I think Will Bunch is right that the NY Times story will rally right-wingers to McCain’s defense:
f Karl Rove were brought out of retirement to help elect John McCain president, even he in all his evil genius could not have a schemed up a better way to breathe new life into his fellow Republican’s campaign than the New York Times’ inept effort to tie the Arizona senator to a comely young lobbyist.
Simply put, as it’s playing out right now, the story was — probably unintentionally, although who knows — timed perfectly to help out McCain. Its insinuations of an improper relationship between the powerful senator and Vicki Iseman came too late to hurt McCain with the “values voters” in the GOP primaries, but at exactly the right time to rally right-wing talk radio against the Times, and thus for a candidate they can now support in November while holding their collective nose.
I think that is still a net win for the Democratic party. There is nothing that will hurt McCain more with the independent voters he and Obama both will be attempting to woo than for McCain to have the stench and odor of the right-wing oozing all over the place. Let them rush to his aid, let them scream “ONE OF US, ONE OF US” from the highest mountaintops. This will only help to remind people what they are going to get should the pull the lever for the Straight Talk Express- four more years of a Limbaugh/NRO/Red State approved President.
McCain’s saving grace with independents and disaffected Republicans was that he stood up to Bush and the nuts occasionally (but never when it really mattered). Let the loonies make him one of them. That is a GOOD thing for the Democrats, and should make a great bumpersticker:
“John McCain, Limbaugh Certified and Approved”
Mind you, this is without any real evidence of wrong-doing on McCain’s part. He may be innocent, and now he gets to carry the baggage of the far right, anyway. Sleazy, but good for the Democrats.
And one more thing- McCain is going to be forced to appoint a wingnut approved VP, probably someone from the south, to “round out” his ticket. The more the maverick takes on the taint of the crazy right, the worse his chances get in the general election.
*** Update ***
As a side note, I do think the “affair” aspects of this story are sleazy, and I think many on the right are correct in noting the hypocrisy taking place. The Times should have focused on this, as Will Bunch writes:
That despite portraying himself as a campaign reformer and a “straight talker” battling the political culture of Washington, McCain has maintained close ties with lobbyists with billion-dollar business stakes in legislation before his committee, flew with them to fundraisers on their clients’ plush corporate jets, and even hit them up to fund a non-profit that was meant to push reform.
I really, really detest this kind of stuff. I hated the thinly sourced rumors about Edwards, and it isn’t right now with McCain.
…I’m wondering whether the McCain forces, with the possible connivance of friendly moles within the NYT itself, have pulled off a Rovian trick here similar to the way Dan Rather got led astray down the garden path.
The strategy goes like this: Tempt reporters with a story, backed by sources who tentatively appear to back an extremely serious allegation, and then pull the rug out, leaving only a shakily supported story with credibility problems. Meanwhile, because the allegations (even if true) reach beyond the available solid evidence, what happens is that this undermines attention and credibility for stuff easily provable with ample solid sources that in itself would be a serious issue. For example, just the undeniable facts on the public record about Bush’s spotty (to the point of clearly irresponsible) fulfillment of his Air Force Reserve commitment (and failure to maintain pilot certification) – were damning enough. In the deep south, where family connections is one of the primary (and first) topics of conversation and consideration about people, it is simply ASTOUNDING that vanishingly few people could remember serving with Bush (or attending trainign meetings) of the Alabama national guard. Normal reality is that there would be hundreds of people who would definitely remember serving in a unit with someone who later became a future president – and would frequently, prominently mention it. Yet, this was eerily absent to someone with southern sensibilities. OTOH, the Dan Rather story about records being destroyed was very likely true – but IMHO Rather/CBS were fatally tempted by a later-made copy that likely accurately reflected one of the destroyed documents – but because the genuineness of the CBS document was undermined, and a key witness withdrew her willingness to support the story (under pressure?) it undermined the credibility of not just the guard transfer story, but the whole National Guard service issue.
UNLESS THE NYT has more they can back up with other (named, credible) sources than they disclosed in today’s story, I see the same sort of thing happening to the whole legitimate issues of McCain’s cozy influencing by lobbyists, from Keating to the present.
Blech. I’m disappointed that we’re already getting the obligatory disclosures of infidelity. I didn’t care about Clinton and I don’t care about McCain, either. Yes, I know, it’s about more than the actual cheating–improper relationship w/ lobbyists, etc. Still, I just hate this shit.
Gooble, gobble, gooble, gobble, we accept him, we accept him.
-Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage
I think he needs to announce Huck as VP now. Somebody better isn’t going to come along, solidifies his postion, changes the media direction, and the left will throw their fits about it now rather than later in the race.
They need to be working on the ballot issues and SCOTUS right now, and getting people in a frenzy. Not waiting after 6 more months of Obamanation.
Still, isn’t weird how similar in appearance, his wife and this lobbyist look?
And of course we’ll need to wait until October when after several court challenges and a very public fight Hillary finally concedes defeat and accepts Obama as the nominee, giving him a couple of weeks to train his sights on McCain – which should be more than enough for him to wage a decent campaign.
It may be better than you thought. The headline at Our Lady of the Concentration Camp is “If you lie down with MSM dogs, you wake up with stories like this,” and Rush Limbaugh said (with K-Lo approval):
Perhaps this presages a really obvious hard right turn for McCain that will make it plain to people that McCain is just another batshit insane asshole conservative.
After all – Rush Limbaugh has a lot of ass to kiss and McCain really doesn’t have a lot of time.
Also – everyone knows that what John Kerry endured in 2004 was bullshit. Even conservatives knew Swiftboating was bullshit. So She Who Wants to Throw Every Brown Person in Detention Camps has to remind the troops:
Dennis - SGMM
If the story is true then the real winner is Vicki Iseman: McCain not only provided his influence, he gave her an antique organ.
Marcy Wheeler is all over the substantive aspects of this story.
A very raw summary: McCain railed against media consolidation, but tried to help Sinclair in its media consolidation efforts– despite its anti-Kerry propaganda that McCain also criticized. Sinclair just happened to be one of Iseman’s clients. McCain’s heavy-handed lobbying for Sinclair was publicly criticized by an FCC commissioner at the time.
One other thing to consider is that the story just broke – There may be more to this story (the substantive part about lobbying and corruption) that will come in the coming days.
Let’s see what happens.
ahh… fuck it. it might not be right, but it’s the way the system works these days. and the simple fact that this a negative story about a Republican is a refreshing change. after a week of fake outrage over Obama’s “plagiarism”, it’s nice to see the Republicans on the shitty side of the fan.
The NYT really are going to be the big losers here. If the story is true and McCain traded sex for influence with him, why sit on it for so long? If it isn’t true, why did you print it? It’s weird all around.
It’s amazing the relationship between the New York Times and Right Wing Wackos.
It’s a relationship that would make even Pavlov step back in amazement.
I read this completely differently. The Times story isn’t so much filmy gossip as it is lawyered-down, so there’s more that the news folks know that they aren’t telling… yet. But more to the point: this is a big ol’ gotcha to McCain, who’s made a point of shooting straight ever since he got busted as one of the Keating Five. That’s the entirety of his appeal: he’s a straight shooter come at a time when the country is sick to death of cronyism and corruption. Tie the man in an improper relationship with a lobbyist for the industry he was in charge of overseeing, and he’s just toast. You forget: the fundies aren’t voting for him in the primary, to be sure, but he’s got to have them in the general. They already know he’s not Right with Jesus; they’re already disappointed that the party apparatus wouldn’t throw them a decent candidate this year. If the narrative on him changes to “talks straight, shoots crooked,” it’s all just over before it even starts.
Maybe John likes his women a little on the Aryan side.
The sex got it into the news
The lobbying will give it traction
I agree with JC. Our ‘maverick’ is just another corrupt repug, and this will be GREAT fodder for whoever wins the Dem nomination. Expect to see this repeated all election long.
I agree, in fact said the same thing earlier somewhere else. As of now, the D message against McCain is simple:
“McCain – More of the Same.”
Beautiful! Love that quote!
Looks to me like Johnnie McInsane is setting himself up for doing Dole like Viagra commercials subsequent to his November defeat.
Get UP Johnie!!!
Dennis - SGMM
More proof of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: Pfizer Stock (Parent company of Viagra) is, um, up today.
The New York Times, the paper the GOP loves to hate on the one hand and loves to quote if it publishes something which validates what they want to convey. Case in point for the latter: the Judy Miller piece about the aluminum tubes bought by Iraq during the run up to the war. The administration could not get to the media fast enough to crow about the article in the New York Times.
This scandal makes no sense.
The alleged sources are the people who originally tried to protect him. There is no actual accusation of sex, just innuendo and suspicion. And the faux outrage that a Senator may have helped a lobbyist? Puhleeze. If every time that happened was a scandal we would have one every 10-15 minutes.
Both McCain and the lobbyist deny it, and there’s no eyewitness quoted (even anonymously) that they saw them playing hide the falafel.
Even those bimbo-eruptions of the Big Dog had somebody (the bimbo or a state trooper) claiming it happened.
Me too, and I’d like to be able to say that the private lives of politicians are their own business, and I personally don’t care if McCain stuck his dick into an Unauthorized Orifice, but as long as they’re voting for Defense of Marriage Acts, discriminating against gays, and parading the wives and kiddies around in public they deserve the scrutiny. I didn’t like what happened during the Clinton years — but then I think of Bill signing that Personal Responsibility Act. Society couldn’t function without a little hypocrisy, but there are limits.
I read the original Edwards stories in The National Enquirer. They seemed disturbingly sound and I was inclined to believe them.
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the MSM today seems to already be buying into the “unjust innuendo” angle McCain is peddling in response – with the proviso UNLESS the NYT will be forthcoming with more evidence and story than they already have. In the meantime, this has fed the right-wing talking heads meme that the MSM, the democrats, and especially the NYT are doing a partisan hack job and are not to be trusted.
Result? Step all over the focus being on tonight’s Obama-Clinton debate, and make McCain (temporarily at least) an unjustly injured sympathetic character, instead of the lobbyist-influence-cozier he really is instead of the straight talker of integrity he pretends to be.
Vote for McCain if you want more of the same! A great point earlier; the closer Limbaugh, Coulter and other Bushofiles get tied to McCain, the better. Let ’em rant, their audience of 100% loons wasn’t going to vote D anyway.
The only way the sex matters is if McCain was in the pile-on during the Clinton affair–I really don’t remember. I think he voted to impeach, but I don’t remember him being a scold like the hypocrite Hyde was in the House.
But the big story is the lobbying–it’s not a surprise to anyone who follows him, but it could take the sheen off mR. Straight-Talk, and that would be nice.
John, this is the seventh straight post without any hillary bashing whatsoever. Have you guys run out of balloon juice?
Personally, I go with the “GOP pre-emption” theory — with a twist. The Rovians have something really sleazy on Obama (I mean, c’mon, you think HE never cheated?) and will release it in a few days time, making this story disappear….
Dennis - SGMM
Isn’t one of the cardinal memes of the Republicans that they’re the victims of the liberal media? And hasn’t the NYT given them more than a few breaks (Judith Miller in general, delaying the NSA story until after the 2004 elections in particular)?
Feeding into Republicans’ eternal victimhood and giving McCain some space between itself and its endorsement of him is a gift from the NYT to the McCain campaign.
The Grand Panjandrum
Indeed. I was collaborating with a couple of physicists from Los Alamos at the time, and we got a good chuckle out of the Judy Miller article, and the later Colin Powell disgrace at the UN. As a matter of fact several of them got together; wrote to the Administration and Congress to point out they were wrong. So much for listening to experts.
McCain will also have to explain his gaming of the FEC public funding system to keep his campaign afloat last year. This guy used a Federal loan guarantee to back a private loan to finance his floundering campaign.
Sounds like “Old Politics” to me.
I don’t think its too late for the GOP to bring back Mittens. With the heroic efforts of his Five Not For Fighting sons, I’m sure Mittens will be ready to go on day one. Hell, they even have an RV to get them there!
SWOON … Man I’m all dreamy eyed and shit already.
Shorter zzyzx: *fingers in ears* “LALALALALA! I can’t hear you Mr Messanger. Please wait while I reload.”
Actually, from my view, the story hasn’t played yet.
Reporters seem to be talking not about the story but his absolute denial of it, with that O RLY glint in their eye – they don’t seem to be accepting the fact that both NYTimes and WaPo could get this that far wrong. Watch them dig deep on the totally inconsequential details of the story that prove he was lying. Once they catch him lying, then he needs to come clean on that or lie some more. But ‘Straight Talk’ just died in the back of an alley somewhere and McCain probably doesn’t realize it yet.
Remember, we don’t impeach presidents for getting a hummer, we impeach them for lying about getting a hummer.
John Cole doesn’t need to initiate a HillaryHate thread.
The juicers will throw in gratuitous OT HillaryHate on their own. This is an example of “let’s hate Hillary for something she hasn’t done yet.”
Watch the media sweep this under the rug and tut-tut about the tabloid journalism of the NYT. “How dare they impugn the reputation of a straight-talking paragon of virtue like St. John on the basis of innuendo and anonymous rumors!”
Remember the rule for Republicans – “live boy or dead girl.”
There’s no point in bashing defeated candidates.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Me thinks this could’ve been concocted specifically to get Rush to run back to McCain.
-Staffers are leaking it, and there’s a notable lack of evidence.
-Rush previously pushed too hard against McCain and lost, so now he’s trapped by his own words
-McCain needs Rush’s media boost
So, what about the hypothesis that they leaked it specifically to the Times? To make it look like the Liberul Meedia was against them. Just enough gasoline that Limbaugh could set aflame. Eh? Eh?
Long shot, but I’ve come up with many stupider ideas.
Actually, this whole “thing” is a great GOP fund raising stategy. The line forms at the XXX sites for the video conformation.
Who wouldn’t love to see a jowly 62 yo reaming a 32 yo hot blonde?
Only the Foley video would dare hold better “box” office.
And the award goes to….
(throws up in mouth)
At least we haven’t heard of any liberals counseling Iseman to save the cum stained dress, or speculation about the curvature of the McCainis. I’m sure R’s will be calling for a special prosecutor, not of McCain, but of the NYT.
Takes it in mouth. Swallows Johnnie.
Ice lady melts within the warmth.
She’ll be as rich as the Goppies when the video is “released”…if’n the McInsane camp cut her a royalty deal.
What happens inside the tent, stays inside the tent.
She didn’t swallow the warmth.
Or the paparazzi aren’t offering the XXX evidence on a porn site.
Then there’s absolutely no need to buy Fizer stock (viagra), and Johnnie will continue to get the rest of us to swallow what he’s dishin’!
Pray for the GOP!!!
Though I’m thinkin’ Satan found his true “mouth pieces”.
Why don’t you just post a clip on YouTube of yourself in a little booth crying, “LEAVE HILLARY ALONE! SHE’S A HUMAN BEING!” and get it over with. Sheesh.\
No, it’s a prediction based on the things she has already fucking done. But don’t let that stop you from whining about how unfair it is to judge a person by their own behavior.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Why would the New York Times hold a story damaging to McCain, endorse McCain for the GOP nomination, and then run the story that they were previously holding?
Dec-07 – NYT holds story on McCain
Jan 25-08 – NYT endorses McCain over Romney, Giuliani, etc
Feb 21-08 – NYT runs story they had on hold
Something is fishy.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
it means that a charismatic, attractive man like Obama is doubtless presented with numerous, highly attractive opportunities to stray… and he’d have to be superhuman to resist all of them.
No, John S., it’s hillaryhate and paranoia. Your comment was asshattery.
Think not? Has Jen jumped in to pound on myiq for what he said? No? Have any of the standard trolls, in any of their incarnations? No? Now, why do you think that is?
Right. Expecting that someone who has exhibited a clear penchant for battling the nomination out in the way Hillary has will fight tooth and nail to the bitter end is paranoia. That’s fucking asshattery.
Who gives a flying fuck? I don’t need to have the usual suspects validate or invalidate anyone’s comments.
What are you, the comment police? Seriously, get a life.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Assuming you’re referring to Obama trolls, I pray you tell me, who would these be?
Maybe I have Obama-addict blindness, but I’m still trying to who people are referring to.
The cycle around here seems — to me — to be 1.) Hillary or cohorts slip-up 2.) Hillary-mockery. Or 1.) Hillary supporter says something beyond the pale, 2.) Utterance of derision. So where does the Obama-fellation come in, hmm?
Suddenly everyone is squeamish about sexual innuendo. I think part of what is missing in your analysis is the fact that this is the first time that I can remember any sort of really negative press that McCain has ever received (and I am talking all the way back to the S&L scandal and his first divorce). The monster was let out of the cage during the Clinton years and now it is somewhat late in the game to decry its continuing existence. Of course, it’s nice to try and remain “above the fray” and think that by expressing abhorrence with the sexual character of this report one has done the right thing. And yet there are the constant reminders for Hillary Clinton of anything and everything sexual and her marriage is “fair game”.
I will agree that the true important aspect of this story is about whether there was any quid pro quo, especially from one as sanctimonious about ethics as McCain. But it is at least refreshing that someone has taken a stand to counter the constant sainthood granted to Mr. McCain.
Note to self …
Bravo, p.luk! Your descent into shameless hackery is breathtaking to behold.
Are you Mark Penn? Seriously.
Do you really believe this? In my experience, infidelity has little to do with the quality of the opportunities.
No, John S., it’s hillaryhate and paranoia.
I almost voted for Hillary and in no way do I hate her, but Mark Penn, the “that primary doesn’t count” stuff, the seating the delegates from Michigan ploy, the plagiarism charge…why should I not be angry about this? It’s nasty politics. If we don’t like it when Republicans do it, we shouldn’t like it when Democrats do it, no matter what Paul Krugman and Bob Somerby (two people I respect enormously) say.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Because it doesn’t count. SATSQ, HRC Edition
Seriously, that none of the “OMG u r so meen 2 hrc” people have even acknowledged that their apparatus — JUST their apparatus — is crap is good evidence to me that these people are not feeling a lot of self-pride. Else they’d have expended some owning up and closing off our opportunities for mockery.
Damn it, Doug, I almost voted for Clinton, too. I don’t have any problem with going after the past behavior — but I do object to making huge assumptions about future behavior.
How about current behavior, Demi? That’s my problem with the Clinton campaign.
Here’s your bumper sticker, guys:
“McCAIN = BUSH’S 3RD TERM”
I’m having 200 of them printed up next week. =)
I admit it. I had sex with Obama. He tempted me with talk of change. I tempted him with my hot ass. However, I was unaware that paul lukasiak was hiding in the closet when Obama donned his superman cape. Obama was definately superhuman that night.
And current behavior, Doug. The original comment made some rather nasty comments about lawsuits and the like — and that is Hilary hate.
Because Hillary didn’t bring any lawsuits in Nevada. Oh, wait…
Blow it out your ass, demi.
DougJ gets it, and you can try to twist the logic any way you like, but at the end of the day my comment has nothing to do with Hillary hate and everything to do with her own behavior.
If she bows out gracefully, I will be the first to admit I was wrong about her and go merrily on my way.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Demi, it’s just common contempt, treat it as such.
This “Hillary-hate”, which is somewhat imaginary, is largely based on Republican talking points about the Clinton’s family life and marriage, and contempt for their supposed liberalism (hiding somewhere behind DADT, I bet).
This Hillary-Hate meme is getting out of control. Hillary supporters want to believe our dislike of her is based on previous ditto-head notions, not the painful slip-ups she’s been making and the graceless pledges to keep duking it out until one of them is dead and bystanders are maimed.
Nobody wants to admit their hero(ine) is falling on their face, so they keep whipping this damn meme out.
Sure, John S. is just as graceless. But it’s not helping us to use the Hillbots’ armaments to try to point that out. Let it rest.
CFC, Soj is no more a Hillbot than I am, or than DougJ is. She objects to your language, which she interprets as loaded and, effectively, misogynistic. I don’t fully share her interpretation, but I recognize that it’s got enough strength that when I care what she thinks of what I write — for instance, when I’m trying to convince her of something — I choose my language appropriately.
I had a crazy day and the last thing I need is for demi to go spouting off some nonsense about my Hillary hate and how I’m an asshat and that if my point was valid someone else would have shared in my criticism, blah, blah, blah…
Demi has some very insightful comments, but he can also be incredibly pompous and self-righteous. I am rather tactless and often state my arguments inartfully or rather brusquely. And there you have it.
If someone disagrees with me, fine. But like you CFC, I get tired of people using this Hillary hate brush because to deflect any valid criticism.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Where in the world did that come from?
In any case, that’s good of you, and probably efficient, for you to handle the context on your end and your listener’s end when you want to affect something/someone. But it’s not required of you, nor is it required of anyone else in civilized society. This is one of the biggest reasons for the First Amendment: it’s hard understandin’ peoples.
And, I think you were referring to John S. (although I don’t know how), I don’t think he gives a shit about changing your mind. So why are you wailing on him? Isn’t it a waste of your effort? Or at least, wouldn’t “troll GTFO” be more efficient?
oh, and BTW, Soj wasn’t attacking me as sexist, I was attacking her as inflammatory and crying wolf (which she denies, presumably because I didn’t understand what she was trying to express). Soj objects to other people’s language, supposedly on this site, which I haven’t seen an example of yet, so I can’t really speak to her perspective.
It is a scandal when you respond to it by going on TV to say:
The original comment made some rather nasty comments about lawsuits and the like—and that is Hilary hate.
It’s not “hate” when it’s precipitated by Hillary advisers saying they’ll fight it all the way to the convention and win it on superdelegates, primaries be damned.
Great analysis John, I agree with your assessments. While I do agree that the sexual aspects of the McCain ‘affair’ are not newsworthy I find it interesting that the right, who crowed from the rooftops about the Lewinsky scandal, are aghast at this happening to McCain. So while I can care less if this is purely an affair, I still enjoy watching them thrash about it on the right.
If this drives them in to McCain’s arms, all the better. I heard a quote from Rush on the news, and he sounds like he is setting up a path for McCain to gain redemption (in his eyes) by learning who ‘his real friends are’ (‘conservatives’, as defined by Rush). I think it is getting close to the time that the Republican party will re-connect their lips to the asshole in front of them, and the circle will once again close.
But this time, the circle is smaller, and the asshole in front of them does not taste as sweet as it used to. Must be something in their diet.
It won’t hurt McCain with the “base.” The “base” wouldn’t vote for a black man if he were wearing a hood and carrying a burning cross.