Follow the link for some other choice comments from Laura Ingraham, who sees in this a perfect example of why Maverick desperately needs talk radio on his side. I don’t know — how’d that work out for him in the primaries so far?

McCain didn’t need talk radio in primary season, when he had the MSM instead. Now that he doesn’t, it’s a whole new ballgame.

it’s called “thinking independently” and realizing that things can, and do, happen without hyper-partisan impetus.

Nooo…. that’s called denial.

Jeez

Even those of us for whom McCain was not our first, second or even third choice for the nominee believe him over the NYT. This may rally conservatives to his side, but it still highlights the fundamental weakness of his campaign – he’s the “not-(insert bad thing here)” candidate.

Slublog on February 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM

He’s not a hard core Liberal Fascist, and that’s enough for me! Sure, I would have preferred Fred, or Rudy, or Romney (except for fearing the months-long MSM snickers/slanders against Mormons), but I’ll comfortably vote for NObama.

I’m not sure why everybody is so convinced that this is some kind of new behavior, or some kind of shock, or some kind of indication that the media “picked” McCain for GOP nominee because they could create more garbage to throw at him than any of the others.

I’d actually argue that they had more on Rudy, and we would have heard all about how Fred dated lots of different women between marriages.

They would have found some kind of financial “scandal” in Romney’s many years in business. And they would have lectured us about how racist and sexist the Mormon faith is (oh, of course used to be) but, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, still is

It’s the NY Times. It’s what they do.

The prospect of either of the Dems in the White House literally scares the you-know-what out of me.

JetBoy on February 21, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Literally? Really?

That’s gross.

You realize that your entire theory is based on the assumption that the NYTimes was actually trying to help the Republican party, don’t you?

First of all, it isn’t a theory… it’s called “thinking independently” and realizing that things can, and do, happen without hyper-partisan impetus.

Second of all, it isn’t based on the assumption that the NY Times was “trying to help the Republican party”. It’s based, quite simply, on the calm, intelligent, rational observation that the NYT may have been a bit less driven by a rabid desire to hurt Republicans (that seems to be quite an irrational assumption you are making there), and a bit more by a desire to avoid publishing an embarrassingly thin story, particularly when they felt that it would be unfair to a candidate who they DO happen to like on a personal level.

In other words, an intelligent, objective person is much more likely to agree with me on this than with you. It is much more likely that the NYT was considering whether they should run the story at all, but they knew that TNR was going to “scoop” them, so they decided to get it out early on their own terms in the way that was the least damaging to all parties–notably including themselves.

But it’s also possible that they genuinely respect McCain at the NYT and that they knew it was a bit of a BS story, so they went ahead and released it at the least damaging time.

DaveS on February 21, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Anything’s possible.

We might just be two or three years of R&D away from porcine aviation as well.

“20“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Genesis 50:20

DaveS on February 21, 2008 at 1:43 PM

You realize that your entire theory is based on the assumption that the NYTimes was actually trying to help the Republican party, don’t you? Are you sure you don’t want to re-think your position?

They may have run it to avoid being “scooped”, but for all we know the NYT would have spiked the story entirely and NEVER run it.

There you go again. You are in complete denial if you seriously believe the ny times ever considered spiking this story. They had the story when they endorsed THEIR republican candidate. The only question they had was when would running it do the most damage. They are running it now not only in hopes of damaging mccain but they are hoping to throw the republican party into even more turmoil than it is already in.

At least we will have a black POTUS so we can tell all the race-pimps to drop dead.

Voidseeker on February 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM

That’s’ an interesting observation. Shouldn’t that put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton out of business? Should, but it won’t.

Oh my god. You are in complete denial. You look at this situation and conclude that it is just coincidental that TNR was about to get the scoop? Coincidental? That sure is a doozy of a coincidence.

I seriously doubt that the NYT gave a crap about TNR’s “scoop” and, indeed, may have even found it humorous. TNR’s “scoop”, basically, is that the NYT apparently was bickering about whether a story was worth running. That actually enhances the NYT reputation… there is no reason that they would have worried about that.

They may have run it to avoid being “scooped”, but for all we know the NYT would have spiked the story entirely and NEVER run it.

I stand by my point… this was the most McCain-friendly course of action the NYT could have taken.

chsw on February 21, 2008 at 1:18 PM

As I’ve posted several times. The infidelity theme is a non-sequitor. The MSM is setting the table for ethics charges and allegations. Only America was getting screwed as a result of those those long closed door sessions with lobbyists. They’ll bring up the Keating 5. They’ll look at every vote McCain has ever made in his decades in the Senate and match it up with contributors.

This is all headed toward making Obama the “honest” politician and McCain the cranky and corrupt bastard put up by the GOP. It was all predictable and preventable if the Rudy/McCain wing had actually cared about the party.

Don’t blame me- I voted for Romney.

However, if one reads the story closely, the McCain staffers may have kept the lobbyist away from the senator because she may have been acting inappropriately while trying to advance her clients’ interests. This was an entirely appropriate thing for the senator’s staff to do. Even the anonymous staffers’ quotes do not support the NYT’s innuendo of dalliance. Hence, there really is probably nothing to the story.

The article also means that the NYT now has lower journalistic standards than the Enquirer. Next, the NYT will have McCain siring a three-legged, two-headed hermaphrodite by a space alien (an illegal one, of course).

chsw

a capella on February 21, 2008 at 12:51 PM

McCain’s candidacy, if it’s going to have any meaning whatsoever, is going to have to be about prepping the electorate for a counterattack in 2010 (earlier if we want to keep the SCOTUS in the balance). It’s damage control. Short of some monumental blunder on the part of the DNC or Obama campaign, we’re looking at a true blue Washington for 2 years at least, and the Democrats are likely not going to play nice like BushCo et al.

Obama is shaping up to be the Democrats’ Reagan in the sense that he’s a gifted politician and movement leader. If he’s able to build up enough steam in November, then we’re in a very bad position to fight him and his movement on the ground. So, we should make this election about educating the electorate, inoculating them from the very real perennial lure of socialist policies. Sure, Americans are leery of socialism and liberalism as a matter of course, but in the heat of a crude oil spike of $150+/barrel, just how leery would Americans be of price controls, especially in urban environments? If something goes terribly wrong economically, just how stalwart will Americans be in fighting off the urge to “punish the greedy corporations” for adapting to adversity?

Let Obama have his cult of personality, but don’t let him have free reign with the public mindset. McCain is the vehicle, the means, not the end. The end is preparing the public to react to the Left’s coming assault on personal and economic liberty.

Well you idiots chose to lay down with the dogs so don’t come complaining now that you’ve got fleas.

Right on.

McCain & the Times — Thus hath the candle singd the moath [Andy McCarthy]

Senator McCain appears to have been smeared by the Times. I’m sorry that happened, but if indignation is the order of the day, count me out. You see, I also feel sorry — really sorry — for the intelligence officers who’ve been maligned as torturers, for those who want the immigration laws enforced and are libeled as racists, for those who doubt the wisdom of campaign finance reform and are glibly scandalized as promoters of public corruption, and so on. Each of these Gray Lady smears has a common thread: John McCain has been only too happy to help, and to bask in the resulting glow: the Times’ very own favorite Republican.

Thus hath the candle sing’d the moath:
O these deliberate fooles when they doe choose,
They haue the wisdome by their wit to loose

~The Merchant of Venice

Dontcha think that some Democrats have some juicy material on John as well?

I sure as hell do.

What choice do they have? If this had dropped a month ago they’d be clubbing him with it to push Romney. As it is, the only alternative is … no alternative at all. Follow the link for some other choice comments from Laura Ingraham, who sees in this a perfect example of why Maverick desperately needs talk radio on his side. I don’t know — how’d that work out for him in the primaries so far?

This is what you get for nominating a dud candidate like McCain in the first place. I see nothing wrong in “clubbing” nasty bitter Democrat-lites to get a candidate the party can unify behind.

This was all so predictable. McCain’s “friends” get him the nomination then dump him for their real candidate. Sorta like a contest to bring the ugliest date to the prom. Useful propgandists that claim to be conservatives overlooked all the facts because they were more interested in their vendetta against the social conservatives and “Jesus Freaks” to bother with reality. Rudy then McCain was the candidate foisted on the party lest they would have to support somebody like Thompson or Romney.
Well you idiots chose to lay down with the dogs so don’t come complaining now that you’ve got fleas.

…to grease the rails for the Messiah.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Sort of the left wing, cultist version of Palm Sunday. How quaint that they get to experience their own real-life Easter season at this time of year.

spmat on February 21, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Contrasted against the wholesome, articulate, cheerful bringer of hope and change, of course. Seems like a plan.

Again, McCain was my second choice this season (after Fred!) but I’m truly excited about the prospect of a McCain presidency. Maybe it’s because McCain was my first choice in 2000…over Dubya. I was very disappointed in the way the powers that be at the GOP pushed Bush on us. Not to say I haven’t been happy with Bush in the White House, but I can proudly cast my vote for Mac.

For me, it’s going to be a hold my nose and vote election. I just don’t find McCain to be a particularly compelling or impressive political figure.

Meh… that could be entirely coincidental, and it’s suspiciously self-serving for TNR to make that claim. Could it have been a factor? Sure. But it’s also possible that they genuinely respect McCain at the NYT and that they knew it was a bit of a BS story, so they went ahead and released it at the least damaging time.

DaveS on February 21, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Oh my god. You are in complete denial. You look at this situation and conclude that it is just coincidental that TNR was about to get the scoop? Coincidental? That sure is a doozy of a coincidence.

Meh… that could be entirely coincidental,

There are no coincidences especially in Presidential politics.