NYT Hatchet Job on McCain
The New York Times has published a story repeating apparently unsubstantiated rumors of an improper “romantic” relationship between presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and a lobbyist. Conservatives as well as moderates are right to point out the questionable timing of this story. Not only does the Times have a disturbing recent record of being an unblinking water-carrier for Democratic Party talking points, but the holding of this story until after the Republican Party is essentially unable to switch to another candidate could not have been better for the Democrats if it had been scheduled within the actual confines of the DNC. The fact that the story was available with equally thin support several months ago highlights the intentionality of releasing it now.
Furthermore, the report itself does not meet normal journalistic standards, even those as low as the Times has recently shown in its political coverage. The sourcing relies exclusively on “former campaign associates” citing their own alleged highly moral and ethical behavior, hardly people that can reasonably be expected to be honest and objective. And even those reports of “former campaign associates” confronting the candidate were supposedly based on nothing more than suspicions — there appears no evidence public or private of an actual relationship.
The far-left reaches of the blogosphere might be expected to play their usual supporting role by ratcheting up the story and ignoring its questionable timing and sourcing. A few are pushing the laughable claim that the real purpose for the delay was a conspiracy to help Republicans. Most respectable Democrats are, however, condemning this ham-handed and lurid partisan shanking. Several jump on board with conservatives and moderates, declaring the Times story to be a “hit piece”.
The McCain campaign is vigorously denying the charges, but of course the point is most likely only to get the charges out there in the first place. Now that Republicans cannot realistically switch to a different nominee, Democrats and their proxies at the Times see their opportunity to exacerbate his problems with the conservative base and to preemptively destroy McCain’s electability by sullying his vaunted ethical record. And a sex angle is always the best and most indelible taint, regardless of whether or not there is any actual evidence.
The script could have been written by the Clinton “war room”. And since it involves the New York Times in the role of hatchet man, it might actually have been.
One thing seems clear — the Times has definitely and openly chosen a partisan side in the upcoming election. They aren’t even waiting for the Democratic nomination fight to be concluded before tacitly signing up as an anti-Republican stalking horse. “All the news that is fit to elect Democrats” should be the new slogan of the Times.
Captain Ed weighs in with a challenge that the Times has zero chance of meeting.
Talking Points Memo has an alternative reading of the Times‘ behavior — they might have more anti-McCain cards yet to be shown, with this weirdly-timed and oddly-written story being merely the lead-in.
Hmm, I think I’m more interested in questioning the lack of factual basis than the timing.The timing is pretty good for McCain. Seems to me that NYT would have held this story until October if they wanted to sandbag the GOP. As it stands now, given that there’s really "no there there," the story is bound to be in the dead letter office within a couple weeks. FWIW, it’s probably a mistake for McCain’s PR folks to defend McCain by saying he has never violated the public trust. If you read his book, he’s as much as admitted he did during the Keating scandal.
What if the story came out before the NH primary. The social conservatives would have backed either Romney or Huckabee with a little more vigor. As KK says, an October surprise would be worse. With the nomination locked up, no damage even if the story is true.
You are assuming that the Democrats and the Times will simply allow the story to die off now. I predict they will labor mightily to make it a steady drumbeat for the next 8 months. The lack of factual basis for the story already appears irrelevant to them.
I think it is revealing that even many of the partisan Democrat blogs smell a rat on this one.
No, that’s not correct. If the story were true, the damage is that the GOP has just locked into a candidate who’s damaged goods (note that I don’t believe this, because the evidence is so flimsy that it’s laughable for NYT to have run with this story.) A month or two ago, something damaging to McCain would have led to a greater backing of Romney- but now it’s too late for the party to switch it’s frontrunner. So, the GOP would go through the entire general election with an unelectable candidate, which would obviously propel the Dem candidate to the WH.
I question the timing, the lack of substance of the article (It you read it carefully , they never accused him of anything) / lack of journalistic standards (although I whould not be suprised, it is the NYT after all.). I agree if this came out before the NH primary, things would be different for Romney. They waited so they could help ge the most liberal Republican into the likely GOP nominee spot. Now that he is most likely the nominee, they atack, so they can help get a democrat in Office. Some on other sites have questioned the papers "flip-flopping", endorsing him, then slamming him. I do not. If this were a story of merit and if it hurt his campaing, they should still post the story. The understood journalistic code of ethics would hold them to posting a story, regarless of their endorsment.
It is interesting though that this "Media scandal" brings to light the unfortunately typical practice in politics "the not practicing what you preach" issue… I.E. Lobbyists…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/mccain-the-antilobbyis_n_87941.html