my name. He has nothing of substance to add to Reader Comments. My concern is less with the possible sexual relationship McCain had with a lobbyist than with his ethics related to businesses his legislative role affects. Remember that John McCain was involved in the "Keating 5" Savings & Loan scandal back in 1989. Neil Bush was also involved in that fiasco. McCain escaped with a slap on the wrist & a reprimand from his fellow Senators & has championed the cause of Congressional ethics (something of an oxymoron, no?) ever since. The S&L scandal should have taught Senator McCain to avoid THE APPEARANCE of impropriety. Senator McCain has railed against lobbyists & the influence of "special interest", but today's Washington Post points out that Presidential candidate John McCain's campaign is being advised by lobbyists. The Chronicle asked exactly the right question in today's online "Daily Poll": "Do you think the spotlight on McCain's ethics will hurt his campaign?" While "only" 30% of respondents (as of this posting) answered "yes" that CONFIRMS that the spotlight on McCain's ethics has indeed hurt his campaign to some extent despite rally-around efforts by the radical right.
Original Cain, your sanity has been called into question numerous times and you have not been able to prove your stability in your endless whines. Should you be held accountable for the claims you make or the inuendo? Does the same standard you have for yourself apply to McCain?
Please note the person posting at 6:39 am EST is not me but someone using a close approximation of my name. He has nothing of substance to add to Reader Comments and never has. All he has to add is accusations that he has NEVER provided any evidence of. He can not stand that people demand evidence from him because he doesn't have any yet feels like he is more enlightened than everyone else and knows what is good for us......like most of the left. He convicts the president of crimes, but screams foul and reminds all that the "Fort Dix Six" are innocent until proven guilty. Baseless accusations are ok if they are against the Republic War party I suppose.....as usual.
When I saw the headline of this editorial I thought it was about Barack Obama being all style and no substance. I've listened to a couple of his speeches -- you know, the one's the MSM is salivating over. I came away with the impression the guy is full of BS. But the US has never been short of voters willing to support BS, with the current president as a prime example.
Epilogue: Unfortunately, there are no laws against being an idiot.
the two 'CAINS' are the biggest BABIES I've EVER seen. So CHILDISH.., to the point of BOREDOM, really. Insert YAWN here.
As long as you see the other cain for what he is....I'll take whatever you want to call me. Mission accomplished.
PLEASE Google: Huma Abedin. And someone PLEASE tell me.., if the Times is going to print that NONSENSE about McCain.., ON THE FRONT PAGE, mind you.., then WHY in the WORL are they not telling us about the Muslim Aid of Hillary's with whom she is rumored to be having a lesbian relationship with? Could it be, *GASP!*, that the media is protecting their little darling? Hhhhhhhmmmmmmmm..........,
Good ol' Cain, always "responding" to an argument or assertion by "responding" to what the writer did NOT say... ummm....Cain? Any thoughts from you at all (actually, I could end that question right there) on these facts? #1 - The NYT has been working this story since November 2007. #2 - The NYT endorsed McCain as the Republican candidate for president almost exactly one month ago. #3 - The NYT waited until McCain was uncatchable to run a story that will undoubtedly damage McCain's campaign. Now, Cain, I know that you're not a big fan of logic or critical thought or fact-based discussions, but even YOU have to extract your head from whatever orifice it generally inhabits, and acknowledge that this story was not run because it is "news," but rather to begin the process that all real conservatives (i.e. people who agree with me :) predicted: the MSM destruction of McCain after building him up as the only "electable" Republican.
The NY Times "story" will unite the Republicans and McCain will be stronger than before.
If you ask original recipe Cain for facts this early in the morning you will just chase him off for a few hours, and he will return with some other inane comment, all the while ignoring your question that he can't answer. By the way...Cain said he wasn't going to post here any more...yet he is....must be a lie!
Here is a paraphrase of what self-described "ethical" Senator and Republic Party Presidential candidate John McCain REALLY said: I did not betray the public trust when I did or did not have have sexual relations with that lobbyist, Miss Iseman ... I merely took $85,000 in campaign donations from her clients, wrote letters to the FCC on their behalf and rode around in their private jet! (the preceding paraphrase is adapted from the cartoonist David Horsey). David Horsey's cartoon may be viewed here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1715
Hmmmmm...a paraphrase with quotation marks. Now that's not deceptive.
Yes, you do not use quotation marks when you paraphrase. Was he quoting someone else's paraphrase? If so, he did not give credit to the author. Conservatives are not fooled by these rumors, just like we don't take stock in the rumors about Hilary that were squashed a few years back.
I guess he's paraphrasing because if he used actual quotes, People might acutally see what the man said instead of what some lunitic has distorted, twisted, and spun into something else.
The Clintons were "thoroughly vetted" regarding Whitewater, so isn't The Chronicle being a little hypocritical here. Remember, it was the Republicans who started all this controversy about politicians' extra-marital affairs. Prior to Clinton, a politician's sex life wasn't all over the news. Yet I can see how a story about advisors asking to McCain to step away from a lobbyists because of appearances is much worse than making phone calls to voters suggesting he has a black child. After all, one comes from the "liberal media" and the other from fellow Republicans.
Barack Hussein Obama
Wonder why the MSM hasn't jumped on the fact that the Huckster's(Huckabee's) wife was in Vegas and stayed at (Gasp!) Hooters? Makes more of a story than an unfounded rumor and innuendos about McCain and what appears to have been a lobbyist pursuing him rather than vice versa. As part of McCain's assignment on the Commerce Committee, it is his JOB to see that the FTC operate efficiently. 800 days vice th usual 400 days to make a decision on an issue should certainly be a cocern to McCain or any other Congressman with that responsibility. One thng I notice about the woman and that is she, like Mac's wife, is a good looking blond. Good taste Mac!
PLEASE GOOGLE: HUMA ABEDIN. Then tell me HOW this story has never made it to the NEW YORK TIMES.
BTW, O Cain, you failed to mention that James McDougal, a Cliton partner in the White Water scam refused to cooperate in the investigation as did his wife. He died in jail and I believe she is still in jail for their involvement and refusing to testify against the Cliton's. Oh, yeah, what abgout those Rose Law Firm White Water Files tht were "lost" during the investigation only to be "found" in Hitlery's living quarters after the investigtion was over. As for the Repbulicans starting the expse of extra curricular activities with other women, John McCain has never looked the TV cameras (American People) in the eye and lied about Lewinsky (or any one else)and then get convicted of lying about Jennifer Flowers and thus disbarred. Neither has any woman (Juanita Brodderick) come forward and claimed to have been raped, only to have Hitlery claim it was a "vast right wing conspiracy". The NY Terrorist Times latest lie about McCain is the real start of a left wing MSM conspiracy to try and defeat McCain before he even runs. I was hesitant about voting for him before, but he damn well gets my vote in November, and I am sure of millions of others (incuding DIMs) as well.
grouse: "Remember, it was the Republicans who started all this controversy about politicians' extra-marital affairs." No, grouse, actually it was Clinton's Dem rivals for the nomination who publicized the Gennifer Flowers story and the Whitewater story. And the Lewinsky affair came to light when Clinton was being investigated for sexual assault, not as a political story about a consensual affair. Also, grouse & co., please note that when Republicans get caught with their hoo-hoos out, they either resign (Gingrich) or get voted out of office (2006 elections). It's the Dems who wear these affairs as badges of honor; Republicans don't put up with it, and if there IS any substance to this story, you can go ahead and put your money on the Dems in November, because McCain won't win if he's been fooling around on his wife. See, conservatives (NOT Republicans--CONSERVATIVES) believe that character matters. Giuliani technically fooled around on his wife, while he was in the process of ending his marriage, and ended up married to the "other woman." Borderline, but look where Rudy is. If McCain has been a dog, he's done, because at this point his honesty is all he has left with conservatives.
I don't care about McCain cheating on his wife or not. Does that affect his ability to do the job?
Republicant, I'm just reminding grouse of history. Republicans who turn out to be people of bad character get voted out of office, or they resign. I'm not talking about matters of opinion, here. I mean actual convictions, blue dresses with DNA evidence, that sort of thing. I know that Cain will assert that Bush is not a person of good character, but that's not what's at issue, here. Locally, when Robin Williams turned out to be a crook, he lost the support of every conservative friend/political ally he ever had. Ditto Linda Schrenko. Meanwhile, Ed McIntyre darn near got elected mayor by the Dems, after being convicted and serving FEDERAL time for corruption directly related to his political office. Charles Walker got reelected by the Dems with a 168-count federal indictment against him. Bill Clinton continued to enjoy the support of NOW and other feminists, AFTER it was proven that he was likely guilty of sexual assault, and he was definitely guilty of using his power and influence to sleep with Lewinsky. If a Republican had done that, you'd have seen Fonda and Berk and the whole NOW leadership calling for his head...or some other anatomical feature...
Its funny how two words, "Republican" and "Democrat" can divide the nation rather than bring it together. Its really sad most people are basing their opinions based on these names. If there were no parties many people who currently call themselves Republicans would side with the times and many people who call themselves Democrats would side with McCain. Instead thanks to our two party system most everyone follows the bandwagon of their party rather than thinking for themselves. Many may say I am wrong, but anyone who uses logic would know I am right. I again use the analogy of sports teams. Fans of the New England Patriots would say Spygate is just a witch hunt against their team. They are not going to look at the facts the same as if the story was about another team. The same is true for Republicans and Democrats. They go by party lines. Its sad. As for the story, it does seem to be a smear attack, but that happens in the media to people in both parties.
So in a sense, Republicant, you are correct. JFK was probably the least "faithful" president we've seen, and was certainly one of the most able. Jimmy Carter was probably the most morally upstanding president we've had, and turned out to be dumber than a brick, besides the fact that he was so inept he could not have convinced Congress to give him a nickel for the toilet by the time he left office. So I'm not saying it's relevant in terms of ability or competence; I'm simply saying that one party is clearly, demonstrably, more interested in the moral character of its nominees as evidenced by their behavior in their personal lives, and even when it comes to little matters like time spent in prison. That will mean a great deal in terms of McCain's campaign, if there IS anything to this hit piece.
imd, if I went with the "party line," I would support McCain for president...
Hell, if Republicans in general went with the party line, there never would've been a Clinton presidency. It was Perot's draw on Republicans that gave Bill the election, with fewer votes BOTH times than Bush got EITHER time :) :)
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
