Pretty funny.  NYTimes runs a made up story about McCain, while right under their noses, Elliot Spitzer (D), has been bangning hookers for over a decade...Also, right under their noses, the Lt. Governor (D) was busy banging someone other than his wife.  Yet the NY Times was too busy trying to connect the dots on a non story about John McCain (R).  ANd of course we know about Hillary (D).  While she was single handedly flying a C-5 into a storm of sniper bullets in Bosnia on one engine, old Bill (D) was painting a blue dress white....Now that is some fine leadership...

TomW, True! Congress is about the appearance of things, not substance when it comes to visibility.

You got me laughing and that reminded me about Sam Clemen's story about the Cannibals on a train to Chicago.

Katatak, what makes you say that?  If there wqas some kind of morality police running around up there, we'd be 400 reps short of a Congress.

TomW, you must be kidding. She is gone when it comes to lobbying.

FreeCognate, I totally agree on the sexual aspect of the story and and it's impact on the story's placement above the fold.  This is one of the main reasons I said that Americans will never tire of gutter politics.  I think however that this will have no impact on women in politics.  Monica Lewinsky had no impact on women in politics, Mark Foley had no impact on young boys in politics, Larry Craig had no impact on public bathrooms in DC.

Iseman isn't some innocent spring chicken.  If anything the publicity will benefit her firm and she will be well compensated, or rather , better compensated.

TomW, You know better than that. To say a fake is real is preposterous. That story would have carried weight IF they explained the documents were questionable.

But, they said the documents were gospel and that... as the old story goes... became the story.

Katatak, the issue was that Rather and the crew had read the letter to someone who had first hand knowledge of it and she confirmed that it was true.  Essentially, it was a fake copy of a real letter.  The letter was indeed the smoking gun and they only confirmed the contents of the letter rather than confirming the letter itself.

I agree that they should have verified that the letter was the real letter, but every fact involved was absolutely confirmed and verified.

TomW wrote: "Maybe, though they may save themselves if they can link this with McCain's previous romantic life.  I agree on the smoking gun though.  CBS nailed Bush on the TANG story and one bad piece of evidence became the story."

That "one bad piece of evidence" was the lynch pin of the entire story. Rather's producer rejected any qualified statements limiting its value and authenticity and Rather himself went along with it.

This was a huge journalistic blunder that other hard boiled journalists saw through immediately.

Rather should have taken that piece of evidence and couched his phraseology very carefully but in his lust for a great scoop he failed miserably at evidential criteria that is drilled into Journalism 101 students. This was a freshman year mistake of the highest order for someone touting this story as equal to Woodward and Bernstein's efforts in uncovering Watergate.

Keep in mind I like Dan Rather and respect his work so this isn't partisan bashing in any sense.

I want to add one more quote b/c I think it's important.  This is also from CFR Gerson writing as part of the Washington Post Writers Group:

"But the Times did not even make a direct accusation of infidelity. It just implied that about nine years ago something hot and heavy was going on -- reporting that unnamed McCain staffers were concerned about an inappropriate relationship. Without the sexual angle of the story, questionable letters from the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee to regulators would not rate the front page of The New York Times. But the sexual angle is unsubstantiated -- no incriminating poems, no torrid diary entries, no spurned and talkative lover. Raising the prominence of a news story with sexual innuendos is irresponsible -- unless there is more proof to come" (1)

It's important b/c this is not only about McCain but about a woman whose name is totally getting dragged through the mud and the result is to either ridicule her or forget about the impact to her.  No one has answered my concern about  what this sort of news treatment does to women in politics.  Gerson is right, IF Iseman had been a man, this story never would have made the front page.  It's the sexual innuendo unsubstantiated by anything that made it a front page story.  Great job NYT.

(1) http://www.realclearpolitic...

Tomw: Right back at ya.

Correct, Kennard is from the FCC and his quote demonstrates that McCain embarassed him.  McCain's two letters to the FCC did not urge a specific decision; in fact, they both said that he wasn't urging a specific decision.  However, McCain's letters urged the FCC to make a decision.  Good for him.  The FCC had taken over 2 years to consider the topic and done nothing.  Two years is a really long time for even the most inept bureaucracy to make a decision, dontcha think?  Finding out that McCain didn't just accept the fact that the government is slow doesn't seem like a strike against him.

Your comment that McCain finds himself around bad stuff is fair but I'm not sure how one stays in the government for decades without occasionally bumping into bad stuff.  Seems to me like that's not a very good reason to reject him, particularly when the inquiries into his actions don't show wrongdoing.  McCain doesn't seem to care about the politicing and the gossip - he just cares about getting things done - that's been part of his appeal for a long time.   

Saber: I understand that this isn't the place for a PhD dissertation, but quality thought should be an everyday thing.

I've read the Wash Post coverage of the Iseman issue (your first link) and again, it's anon sources, the 2 FCC letters and some spending reports, just like the NYT article.  In fact, the editor of the Washington Post even stated that the two stories used the same sources.  "We were aware of what the Times was doing because we were talking to the same sources," Downie stated. (2)

Note that Weaver wasn't even quoted by the Wash Post, they just explained that he met with Iseman and then the anon aids paraphrased why they met.  I can't help but think that asking Weaver why they met and then reporting that answer would be better for things.  Fortunately, he's responded to the articles and his response is posted on the Washington Post site:

"Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.

I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.

From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm." (1)
 

Notice no romantic link.  No wrongdoing on the part of McCain.  Nothing to suggest that Weaver supported the "substance" of the allegations.

But you use that story to launch into McCain's many other supposed sins involving lobbyists and that's the problem.  You can ballyhoo all you like about McCain and lobbyists but it's not going to come to anything if no one can show that McCain has ever made a political decision to favor the special interests of a lobby.  If the NYT, the Post or anyone else had the goods, it seems like they would have presented it by now.  But, they haven't.   Hmm.

If your point is that the Washington Post's article is better than the NYT, I'll agree with ya.  I've enjoyed seeing the Washington Post criticize the NYT's poor treatment of the story.  Like CFR Gerson saying that "But at this point, it is the Times and not the candidate that should be mortified. If this is all the Times has -- sexual innuendo and anonymous sources -- it really is a scandal" (3)  And Downie's comments about all candidates having ties to lobbyists suggest that he is trying to be honest.  "We had been scrutinizing for sometime the relationship between lobbyists and the candidates. They all have relationships with lobbyists," Downie said. (2) 

 (1)  http://blog.washingtonpost....

 (2) http://www.editorandpublish...

(3) http://www.realclearpolitic...

Free says: "Just a day or two ago, you complimented my husband and I for elevating the level of debate on this blog.  That seemed to me to be a very nice compliment and I appreciated it."

I sincerely meant the kudos and still respect your views and considerable acumen.

Please don't misconstrue my arguments or reluctance to jump through unnecessary evidentiary hoops for you as disrespect, personal insult or anything of that nature.

Pursuant to evidentiary demands, you indeed made several such demands in a previous post. I just don't wish to waste countless hours unnecessarily amassing evidence for each opinion comment posted in a blog. These missives are not feature articles for publication. Writers are paid for those.

This is merely mental masturbation. No one really gives a rat's ass about what we think and rant about here in Bakoblogdom. There's no Pulitzer Prize for this sort of virtual venting.

Anyway, the NYT has been thoroughly bashed for its relatively thin article on McCain's ties to the lady lobbyist, which appears may have suffered from last-minute-before-deadline chainsaw editing, either by line eds or at the copy desk. No biggie. NYT can stand the criticism. They're inured to it.

But you and other critics of the NYT story fail to acknowledge that the Washington Post has been working its own independent story on the same subject and published it on the same day containing essentially the same information from their own protected anonymous sources plus corroboration and attribution to former McCain strategist and confidant John Weaver. There is no indignant outcry that the WPost's story amounts to a scurrilous liberal media attack. You like links, here's a couple for you to read and refute.

http://www.washingtonpost.c... 

The WPost story is followed by even more fully documented, corroborated and attributed information concerning McCain's ties to the 59 lobbyists running his campaign, - some of whom represent clients seeking influence of Commerce Committee members - plus legions of other assorted lobbyists McCain proudly refers to as "friends."

http://www.washingtonpost.c...

It is clear that McCain loves lobbyists. Lobbyists represent special interests. Those people are also campaign donors.

And some people are concerned about the hypocritical appearing incongruency of his lobby romance and anti-lobby reformist stance.

Some are uncomfortable with the picture of a legislator or president surrounded and advised by special influence peddlers.

Contrary to publican Michael's belief that the interest in McCain's more than tangential connection to special interests will just go away, I believe it may dog him for a long time to come.

FreeCognate:  you're very welcome.  You and your husband both are pretty awesome.  OK, back in the ring....

One letter or two letter: the number doesn't matter b/c it's one issue.  Did McCain act inappropriately by writing the letters?  Well, the radio interest group who McCain didn't agree with didn't like it and they get to complain, but to call their "complaint" a "rebuke" really isn't accurate.  I somehow doubt it was the first time that someone disagreed with a Congressperson's decision.  More importantly, the FCC said McCain didn't do anything wrong and that the NYT decided that they would hide that instead of sharing it.

These two points do matter:  The first means that McCain certainly did not get "rebuked" and the second means that the NYT intentionally held back information that should have been in the article in order to push a particular viewpoint and deceive its readers.

Unless I'm reading this very very wrong, Chairman Kennard is the Chairman of the FCC, not an aggrieved party.  The reason tht the second letter is material is because he was pressing the FCC to tell him how they were planning on voting before they voted.  Now, as I've conceeded, he didn't didn't do anything wrong just like he didn't do anything wrong as part of the Keating 5.  It's just that he's in the neighborhood of bad stuff.

Now, let me ask you a question:  What do you do with the 12 instances of McCain acting against the interests of the Lobbyist and her clients?  You can't just throw those away like the NYT did, can you?  No one will say that Bennett is lying.  Bennett seems to have a pretty reasonable answer and he's a good liberal source, right?  So ignoring him won't work and makes the newspaper look worse.  It seems to me that if McCain acted 12 times on the part of interests that didn't square with the Lobbyist and her clients, and once in favor of them, and was cleared of any wrongdoing by the FCC in the one case, then... what's all the hubbub bub? 

I'll have to take a look at the 12 instances you've mentioned.  We know he took over 100,000 from those lobbyists and in the one instance I have details on, he was rebuked.  One fact not discussed here is that his committee chairmanship gave him oversight of the FCC.  Again, no rules were broken and if that's the line we're looking at, then he's technically clean.

So, it's been a couple of hours... has any journalist or group or publication besides the NYT stepped up to say that the NYT story was well written?  That its quality was sufficient to be printed?

Well, if we had a liberal media in the country, I'm sure someone would have.  :)

Publican, you make some good points here:

a) it will get the conservatives to rally for him.

Couldn't agree more.

b) it will take the NYT out of the general election and will make all the MSM skittish about liberal bias

NYT is never out of it.  If they've got something, they'll print it.  As for the MSM being skittish about liberal bias, I think those days may be over.  That card has been played out so far it's pretty much done.

The net effect for McCain will be that there won't be any meaningful "McCain Scandal" stories for the rest of the campaign - because there aren't any solid ones out there and anything without a smoking gun will be quashed by every editor. 

Maybe, though they may save themselves if they can link this with McCain's previous romantic life.  I agree on the smoking gun though.  CBS nailed Bush on the TANG story and one bad piece of evidence became the story.

c) it will kill the lobbyists issue

The next couple of weeks will fully drain the lobbyists influence in Washington story.  McCain will get to establish himself again and again as the guy who always votes his beliefs and the failure to make any lobbyist story stick now will kill them for the general election.

Agreed.

Obama's big advatage, that his inexperience is okay because he isn't influenced by influence just went bye-bye...

Obama's big advantage is that he can get 100s of 1000s of new people to the polls.

d) it will coat squeaky-clean McCain in teflon, converting ethics and character into a McCain issue.

Look, no one serious thinks that "ethics" is an issue to use against McCain:  Clinton has no chance if ethics is the point of comparison and the numerous lapses in Obama's short career will get full coverage only after he gets the nomination.  John McCain just doesn't have those vulnerabilities, despite decades more experience and age than the Democrats.

Hmm, we'll see.  McCain always seems to be in the neighborhood when the crimes are occuring though he'snever been implicated.  His whole anti-lobbyist schtick is based on his near death experience as part of the Keating 5.  As for Obama, I keep hearing that the gates of Hell are going to open once he wins the primaries.  If there was anything, Clinton would have thrown it by now.  You've got a twitch in your eye that says you're drawing to an inside straight.

One way to think about this is that perhaps the NYT is trying to scare the Republicans away from "character" as an issue or perhaps to taint McCain with scandal so that character issues don't matter as much once they inevitably arise.  If either are part of the motivation, then this will do the opposite. 

If this was a character issue, it would work.  Part of the Republican strategy under the guidence of Rove is to attack your opponents streght and to immunize by attacking your opponent for your own weaknesses.  Kerry was attacked on his war record, for example.  If this doesn't stick, no one can use character for the rest of the election.

McCain looks like the victim of an obvious and clumsy smear, he clears his name over the next couple of weeks and, in the public mind becomes squeaky clean.  That leaves McCain an open field on ethics and character issues once a Democrat gets the nomination. 

Agreed.

Just a huge blunder by the NYT ideologues and one giant step for President McCain.

By NYT ideologues, I assume you don't mean Judith Miller et al.  :)

Your debate tactic of demanding reams of evidence to support innumerable minor points - presumably to place and keep your opponent on the defensive wating half a lifetime on trivia - might do well with others but I'll concede the argument long before needlessly wasting countless hours laboring over a blog opinion piece offering a few facts which could be easily stipulated.

That seems to me an unfair characterization of my position.  Just a day or two ago, you complimented my husband and I for elevating the level of debate on this blog.  That seemed to me to be a very nice compliment and I appreciated it.

I work very hard to develop my opinions about issues through a considered review of the available evidence.  When i disagree with folks, i try to explain my argument and provide reasons and evidence behind my reasoning.  I'd like for you to do the same b/c I believe that such conversations produce the best outcomes.  If you don't want to do so, that's your choice, of course. 

However, I didn't ask for reams of evidence either.  You said that "There actually is more than innuendo and baseless assertion behind this story.  An abundance of material is available."  I didn't think that you were correct but if you were, I wanted to read it.  I'd still like to, but if you don't want to provide links, then I'm left to my own resources, and I have not found any "abundance of material" to support the story. 

And yes, the journalist does have a duty to provide evidence to support the testimony of the "anon sources."  The ombudsman of the NYT agreed with me too.  The alternative is giving anyone with a grudge a blank check to lie under the umbrella of anonymity. 

Fact: McCain took contributions and other perks from Iseman's clients and worked on their behalf wielding his considerable senatorial influence.

Hmm... That seems like painting on a canvas with a roller instead of a brush.  How about considering these facts:

McCain made approximately 12 decisions that were against the interests of the the lobbyist and her client.  McCain made 1 decision that favored the interests of the lobbying and her client.  That decision involved 2 letters.  The 2nd letter specifically stated that McCain wasn't pushing for a specific decision but that he wanted a decision made - the FCC had taken over 800 days to make a decision when its standard to take about 400 days.  Was McCain wrong to send that 2nd letter?  Should he as a political leader just ignore the fact that the FCC wasn't doing anything?  Should he as a Senator tell his consistute to leave him alone and just wait for the decision?  I expect that neither you nor I would accept a Senator doing that and I think it's good for a political leader to try to stop the bureaucracy of the system from getting bogged down. 

I have posted links to confirm every fact presented in the prior paragraph.  Of course, none of that nuance was reported by the NYT b/c the facts don't fit within their desire to sell papers.  That's why I think we should question and research and compile information from different sources and confirm the data instead of just relying upon 1 poorly researched story from a biased news source. 

Concerning Iseman and your contention that she has been unfairly denigrated and her reputation sullied, she got herself into the sleazy lobby business of hustling political influence. Whatever the results of that endeavor are of her own making. I'm sure she was well paid for her efforts. But now she has to again deal with the scrutiny. Too bad. Sorry Jessica, the poor aggrieved woman sob story doesn't fly in her case. It would be no different were she a male. Being in private sector business, Iseman does not fall into the category of public public figure. If she has a case meriting compensation for damages as result of libel, she can sue.

I won't speak for Iseman or her feelings.  Only she can do that.

But I wish you would think about the consequences of what you are saying. Of course it would be different if she were male.  If Iseman were a man, she wouldn't have people judging her according to her looks or pretending to be shocked by the combination of a pretty woman with a brain.  If she were a man, she wouldn't have to read articles suggesting that she had a romantic relationship with a married man.  If she were a man, the NYT story wouldn't have featured a picture of her in a slinky dress that accentuates her youth and attractiveness rather than one in a suit (her more likely daily choice of attire) that shows her professionalism.  Women walk a fine line in the professional realm and this story's treatment of Iseman seems rather poor.   

Personally, I'd like to consider a position within the political or public realm someday and your comments worry me.  It seems that I shouldn't consider a career in politics or law or some other occupation that some people don't like b/c if i do, then I assume and arguably deserve any denigration of my name based upon the flimsiest evidence.  My husband should be prepared to see stories about his wife having improper relationships if I have a friendship with a man in a position of power.  How is that an acceptable way to view the situation? 

Why doesn't it lead to exactly the arguments that I stated?   Rational male politicians, who still hold the majority of the positions of power within government, shouldn't want female aids, female partners, female advisors, b/c if they do, complete jerks with no integrity will insinuate improper relationships, generating potentially career - ending scandals.  Just hire men and avoid the trouble.   

And I disagree with you about the libel suit.  First, the US Supreme Court has made it tough to win cases against the media.  The standard of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" makes it very tough to win a case.  The NYT would say it focused on McCain and Iseman gets pushed to the side as just "that blond" that no one really cares about anyway.  She's expendable and she should be able to bound back professionally.  Second, the NYT did such a nice job with their story... they made sure not to actually accuse Iseman of wrong doing, they just published rumors about her lack of professionalism and inappropriate relationship without actually making a clear accusation. 

But perhaps most importantly, winning a court case doesn't fix it - having one's reputation impugned is a hell of a lot more important than some fixed sum of money that might be rewarded after a grueling legal suit that would no doubt take years and lots of resources.  So, yes, we should question and criticize the NYT article so this kind of poor journalistic ethic doesn't become the norm. 

Kat says: "saber, Your tortured comment concluded when you wrote this: "I'll concede the argument..." You conceded. Why bother with the rest of it?"

It's obvious that I didn't concede.

I said I'll concede an argument before wasting an inordinate amount of time in pursuit of needless evidence to prove trivial, stipulatable points.

I didn't waste the time, therefore I didn't concede.

I did waste a few minutes, however, explaining the obvious to you, who obviously missed the obvious meaning of my statement.

Tortured? Huh?

saber, Your tortured comment concluded when you wrote this: "I'll concede the argument..."

You conceded.

Why bother with the rest of it?

Free says: "There was no independent group of writers working for someone else who published the story at the same time."

According to Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post worked their own story and released it at the same time as NYT but with names and attribution. www.washingtonpost.com

"I can't wait to see your "evidence"......

Your debate tactic of demanding reams of evidence to support innumerable minor points - presumably to place and keep your opponent on the defensive wasting half a lifetime on pursuit of trivia - might do well with others but I'll concede the argument long before needlessly wasting countless hours laboring over a blog opinion piece offering a few facts which could be easily stipulated.

It's pretty slick how you attempt to place the burden of proof on the journalist, or in this case me when it should be the other way around. But I'm not going to acquiesce to a bunch of senseless demands for evidence to prove stipulatable points.

For example, at least part of McCain's publicly visible dealings with Iseman's clients are available in filed campaign contribution reports wherein the amounts McCain received and from whom are recorded. Same with the Keating affair.

The campaign contribution records reveal that McCain accepted donations from Iseman's clients while he chaired a senate committee dealing with matters of interest to those entities. You want the evidence? Go check it out yourself and prove me wrong. Even if I were to bring the evidence to the table you would find a way to dismiss it. I am not interested in playing that inane game.

Fact: McCain took contributions and other perks from Iseman's clients and worked on their behalf wielding his considerable senatorial influence.

You are welcome to refute it. I can't wait to see evidence you produce disproving that fact.

Concerning Iseman and your contention that she has been unfairly denigrated and her reputation sullied, she got herself into the sleazy lobby business of hustling political influence. Whatever the results of that endeavor are of her own making. I'm sure she was well paid for her efforts. But now she has to again deal with the scrutiny. Too bad. Sorry Jessica, the poor aggrieved woman sob story doesn't fly in her case. It would be no different were she a male.

Being in private sector business, Iseman does not fall into the category of public figure. If she has a case meriting compensation for damages as result of libel, she can sue.

Well Doc, the Craig thing is not gay bashing, it's hypocrite bashing. His gayness has no bearing, but he has been a public opponent of homosexuality. Anybody that has sex with a stranger in a public bathroom, gay or straight, deserves ridicule. I don't condone cheating on your wife, but you will have to put Clinton and McCain in the same group with Jefferson, F.D.R., J.F.K, Johnson, Eisenhower etc etc etc.

So now that you have stated that it is not a sign of integrity (and right you are), and it becomes apparent that the cheating was in fact true, are ya gonna vote for Obama? LOL

One giant step for President McCain.  4 reasons:

a) it will get the conservatives to rally for him.

It's already started and big.  All day for talk radio and it will dominate Fox tonight.  That's because no matter how unhappy they are with McCain, they despise the New York Slimes.  Did you see Hannity last night?  That bag of rocks was jolting over to defend McCain after months of barely concealed spite just because the left mainslime media was smearing him.  That sort of commitment just wasn't going to happen unless Hillary herself attacked McCain.  For conservatives who were looking for an excuse to change their tune about McCain, this was exactly what they needed.  Did you see Buchanan on MSNBC this morning?  That clown despises McCain, but there he was, turning purple with indignation at what the NYT had done...

b) it will take the NYT out of the general election and will make all the MSM skittish about liberal bias

The McCain campaign will make this really, really painful for the NYT and the WP.  If either paper had anything worth anything, it would have already come out, which means they have squat to back up their innuendo.  That means McCain, with the help of Iseman and Weaver and McCain's wife will roast them alive over the next 2 weeks.   It's just obvious that the rest of the mainstream media is sallivating to help them do it:  MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Time, Newsweek, and nearly all the pundits have already expressed their outrage at the NYT and WP shoddiness.  None of them have any love for the Gray Lady and this is their chance to earn their journalistic chops.  The next couple of weeks are going to kill what little is left of Keller's reputation as everyone piles on... look for the NYT ombudsman to write a scathing rebuke of the paper in the next few days.  The WP won't take nearly the same hit but they will be left bloody too. 

The net effect for McCain will be that there won't be any meaningful "McCain Scandal" stories for the rest of the campaign - because there aren't any solid ones out there and anything without a smoking gun will be quashed by every editor. 

c) it will kill the lobbyists issue

The next couple of weeks will fully drain the lobbyists influence in Washington story.  McCain will get to establish himself again and again as the guy who always votes his beliefs and the failure to make any lobbyist story stick now will kill them for the general election.

Obama's big advatage, that his inexperience is okay because he isn't influenced by influence just went bye-bye...

d) it will coat squeaky-clean McCain in teflon, converting ethics and character into a McCain issue.

Look, no one serious thinks that "ethics" is an issue to use against McCain:  Clinton has no chance if ethics is the point of comparison and the numerous lapses in Obama's short career will get full coverage only after he gets the nomination.  John McCain just doesn't have those vulnerabilities, despite decades more experience and age than the Democrats.

One way to think about this is that perhaps the NYT is trying to scare the Republicans away from "character" as an issue or perhaps to taint McCain with scandal so that character issues don't matter as much once they inevitably arise.  If either are part of the motivation, then this will do the opposite. 

McCain looks like the victim of an obvious and clumsy smear, he clears his name over the next couple of weeks and, in the public mind becomes squeaky clean.  That leaves McCain an open field on ethics and character issues once a Democrat gets the nomination. 

Just a huge blunder by the NYT ideologues and one giant step for President McCain.

You've made some great points, FreeCognate. 

Tomw:  Interesting point (thank you for the compliment) but I'd counter your counter by saying that I don't think you actually make your point.

One letter or two letter: the number doesn't matter b/c it's one issue.  Did McCain act inappropriately by writing the letters?  Well, the radio interest group who McCain didn't agree with didn't like it and they get to complain, but to call their "complaint" a "rebuke" really isn't accurate.  I somehow doubt it was the first time that someone disagreed with a Congressperson's decision.  More importantly, the FCC said McCain didn't do anything wrong and that the NYT decided that they would hide that instead of sharing it.

These two points do matter:  The first means that McCain certainly did not get "rebuked" and the second means that the NYT intentionally held back information that should have been in the article in order to push a particular viewpoint and decieve its readers.

Now, let me ask you a question:  What do you do with the 12 instances of McCain acting against the interests of the Lobbyist and her clients?  You can't just throw those away like the NYT did, can you?  No one will say that Bennett is lying.  Bennett seems to have a pretty reasonable answer and he's a good liberal source, right?  So ignoring him won't work and makes the newspaper look worse.  It seems to me that if McCain acted 12 times on the part of interests that didn't square with the Lobbyist and her clients, and once in favor of them, and was cleared of any wrongdoing by the FCC in the one case, then... what's all the hubbub bub? 

So, it's been a couple of hours... has any journalist or group or publication besides the NYT stepped up to say that the NYT story was well written?  That its quality was sufficient to be printed? 

I'm more concerned about the lobbyist part than the cheating.

This sounds so familiar.  It reminds me of the Republicans who said they more concerned about Clinton lying under oath than about the affair. 

The fact is, nobody would care if there wasn't anything juicy about it. 

A lotta presidents have cheated, and many of them viewed as having much more integrity than Clinton or McCain.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  1000 wrongs don't make a right.  And though no politician is perfect, cheating on your wife is never a sign of integrity. 

Hey, at least it wasn't in a bathroom stall.......maybe.

I'm not suggesting that your comment is "gay-bashing," and I would never even attempt to defend the indefensible, but I will say that I've never come across so many gay-bashing comments coming from Democrats as when this whole Craig scandal broke out.  Not necessarily here, but at other blog sites. 

in case some of you are having a hard time figuring it out:

the "conservatives defending McCain" are really just proving a point

it has something to to with geese and what's "good"

its not simply the "knee jerk" defense paradigm you might be thinking is taking place.........

(BTW sfinboston  "paradigm" is not 20 cents)

totally agree RF & LOL!!  Somehow the "private" part got away from whomever is being a 'player'!  I feel I know what Michelle Obama was saying and the media and others need to stop the nit picking!  Unless using some really foul language or words, I do not feel an "explaination" is necessary - and maybe not even then!!!  Hell I drop the F-bomb when pushed to the wall!!!  Are politicians and their families not human?? I know, I know, they are in the public eye and thus subject to more scrutiny - blah blah blah!  nit picking should be banned!!!!!

Right, the paper shows a lack of integrity when it's about a Republican. The conservatives NEVER went after Clinton.

I'm more concerned about the lobbyist part than the cheating. A lotta presidents have cheated, and many of them viewed as having much more integrity than Clinton or McCain. Hey, at least it wasn't in a bathroom stall.......maybe.

They *DID* keep it private.  Do you think Clinton called up the New York Times to brag?

.

I, too, am interested in issues.  Every moment spent discussing Obama's wife's pride takes away from that.

.

There's a similar reason I'll never run for public office...

RF:  I just read your comment back to me yesterday! 

I don't think anybody should be 'railroaded' regarding what they do in private - and I'm no clinton fan.  However - they should keep it private!!! We are ALL human and subject to error.  I do not feel any part of one's private life should be fodder for the media.  God forbid MY private life make to the front page!!  Probably make Clinton look like a kid in kindergarden stealing a kiss in the sand box!!!!!

I want to know how the political person feels/deals with current issues and how he/she will try to 'fix' this country.

Oh, the Republican endorsement would be tossed out if it reached court. 

One could argue that their news decisions on such things as delaying this story and delaying the story on Bush's illegal wiretapping projects shows a bias in favor of Republicans.  It *WAS* argued that the NYT endorsement of McCain in the primary was intended to harm him.  Perhaps they've been secretly intending to help the Republicans all along.

Yup. She's danged if she does and danged if she doesn't.

Wonderful!

Robb, I think the ratings will be ok, it's just that the national media won't be running clips unless Hillary really goes at him.  She's got a real problem though because if she goes hard negative, she's done.

FreeCognate, first lemme stop and say you're really good at this.  Very nicely done.

Now, I'm going to counter by saying that a rebuke is not the same as having committed a violation.  We know for a fact that McCain wrote two letters, not one to the FCC and that the FCC responded to McCain by saying in part: http://www.cipbonline.org/p...

Kennard responded to McCain's letter by saying, "It is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending." He said such inquiries "could have procedural and substantive impacts on the Commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties."

I'm not saying McCain broke the law.  I'm saying that he took unusual action on behalf of people who donated a lot of money to his campaign.

Hey Tom,

I'm sure tonight's debate will get low ratings, but I can't wait. Clinton has to get down and dirty. Could be some fireworks. 

RF:  We all know that the case would be tossed out if it included the NYT.  What about that Republican endorsement?

Tomw: I agree; i don't really care about it in the context of the campaign.  It's funny that the conservatives are stepping up to defend McCain from the evil that is the NYT, however. 

I just don't like it b/c it's such a demonstration of low standards.  This is a major newspaper.  Integrity is a good thing. 

FreeCognate, from a Republican strategist point of view, this release timing does the least possible damage to McCain.  There are multiple sources working this story and it probably would have come out anyway.  If there's no meat here, it'll be gone by Monday and be a done deal before the general.

On a side note, I think this story also helps Obama for a number of reasons, first because it reminds people of Bill and secondly because the debates tonight will get less coverage.  Not that Obama won't do well, just that being in the lead, all he has to do is maintain.

You will note, FC, that the NYT is *NOT* a party to that case.  And it would be tossed out if they were.

.

But, since John McCain and Larry Craig worked together on immigration issues , perhaps it would be nice if the Senate were to censure him as well.

Tomw: We still know McCain was rebuked for interfering with FCC deliberations on behalf of one of Iseman's clients. 

Looks like we don't know that either:  Lanny Davis points out that the FCC didn't find a violation by McCain.... NYT blows...

"One final fact: Opponents of the transaction filed a complaint against Senator McCain for violating the ex parte rule as a result of the letter that he sent, even the letter expressly asked only for status and expedited review, and took not position on the merits.

The FCC investigated the matter and found no violation by Senator McCain. That fact was also omitted from both the Times and the Post story today." (1)

Doh!

(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

One can be tempted without it being a matter of loyalty.  One can entertain the idea of having an affair, without it necessarily being a matter of loyalty.  And the male sex drive is overwhelmingly and even seemingly unbearably strong at times.  I'll give you that. 

But it takes a number of deliberate steps, involving careful planning and the careful execution of the plan to actually become engaged in an affair.  There are plenty of opportunities between the temptation and the actualization of the fantasy to assert one's loyalty. 

I dunno, Doc, some guys are pretty horny. For them, I don't think disloyalty is a factor, an afterthought maybe.

See, the problem with that is the tendency to say *AFTER THE DAMAGE IS DONE* that "we should have been more forgiving."  Until the next lynching (of a Democrat, that is.)

.

So, by your argument McCain is capable of being unfaithful to the public and betraying the public's trust.  The public ought to know about that before they vote for the next President.

I think we should have been more forgiving with Clinton, and I think, if this is true, and he owns up to it, we should also be forgiving of McCain.  On the other hand, I can't accept the argument that what one does behind closed doors is irrelevant as it concerns the Oral Office, or rather, the Oval Office.  It's a character issue. 

If one is unfaithful to one's wife, one is capable of being unfaithful to the public, and betraying the public's trust just as one betrays the trust of one's wife.  It is not sexual drive that drives one to become unfaithful, it is disloyalty.  Disloyalty, if it has developed into a pattern, is a deep character flaw that should not be automatically shrugged off or causually dismissed as irrelevant to the duties of the highest office in the land. 

Perhaps the evidence for that "other senator" was fabricated, FC.

.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and enjoying the schadenfreude in the meantime.

oh, and speaking of the NYT screwing up a case, it looks like the guys from the lacrosse team are filing a lawsuit:

http://www.usatoday.com/spo...

it would be nice if the NYT was named.

Tomw:  i honestly don't think it's about setting a level.  i didn't care when it was clinton and i don't think i'd care much about it now if not for the total lack of evidence in that story. 

Editor in Chief Zuckerman for US News and World Report on the News just explained my sort of shocked response to this story:  "It's not to fit to print in my judgment.  There is not enough evidence to justify the story... I really don't think that it rises to that level... I just don't think that it rises to the sort of level that should be published by the New York Times... Neither the NYT nor any responsible paper was willing to do this when another senator was suspected to be involved...."

I would try to type more but i'm not that fast. 

RF:  We all know that we all know is the bestest kind of argument.   i shall call it: the appeal to we all know.  Can you think of a Republican endorsed by the NYT... ever?  or shall we leave it to... "we all know."

McLovin cracks me up.  Saw Superbad just a couple of days ago. 

Funny how a briber, I mean lobbyist, can a get a politician in trouble for going the "extra mile." If she had just been "doing" her 9-5 bribing, I mean lobbying, this would be a dog-bites-man story.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" 
 

There is a certain something to the term, especially in this case.  Anyone else notice how the press releases deny a "romantic" relationship?  Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think people care if he bought her scented soap and flowers or told her how that shirt made her eyes look really pretty.

Yiddish is *SO* precise for these matters...

Chico, agree with you on "porking".  If we can all settle on the term "schtuping", I think we'll be better off.  :)

FC, "we all know" is a poor line of argument.  It's the one that was used against the Clintons until they were exonerated.

.

But if Jayson Blair wrote the McLovin story for the Times, then perhaps I *SHOULD* be concerned.  Did he?  Or was it a number of well-respected reporters?

So FreeCognate, what level of proof is required for these people to publish?  Let's say for instance that the sexual part of the story is untrue.  We still know McCain was rebuked for interfering with FCC deliberations on behalf of one of Iseman's clients.  We know that there have been other issues where McCain has acted aggressively on behalf of her clients.

As for Iseman, I think she got good results with McCain for her clients.  No one in Washington is a saint and I think her results matter more to her clients than her methods, whatever those methods may have been.  What I'm not buying is that she's a poor, helpless woman whose good name is being besmirched by the big evil liberal media.

Lastly, I see your point about the "hussy" line. For myself, I've never used the term "hussy" except in jest, but I'm pulling it out of the earlier comment because I see where you're coming from.