That McCain Stuff
At this point, I can't get too worked up over The New York Times McCain story, which was also picked up by the Washington Post. Sure, there might be something there, but if there is, the Times didn't have it. What was the story? Really, there were a couple. The one that's getting the heat is the possible affair, but the stress has to be on possible. All they were really prepared to publish was that some of McCain's advisors eight years ago thought he might've been having one. That's it? They were speculating about it eight years ago? The second part of the story is still speculation, but at least it has a bit more substance: Was McCain's relationship with this lobbyist, Vicki Iseman--regardless of whether there was an affair or not--lead to undue influence with the senator? Did she get any special favors? This could actually be significant, but without the suggestion of sex, no one would care.
McCain may have misstepped in his press conference when he denied, denied, denied. He seemed blissfully unaware of a subject that his campaign seems to have been desperately trying to quash for a couple of months. Overstepping the response in a situation like this can often provide a key into whatever the truth of the accusation really is. I suspect that there's more to come and it will trickle out. Journalistic standards have gone far enough down these days that I'm not absolutely confident that the Times has more than they printed, but I'd be surprised if the paper didn't. There's simply not enough on which to hang a front-page story. But we've got nothing else we can do about it for the moment but to be patient and wait.
posted by Doug @ 2:49 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I didn't think much of the "sex" angle. I thought, and continue to think the meat of the matter is, and will be, the ethics issues raised. These questions, lightly touched on in the article, should get a deeper dig - especially since his campaign is chock-full of lobbyists.
I think McCain went into DenyDenyDeny mode because he has his finger on the Beltway writer's pulse. They like him, don't want to see him done dirt, so they won't actually dig - especially if the sex isn't there.
Josh Marshall wrote that the story read like the "meat" had been "lawyered out." It made me wonder what *that* was.
I'm kind of surprised no one's picked up on the net neutrality angle. She's a telcom lobbyist he was chair of the commerce committee.
Jim: I think you're right. McCain can deny because he knows that in the current climate (and Wednesday's bombshell doesn't seem to have done that much to change it) nobody's going to challenge him. He knows what he can get away with. And I agree with Marshall--there's got to be more to this that the Times's legal team is afraid to put into print.
Dirk: The problem with the Times piece is that it doesn't do much more than stir the pot. Where might there be meat to these allegations? Net neutrality is certainly a possibility, but it will take time to bubble to the surface. It's all so vague that there's no indications of which details might be juicy. You've pretty much written all there is to say about the subject until somebody does some digging and comes up with some sort of substance.
I think you're right about that one. Something about the Times piece just struck me as chum in the water. The water in this instance being bloggers and other news organizations.
I wonder what they have?
I thought a bit part of this was simply that McCain and his staff have differing ideas about how he should act--how careful he needs to be, whether he's a loose cannon, etc. That, to me, is the real story.
Post a Comment
<< Home