The McCain NYT thing

[Delta]

So, what do you think?

McCain is either lying or the NYT has messed up pretty badly.

[msnicolea]

This is weird. I don't think the Times wouldn't come out with something without a good deal of proof. But where is that proof? And why now, 8 + years later? Something seems off.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I'll admit it. I want it to be true. I have a hard time believing it is though. It just seems, as Nicole said, off.

[kedzieb]

Delta, why didn't you link? McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21cnd-mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Who knows? It's weird that it's so old, but is it really a huge surprise that a politician might be unfaithful?

[kedzieb]

After reading the article, it sounds like the aide was worried that it would LOOK like an affair. And McCain was so confident that his ethical/moral reputation was strong that he didn't think it was an issue.

Here's the original article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp). I posted McCain's rebuff above.

[Delta]

Here is background on how the story came about at the NYT from TNR - http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24

Delta, why didn't you link? Because it's all so meta!

[pocket]

I'm not that sure I believe it, actually. It's sad, but it seems like a bunch of old stuff and some unsubstantiated gossip and I'm surprised it appeared. Not that he has a great record for either fidelity or judgment when it comes to lobbyists, but this just seems kind of strange.

[shouldaeloped]

I don't know. My mother is pretty decent friends with McCain's first wife and he did some pretty nasty things to her during their marriage. according to her, anyway. I know there are always 2 sides to every story but based on what my mother has shared with me, I am tending to believe the story.

[pocket]

I know that he did cheat on his first wife and that he was really a jerk to her. And that he was involved in that Keating 5 thingy. I don't question that he is for sale, but it seems like there's not that much evidence of an affair. So I do think that he got involved with a lobbyist, but not in the kissy-face way. Maybe that's just because the thought of kissy-face and John McCain is skeevy for me.

[phoenics]

This won't help him with conservatives if it is true...

[larslobster]

I find the timing of the article really strange. Considering this happened 8+ years ago, why wouldn't they have run the story before the primaries started. Did the NYT assume he wouldn't have a chance at the nomination so it wouldn't matter but now that it looks like he will be the nominee, they want the story out? And now that it's out and everyone but Huckabee and Paul have dropped out the race and McCain IS the front runner, what do they feel publishing the story will do?

[phoenics]

I find the timing of the article really strange. Considering this happened 8+ years ago, why wouldn't they have run the story before the primaries started. Did the NYT assume he wouldn't have a chance at the nomination so it wouldn't matter but now that it looks like he will be the nominee, they want the story out? And now that it's out and everyone but Huckabee and Paul have dropped out the race and McCain IS the front runner, what do they feel publishing the story will do?

It could possibly alienate him from conservatives, whom he needs to win the presidency.

[kedzieb]

It could possibly alienate him from conservatives, whom he needs to win the presidency.

Maybe, but unles it somehow they thought it would give Huckabee a chance for the nom, I don't really think the NYT was playing politics. If they wanted to really hurt McCain or the Republican party they could have waited until September.

Reading the article, the NYT are not accusing him of having and affair. They are reporting on on of his aides and the problems they had convincing McCain that this woman would hurt his campaign. I'm more concerned about the suggestion that he gave her favors as a lobbyist than if they had an affair.

We already know that he's been unfaithful in the past and divorced. So I don't think another affair 8 years ago will change the view conservatives have of him already.

[phoenics]

Maybe, but unles it somehow they thought it would give Huckabee a chance for the nom, I don't really think the NYT was playing politics. If they wanted to really hurt McCain or the Republican party they could have waited until September.

Reading the article, the NYT are not accusing him of having and affair. They are reporting on on of his aides and the problems they had convincing McCain that this woman would hurt his campaign. I'm more concerned about the suggestion that he gave her favors as a lobbyist than if they had an affair.

We already know that he's been unfaithful in the past and divorced. So I don't think another affair 8 years ago will change the view conservatives have of him already.

Good point.

[cynder]

The timing and the scooping from other news orgs other than NYT suggest to me that there is some fishy stuff going on and we just need to give it time to get out. I don't think the story here is who McCain is kissy face with but who McCain did favors for or influenced for. I am still trying to read through all this FCC stuff. Actually, I am still trying to re-read the NYT article. I feel like the NYT article is touching at things that either they are going to release at some point in the future or that they don't have whatever legal clearance to do so.

[AmyE]

I'm on the fence on this one. Maybe there's a there there, but I find the timing and lack of objectivity - and very poor sourcing in the article- a bit suspicious.

1) partly because I was directly involved on two occasions, 5 years apart, where the NYT put a story on the front page that was factually, verifiably, wrong. They just didn't bother to find a second source, and wanted to get to print quickly. (Neither story was about politics, fyi.) Relevant facts, by the way - not just incorrect shoe size or something.

I like the NYT, and think they usually do a good job, but not always. And they most definitely have a liberal bias.

2) I understand that the concern is what McCain did for the telco companies represented by the lobbyist. However, I also think that the NYT story failed to include a bunch of occasions when McCain voted against those interests, all during that time period. His reputation in Washington is that he's incredibly stubborn, has a temper, and does not always vote in favor of his "friends." So why report just one set of votes??? why not show both, and let the readers decide? This wasn't on the op-ed page, after all.

Interestingly, I've heard that actually a lot of conservatives are rallying around McCain after that article, at least initially, because they think it was a "hatchet job." And since many conservatives think the NYT is a bastion of liberal lefties, the enemy of my enemy....

I didn't plan to vote for him anyway, so I don't much care, except that I'm once again annoyed at the Times for being unnecessarily sloppy.

[allyray231]

I dont know. It all seems odd to me but I can't imagine the NYT would run with something unless they had all the facts

[cynder]

I didn't plan to vote for him anyway, so I don't much care, except that I'm once again annoyed at the Times for being unnecessarily sloppy.

Heh. Let me tell you a little story called the "Duke Lacrosse Team"....

[AmyE]

I dont know. It all seems odd to me but I can't imagine the NYT would run with something unless they had all the facts

That's exactly my point. The NYT SHOULD have all the facts, but I know that sometimes they don't, and they still go to print. And if they DO have the "fact," why print just speculation and anonymous sources?

the Duke story is a perfect example of when journalism goes off the rails. cynder is right.

[Delta]

As expected, the NYT Ombudsman weighs in (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?_r=1&ex=1361509200&en=a6a8e2f9834e219d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin):
I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

The stakes are just too big. As the flamboyant Edwin Edwards of Louisiana once said, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.”

The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising “poor judgment” by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients.

[msnicolea]

ITA re: the ombudsman--the story should be about ethics and cozying up to lobbyists--the sexual innuendos were unnecessary and irresponsible--at least a this time.

[phoenics]

Ugh - thanks a lot NYT.