Rush rallies to Maverick’s side? Update: Weaver speaks
posted at 11:35 am on February 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Sort of, in a “I told you never to trust The Man” way:
Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail to Politico: “The story is not the story. The story is the Drive By media turning on its favorite maverick and trying to take him out. The media picked the GOP’s candidate, the NYT endorsed him while they sat on this story, and is now, with utter predictability, trying to destroy him.”
Limbaugh added: “This is what you get when you walk across the aisle and try to make these people your friends. I’m not surprised in the least that the NYT would try to take out John McCain. Predicted this, in fact, way back in the early 2000s. Sen. McCain courted the media, cultivated them, even bragged that the media was his ‘base.’ I cringed when I heard it because the media turning on McCain was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.”
Limbaugh was one of several influential conservatives who, to the delight and relief of the McCain campaign, immediately decided that the behavior of the Times — not the senator — should be the issue.
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?
Here’s Bill Keller’s statement wondering why, if the story’s so wrong, nobody’s tried to challenge it yet. Well, er, McCain did this morning, and Carl Cameron claims to have investigated this himself when the first inklings of it dribbled out on Drudge back in December and discovered a little bit of jack and a whole lot of squat. Although maybe we’re not reading Keller’s statement closely enough; Patrick Ishmael e-mails to say he takes Keller’s point as being “our sources said X, Y, and Z and no one’s challenged the fact that they said X, Y, and Z, ergo the story’s perfectly accurate.” By that standard, isn’t that dopey story in the Enquirer about some woman carrying Silky’s baby also “perfectly accurate”?
Meanwhile, Jay Rosen wonders why they’d endorse a guy whom they believe to be an unethical philanderer. Hey, Jay? Who’d they endorse in 1992 and 1996? Besides, this only proves how much they loathe conservatives: If they think McCain’s this scummy and they’re still willing to back him, what does that say about what they think of Mitt Romney?
Update: The implication in an article full of implications was that John Weaver, McCain’s then right-hand man, met with Iseman at Union Station in 2000 to tell her to end her romantic relationship with him. Tain’t so, says Weaver to Byron York:
I just got off the phone with John Weaver, the former top McCain campaign official who is now an informal adviser to the campaign. I asked him about his 1999 meeting on the campaign’s behalf with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. He said he “had no reason to think” that McCain might have been having an affair with Iseman, but he was concerned about word he had heard suggesting that Iseman was telling associates she had connections with McCain. “This was a woman who was saying that she had special influence with John’s committee staff and with him,” Weaver told me. “I didn’t believe that was the case.”
“When you hear back from several people that this person is saying they can get anything done, then that is alarming,” Weaver continued. So Weaver met with Iseman, at a Union Station restaurant, and told her to back off. He told me he didn’t exactly say, “Get lost,” but that that was the gist of it. “The discussion lasted all of five or six minutes in which I told her to cut that stuff out,” Weaver told me. “I said, ‘You need to stop this.’” Iseman’s response, according to Weaver: “She was not happy.”
Ambinder, who leans left, also seems to think Weaver’s a straight shooter.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Okay, so we have Obama’s wife saying that Obama wants to set up a totalitarian state. Given the choice between McCain and Obama, I’ll take McCain. I’d have preferred Fred or Mitt, but its a sacrifice I’ll have to live with.
AbaddonsReign on February 21, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I often don’t read the byline on HA pieces and now I know I don’t have to. As soon as I hit “jack” and “squat”, I said, “Allah wrote this”.
As usual, nice work, sir.
MikeZero on February 21, 2008 at 11:40 AM
This is the FIRST of many attacks on McCain and his past.
He needs a squeeky clean running mate.
EJDolbow on February 21, 2008 at 11:40 AM
He’s being consistent in defending people against the MSM. This doesn’t necessarily mean his views regarding McCain’s potential as a president are any different. This is an attempt to torpedo McCain to grease the rails for the Messiah.
I don’t like McCain, but I sympathize with him over this hoopla as well. It’s like the ACLU post from yesterday. A lot of times they’re contemptible and blowing smoke. However, when they stand up for an actual legitimate cause, you rally behind them as well.
MadisonConservative on February 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Hmm…the Dragonslayer is looking better and better by the moment.
Jimmie on February 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Have they endorsed a Dem yet?In light of this, think about the implications of that?
a capella on February 21, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Yeah, and Jack left town.
liquidflorian on February 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I just keep wondering what the media and public reaction would have been if the NY Times had written the exact same story about Barack The Annointed One.
You know: rumors are that top aides to Barack Obama pleaded with him in his 2006 campaign for the Senate to sever all connections with a young female lobbyist for fear of appearing improper… bla bla bla….
How thermonuclear would the public blowback be today and how rampant the charges of DISGUSTING RACISM???
Instead we have the MSM tut-tutting about McCain this morning and wondering just how much there is still to find out about the story (just cue up David Gregory on the Morning Joe show earlier…)
Always Right on February 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Laura’s right that McCain is helped by getting talk radio’s backing. That said, I think Mac and Talk would eventually have buried the hatchet, and it would be premature to think that McCain’s going to run into the arms of the Talkers as a result of this; if anything, it gives Talkers an Out to rally behind a GOP nominee they’ve, to this point, been purposely cool to him, if not in principle (which I’m sure many, though not all, were doing), but because they can do no other and retain their credibility. The Times may have fixed that.
Vizzini on February 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I dunno, I think talk radio overplayed its hand in the primaries. There’s a difference between leveraging power you have (a la shamnesty) and leveraging power (a la bringing down the frontrunner in a national campaign) you don’t have - guess they found out.
amkun on February 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Just like the MSM turning on McCain when it was a Him or the Dem moment, McCain losing in the general election was just as predictable. Thanks to Huckabee we have the second worst candidate on the GOP side (only Huck would have been worse).
With Hillary dead, and Obama reaching cult status it is going to be a long road to the GOP loss in November. McCain can only pray that there is an attack on the USA directly - that is about the only thing that will let him win.
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
I think it’s wonderfully ironic that his friends in the liberal media — whose praise he has sought for all his political career — have now turned on him. After all, if he can’t be a jack ass who’s bashing other Republicans, they have no use for him.
I say it serves him right. Hit him again. Harder.
paul006 on February 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Its a bit like Newt said; (paraphrased) I’d rather fight McCain %20 of the time then Hilliary 90% of the time. And if I ad to that; Barry O 100% of the time.
liquidflorian on February 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM
If he DID cheat on his wife, that Democratic base may be swinging his way. Sort of a Bill Clinton redux….
Big Daddy Cool on February 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Will McCain rush to mend fences with the right?
Hey, McCain today said he was “disappointed” in the NY Times. Just Disappointed. After they try to smear him and wreck his campaign.
Just think back on what he called us conservatives last year who opposed his stance on illegal immigration. It was a crapload worse than “disappointed….”
So I doubt even this will cause much of a lurch to the right for Maverick.
Always Right on February 21, 2008 at 11:48 AM
The article is bullpoop. That’s hardly an endorsement of McCain by anyone, however. Certainly not Limbaugh or Ingraham.
S. Weasel on February 21, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Vizzini
–
Yep.
Connie on February 21, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Allah, you are so bleedin cynical. Don’t you think anyone makes judgements on principle?
mikeyboss on February 21, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Wow, I said it 20 minutes ago before this was posted. I’m honored Rush and I think alike. Rush is always right on the nose (and I’m not saying that because he agrees with me). What kills me is laura ingrahams feigned outrage and bill bennett and his brother tsk tsking the ny times. My conservative freinds and family and I have been saying this is exactly what was going to happen for months. Out here in the country we see it as it is. Is it that people like bennett and ingraham are too close to the enemy to see what they are or do they think we are really stupid and they are just playing a game with their leftist media freinds with us in the middle?
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 11:52 AM
I read it as an “Told you so, JMac”
doubleplusundead on February 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Exactly! Sorry, but when it comes to McCain, I stopped listening to Rush, Coulter, et al long ago. I love ‘em, but they’re wrong on the Mav.
This has nothing to do with McCain “courting” the Dems. Or “courting” the press. McCain’s not stupid. And, just given the timeliness in which he responded via press conference this morning to the Times crud, he…by virtue of his knowledge of the media…is one step ahead of them.
I so look forward to the McCain White House press room. If anyone can handle them, the Mav can.
JetBoy on February 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Slamming the partisan hackery and douchebagginess of the Drive By Media isn’t the same as endorsing McJuan. It’s just common decency and a commitment to principles.
Just thought I’d let you know.
Misha I on February 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I hear for the first time in her adult life, Michelle Obama is truly proud of the New York Times.
Sugar Land on February 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I had the displeasure of watching Olbermann cut in over the last quarter hour of Hardball last night to cover this “breaking story.” Did the New Fake Times send Olbermann an advance copy? I never realized a human being could salivate so much over a failed attempt to slander a man. Olbermann is a loathsome troll who inhabits MSNBC for an hour, or sometimes more if an especially important opportunity to mouth gibberish pops up. It was beyond revolting. Just thinking about it now makes me queasy.
indythinker on February 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
As a “told you so, JMac”…blarg.
doubleplusundead on February 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
The NYT is in a no-lose situation here, since the some of the biggest play their biased, unethical “reporting” is getting comes from Malkin, Limbaugh and their ilk.
They’re still on the hunt, and justifying themselves in their own inimitable fashion:
What staff members? No names? Hmmmm….
When you don’t have to worry about being held accountable, you can spew any lies you want.
Of course all this distracts nicely from real issues, such as the Dems headlong rush to create a Marxist/socialist state.
It conveniently takes the spotlight off the peccadilloes of St Obama and The Hildebeest, too. I suspect real research into their careers and lives would uncover some rather unsavory information….
MrScribbler on February 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
This wasn’t an endorsement of mccain by Rush, he was only commenting on the developments which is what he does. If anything it is just reinforcing what Rush has been saying all along.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I wonder if a former POW can handle an allegation.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Re: Dragonslayer.
I did not mean to say I’m backing McCain. I’m saying that the “dragonslayer theory” looks better and better by the minute. What better way to get a bunch of conservative support without actually having to deal directly with conservatives or *gasp* compromise?
This NYT story isn’t a smear. It’s a gift.
Jimmie on February 21, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I haven’t heard ANY conservative pundits take the Times’ side in this. A lie is a lie, even when it’s a lie about someone you can’t abide.
S. Weasel on February 21, 2008 at 11:56 AM
That’s one of my favorite reasons to read Hot Air. I’ve been reading since the beginning and after awhile you don’t need to read the bylines. You can really tell the difference between the different personalities of Bryan and Allah, and the guests like See-dub occasionally. It has really been fun.
Troy Rasmussen on February 21, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Rush is dead on on mccain. He will die the death of a thousand cuts during this campaign inflicted by his friends in the msm and across the isle. He will be a quivering mess by the time the election rolls around and those who backed him can be just as responsible for our new fascist regime as those who voted for them.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 11:58 AM
As someone said here on one of the threads last night,
Get ready for the Mother-of-all I-TOLD-YOU-SO moments on Rush coming right up. What will be interesting is not how Rush attacks the NY Times,,, that is to be expected.
It is to what extent, if any, he rallies TO McCain personally or if Rush’s take is just a generic “They will attack any Republican no matter what” approach.
Always Right on February 21, 2008 at 11:59 AM
He DID cheat on his first wife.
EJDolbow on February 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM
How is any of this Rush “rallying” to McCain?
Rush is just wagging his finger and rightly saying “I told you so.” Oh, so Rush isn’t believing the NYT smear and running with it. Now I get it.
Marcus on February 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM
agreed.
upinak on February 21, 2008 at 12:01 PM
How can you say that? Name one instance when John McCain has ever, even remotely, resembled a “quivering mess”. Hasn’t happened, and won’t.
Y’all better get behind McCain…because if Obama or Hillary becomes POTUS, I know who to blame the next four years.
JetBoy on February 21, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Since McCain has a temper and holds grudges, perhaps if elected he will move far to the right to spite the media if for anything else.
jp on February 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM
The only thing I blame Juan for, in this situation, is trusting the NYT. Sadly, I doubt he learned his lesson, yet again.
This is going to be a long 8 months.
simon on February 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Marcus on February 21, 2008 at 12:06 PM
A response doesn’t scream “a step ahead” to me. His response may have been timely, but it was rather milquetoast. “Disappointed?”
Slublog on February 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM
He’s an old man with a huge ego and a very bad temper. He will be a quivering mess because he won’t be able to deal with it and don’t bring up the POW stuff, he was 25 years old and in an entirely different situation. The attacks haven’t even started yet.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 12:08 PM
huh?
The slimes held this story for months, waiting for(or in case) McCain to take the lead, THEN they ran it.
shooter on February 21, 2008 at 12:10 PM
If I was McCain Id say to the NY Times “At least I didnt sell out this country by giving away secrets like the Times did”
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Why is AP deceptively manipulating what Rush said with a dishonest title? Is he that desperate for Conservative support of John F’in McCain?
You always have a choice as in not to vote for a POTUS and just to vote for congressional seats.
I am glad the NYT did not bring up McCain dumping his crippled first wife for a younger woman so he could be 25 again. We wouldn’t want that to come out before November. I know, I know - shut up he was a POW and he is John F’in McCain! The man who will bring you higher energy costs all in the name of loony toon science!
Poptech on February 21, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Rush’s ego is showing
He couldn’t derail McCain during primaries so now he’s falling back on “I told you this was gonna happen”
big freaking deal, anyone could predict NYT hit pieces on whoever we nominate.
windansea on February 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Knock yerself out, if that’s what floats yer boat. I don’t give a good hoot who you’re blaming.
I’ll defend McJuan against any and all ridiculous and unfair smears such as this one, just as I’d defend anybody else being the target of one. My intense dislike of McJuan has naught to do with that. Unfair is unfair, no matter who it happens to.
But IF something substantive comes up, and I’d be much surprised if it doesn’t, seeing as how he’s got more dirty laundry than all of Chinatown could clean up in a decade, I’ll be thrice damned before I defend the indefensible.
If that makes you blame me for the burning crash that follows, then fine.
At least I won’t have to worry about having to wear the Double Standard label around my neck with no defense against it.
This smear job looks like just that: A typical MSM smear job thin on evidence and thick on douchebaggery, and I won’t hesitate backing him or anybody else being a target of one. But that doesn’t mean that I endorse the slimy, lying SOB.
Misha I on February 21, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Milquetoast? McCain didn’t come across that way…
And no…a response, per se, isn’t being a “step ahead”…but you have to admit, he didn’t just let it go…he nipped it right in the bud. And we can either believe McCain, or an unsourced, unverified, allegation by the NY Times. I choose Mac.
And:
I look forward to a Prez with a “temper”. We need it. Old? Reagan was “old” too…As for the ego, who in politics doesn’t have an ego?
You’re simply predicting McCain will quiver…but again, can’t name a time when he has in the past.
JetBoy on February 21, 2008 at 12:17 PM
This is not rallying to McCain’s side. As said above, this is a huge SITYS.
INC on February 21, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Sure they do. I was a Fred supporter. See where that got me?
a capella on February 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I’m with Rush. When are people going to learn? When are they going to refuse the play their game?
They would have held it until the general if TNR hadn’t forced their hand to print now.
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Almost exactly what I posted earlier this morning on my own humble blog. As soon as McCain looked like he would clinch the nomination, this was inevitable.
flipflop on February 21, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Again, “disappointed?” Meh. He’s got to respond with something more than Tom Daschle’s favorite word.
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
Allah, dare I say, I don’t think you or Jay Rosen are being cynical enough. Why take the NYTimes at their word at all? They didn’t endorse John McCain because they liked him best out of all the Republicans. That may have been part of the reason but its probably not even the primary reason. The real reason they endorsed John McCain is because they believed that he represented the best combination between most likely to rise to the top of the R ticket and easiest to tear apart and lose once nominated. For example, if Allah had to endorse a Dem and a Rep candidate, the Dem candidate he would endorse is Hillary Clinton. Not for the reason that he likes Hillary better then Obama, but for his belief that Hillary is easiest to beat. He would endorse her though and claim he’s doing so because she has more experience or something along those lines. That would really have nothing to do with the endorsement though, just as the NYTimes reasons for endorsing McCain had nothing to do with their endorsement. The NYTimes viewed McCain as easiest to tear down once elected. They planned on taking shots at him the second he became the undisputed front runner. Prepare the lamb for the slaughter. This is just begining.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Relax, it’s only round one. Between now and Nov. we can expect more and more of this on a regular basis. The now ‘conservative’ McCain will go down in flames not because of anything he may or may not have done, but because ‘conservative’ has been defined in the popular imagination by George W. Bush.
President Obama will be a blessing for conservatives of every stripe: He’s a dormroom pied piper who will burst the bubble of his minions when they finally see that he is little more than ‘hot air’.
He’s a nobody in the senate, he was a lite weight back-bencher in the Illinois senate, he defeated a wackjob in his senate race, and he is a cliche ridden hack.
He lacks the executive and legislative skills to get much of anything accomplished. His one accomplishment will be to define liberal as pie-in-the-sky half-witted nonesense.
The job of conservatives will be to give President Obama plenty of room to let him make a fool of himself. If we crowd him with criticism too early he will be seen as a victim(We helped clinton in this way).
In the modern era, the job of a president is to advance an agenda through speech making. Bush is a terrible communicator of his ideas and thus is seen as a failure by both libs and cons.
A new generation of conservatives will have to hone a conservative message in a new language. If it’s Mitt or the Huckster we’ll deserve to loose again.
oldvannes on February 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Yes, but it was McCain who courted them. It was McCain called them his base. It’s McCain who did that while he kicked the people who should have been his friends in the teeth. Now he wants the people he showed the back of his hand to come to his defense.
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I think Rush is full of crap on this. I think the NYT did not “turn” on John McCain. I think the NYT is behaving in the way that is most helpful to McCain.
1) They had the story. They have to run it at some point.
2) They waited long enough that they story wouldn’t prevent his nomination as the Republican candidate… allegedly at the request of McCain himself.
3) In accordance with point 2, they ran the story as far away (literally, pretty much to the day) from the Nov general election as possible so that his nomination is secure but so that it has the least impact on the general (he has the maximum time to deal with it and get it past him).
4) Who knows how much more potently the story could have been produced… as it stands, it is almost laughably insubstantive, and they seem to be fine with that.
DaveS on February 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Well the one good thing that might come out of this is that no republican rinos can ever believe that the MSM will ever give them a pass over their beloved socialist democrats.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Ouch. Anything is fair game even if it is a lie? Maybe they would have stood on principle. If not, there is no difference in integrity between the left and the right.
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Right they held it just long enough to ensure the Republicans had no viable alternatives. They may have helped McCain and the Democrats nut they hurt conservatives.
The only reason they ran the story now and not closer to November is because TNR forced their hand to print now. Isn’t that clear?
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I do love that logic of “We are the NY Times we have as much credibility as TNR !”
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM
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.
I just don’t see him as the “lesser of two evils”…on the contrary, after Fred Thompson, McCain is best candidate for the job. I think, over the next few months, most of McCain’s detractors on the conservative side will, as you say, rally behind him. He’s going to need that high turnout in the general if he’s to beat the Democrat.
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
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
McCain was a wild ass playboy when he was younger. If he was up to no good with this woman, it wouldn’t surprize me. As for Mr. Clean, he was also a Keating 5 scoundrel.
McCain is just like the rest of those Washington trough sloppers slopping at the public trough. He probably has a past similar to Teddy Kennedy minus the murder. They all need replacing.
saiga on February 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM
You’re forgetting the fact that they rushed to release it so as to avoid TNR from gettting the scoop. Its obvious they didn’t want to release it now. They were holding on to it for a future date. What date? Why? Not sure. But they had some more preferable date in mind. TNR forced them to release it now.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Sorry, I don’t like besmirching the reputation of someone who I consider a hero for his war time contribution even though I have no respect for his behavior as a career politician but you might want to go back and study his behavior in the Hanoi Hilton. Per his own recounting he did quiver some. I don’t hold it against him, he is still an American hero to me, but he isn’t a conservative and if the republican party claims to be conservative he shouldn’t be their nominee.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM
It’s February, and this story isn’t about sinking the S.S. Maverick in one dramatic flourish; it’s about weaving a tapestry. The NYT/WaPo media axis has more dirt on this man than the DNC could hope for.
All those “straight talk” curse-laden private sessions that are only the topic of conversation now? That’s more thread for the tapestry. His harsh treatment of various witnesses in committee hearings (esp. of POW/MIA advocates)? More thread. Little bit by little bit, insight into His Maverickness’s disagreeable personality will be introduced into the public consciousness. Eventually the only people that will stand by him without cringing are party hacks and people with Asperger’s.
Old. Angry. Unpredictable. Foul-mouthed. Brutal. At least Nixon was predictable.
spmat on February 21, 2008 at 12:38 PM
There are no coincidences especially in Presidential politics.
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 12:38 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.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM
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.
Slublog on February 21, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Contrasted against the wholesome, articulate, cheerful bringer of hope and change, of course. Seems like a plan.
a capella on February 21, 2008 at 12:51 PM
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.
Nosferightu on February 21, 2008 at 12:51 PM
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.
highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 12:59 PM
The McCain backers here seem to willingly forget the lashing (founded in fact or purely ego-driven) that Santorum gave McCain regarding his “behind closed doors” deals.
Dontcha think that some Democrats have some juicy material on John as well?
I sure as hell do.
omnipotent on February 21, 2008 at 1:10 PM
From Andy McCarthy in the Corner:
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
INC on February 21, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Right on.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 1:16 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.
spmat on February 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM
From the outside looking in, my theory is that the NYT held this spurious story until Senator Clinton was unlikely to be nominated. That way, the McCain campaign would not be able to counter by pointing to the (probably unfounded) rumor of a nonprofessional relationship between Ms. Clinton and her chief of staff, Huma Abedin. Moreover, there are no known scurrilous allegations about Obama which could produce a lewd giggle, so the McCain campaign cannot attack Obama with anything like that.
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
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.
highhopes on February 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM
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.
DaveS on February 21, 2008 at 1:43 PM
That’s’ an interesting observation. Shouldn’t that put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton out of business? Should, but it won’t.
cjs1943 on February 21, 2008 at 1:48 PM
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.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 1:57 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?
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM
We don’t let the Left or the media choose our Republican ca…okay, we DID let them choose McCain. Accept it, deal with it, hold your nose and vote for the only one left running.
“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
Doug on February 21, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Anything’s possible.
We might just be two or three years of R&D away from porcine aviation as well.
Misha I on February 21, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM
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.
DaveS on February 21, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Literally? Really?
That’s gross.
mattshu on February 21, 2008 at 3:28 PM
The NY Times was gonna come up with garbage on whatever candidate became the GOP nominee. All the candidates knew it, including McCain.
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.
funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 3:46 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.
funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Nooo…. that’s called denial.
Jeez
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I’ll back McCain over any more liberal person and the NYT, but I’ll go ahead and turn my back to him so he can stab me in it…again.
SouthernGent on February 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM
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.
Xrlq on February 22, 2008 at 6:44 AM