When the New York Times came up with a news item suggesting that John McCain may have had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist Vicki Iseman, they tethered the story because NYT editors felt that sources lacked credibility, and assertions unverified.
Subsequently, The New Republic (TNR) (an online liberal journal) contacted the Gray Lady and informed editors that since the NYT refused to print the McCain “story,” they intended to do a story on the New York Times’ refusal to run it. Consequently, the New York Times ran the story tonight.
Subsequently, The New Republic (TNR) (an online liberal journal) contacted the Gray Lady and informed editors that since the NYT refused to print the McCain “story,” they intended to do a story on the New York Times’ refusal to run it. Consequently, the New York Times ran the story tonight.
“WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers. A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
“When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
“Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.”
If McCain advisors were concerned about the “mere appearance” of inappropriate conduct, then they were probably correct to advise McCain to back away from any potentially embarrassing situation. The question is, "How is a concern eight years ago relevant today?" Plus, the presence of lobbyists in any congressional office is hardly newsworthy. What is really going on here?
“Potential relationship” is how Alan Combs described the accusation. Statistically, that’s quite a statement. It is utterly shameful that the American Politic has devolved to its present condition. It is nothing, if not cheesy. We might wonder why TNR pushed the NYT to release the story, but then if we understand how low progressives are willing to go in order to smear a viable republican candidate, our vision should be somewhat improved.
The story is quite disappointing; read it and decide for yourself. No credible journalist would have taken such a story to his or her editor, and no professional editor would release it. If the story isn’t legitimate, the only possible explanation is business as usual among progressives who have a propensity for dirty politics, evidenced by any number of rude and lewd “hate speech” commentaries posted by such liberal rags as TNR and the Daily KOS.
Meanwhile, Democratic Strategist Donnie Fowler, Jr., defended the NYT article stating, “The story just shows that McCain is part of the problem in Washington.” It is the kind of thinking one might expect from a person suffering with AADHD — but it nonetheless makes perfect sense among left-thinking persons.
Political scientists ask their students, “Why have so many Americans refused to participate in the political process?” The answer is clear: they are disgusted with Washington politics.
|