Social Sense
//The question is, "How is a concern eight years ago relevant today?" Plus, the presence of lobbyists in any congressional office is hardly newsworthy. What is really going on here?//
It isn't.
But when you have nothing solid to run on other than well-written awe inspiring speeches designed to deceive the ignorant masses, you have to tear the other side down to have a chance. When a campaign's supporters cannot come up with one single, solitary achievement of their chosen candidate, they really have no other choice. The Democratic hit machine is alive and well. It seeks to devour that which threatens it with actual accomplishments (for better or worse).
McCain may not be everyone's first choice. But when compared with the almost certain alternative, he smells like a rose. If someone has a career as long as John's, they would have contacts with lobbyists that could be used to extrapolate wild theories and accusations (for the national media to eat up and regurgitate, in a most irresponsible manner).
If all you had was a dream and a wish, well....
I might also add:
Isn't it strange that the day after McCain chastises Obama for wanting to invade an ally, yet wanting to sit down and talk with the President of Iran, this hit piece comes out?
McCain's words must have been strong enough to provoke this response. Not that the piece was written for that purpose (and that purpose alone). But it is the timing that I speak of. McCain throws a hard straight right hand and Obama's surrogates retaliate, below the belt.
I would say, we should all get used to this. But if I am advising McCain, I say:
1)Keep up the straight talk.
2) Don't get over pressed to answer these allegations again, they've already been answered.
3) Stay on message.
In short, he needs to look like the wise old man and let the kids, be kids.
Until this morning, I had not heard of this "scandal" about McCain. I'm trying to avoid hearing too much news these days. All too often the news is speculation, anyway.
In less than an hour McCain is going to hold some kind of press conference. If he denies any "wrongdoing," which I suspect he will, how believable will a denial be? Most people I know--including myself--don't believe politicians' utterances.
//If he denies any "wrongdoing," which I suspect he will, how believable will a denial be?//
Watch his eyes, body language, listen to the tone of his voice, how he places the inflections in his statement.
This story was covered earlier in the campaign, late last year. It didn't grow legs then, it isn't growing any now. There is no evidence to support their claims. Until such time, it's just a hit job to take the focus off of the hope and change rhetoric, which is about as believable as a statement by Pinocchio.
Where's the beef? I read the 4 page article, and it's 85% Keating scandal. Talk about old news. And apparently, there is nothing new to add to the Iseman story that came out 8 years ago, save a couple of juicy comments from anonymous ex-staffers. Yawn. Reads like the gossip column.
If I were McCain, I'd say something like, "Everyone knows that the New York Times has been caught reporting false news repeatedly in the recent past. Why anyone continues to believe what they print is beyond me."
The New Republic is liberal? Are you serious?
Norm Podhoretz is liberal? Mustang, this is where it all goes wrong. If you are going to call The New Republic liberal then you've stripped those labels of all concrete meaning.
How is dialog possible in that environment?
I think that McCain's behavior with someone who had business in front of his committee is quite relevant.
Given McCain's history of adultery and loose ethics it is quite reasonable to believe there is a story here.
Bill Clinton didn't invent sexual peccadilloes and John McCain is hardly free of a record of accepting graft.
Mr. Ducky: I'm not sure what the NRO is ideologically, but, like the NYT, they have a recent history of reporting sensationalist garbage that turned out to be false. Remember the Beauchamp flap? Not surprising that the NYT and NRO are in a spiraling death match to see who can beat who to the punch on reporting old gossip. From now on, any story that relies exclusively on anonymous sources is highly suspect. It's false until proven true.
Ducky:
"The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine published twice per month (published weekly before March 2007) and with a circulation between 40,000 and 65,000. The editor-in-chief is Martin Peretz. The current editor is Franklin Foer. Politically, the magazine supports liberal public policies."
Obviously, I don't know whether or not McCain had sex with Iseman. I suppose by "what the meaning of the word 'is' is" standards, he didn't even deny having had sex with Iseman.
Certainly it'd be a bit rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. It's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career.
That's well known except to the electorate who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's "character" appeal.
Meanwhile, there's all this stuff Salter doesn't deny (because, again, it's true) about McCain's questionable ethics. He wrote "letters to government regulators on behalf of the [Iseman's] client," he "often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support," he resigned as head of a non-profit when "news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor," his Senate office and his campaign are run by corporate lobbyists, etc.
Ducky, I'm curious where "Given McCain's history of adultery and loose ethics" came from. As this story unfolds, there is no basis for a story, either on the issue of a sexual liaison, or on unethical behavior.
Therefore, it is quite UNreasonable to believe there is a story here. Overall, your tone sounds amazingly moralistic for someone who claims to be morally neutral. Not nitpicking . . . its just that I suppose none of us can survive our own bias.
My concern is that cheesy articles do nothing to further a public debate on important issues. News media knows their audience so they are targeting right and center voters who expect public conduct on the same scale as Jesus of Nazareth. I should also not that that the average voter has the memory of a gnat; this NYT tune has already been played. That you and others think this is just fine does tend to make my point about how low our political standards have become.
Sorry Ducky . . . allegations are one thing, proof is something else. Insinuation doesn't win in the court of public opinion. Consequently, it is the NYT under scrutiny today, not McCain. I hope you do not suggest that someone can make an unfounded accusation about you, and everyone on campus will believe it simply because of what someone said. . . Cheesy conduct can be harmful to persons, and apparently the likes of Bill Keller don’t care. I wonder why you’re okay with that.
Even if you argue that McCain is a public figure and “takes his chances,” the lady lobbyist is not a public figure. Is impugning the integrity of people through innuendo and slight of tongue okay with you, sir? I hope it is not. I would hope that you would find offense at such business no matter whom it was directed against.
Mustang, I assume you are aware he cheated on his first wife in order to marry the wealthy beer distributorship heiress who was a kingmaker in Arizona politics.
Keating 5? Remember that one.
McCain ain't no "family values" poster boy.
And no Mustang, I don't think anythings proven, yet (and I smell Huckabee around this story).
Still, muckraking can't be confined to the Clinton's alone.
Off topic aside to an old thread. Why didn't NPR report that the Iraqi bombers had Downes Syndrome? Because they didn't. NPR got the story right.
BAGHDAD - The U.S. military said Wednesday that two women used as suicide bombers in attacks earlier this month had undergone psychiatric treatment but there is no indication they had Down syndrome as Iraqi and U.S. officials initially had claimed.
Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a military spokesman, said the women used in the Feb. 1 pet market bombings had been identified as residents from the northeastern outskirts of Baghdad who were in their late 20s or early 30s.
The two attacks killed nearly 100 people, and Iraqi and U.S. officials said at the time the women appeared to be unwitting attackers.
Ducky,
//and I smell Huckabee around this story).//
I didn't know Huckabee carried such clout at the NYT.
I did watch the McCain press conference today. He looked composed and answered every question put to him, emphatically and without reservation. He looked and sounded presidential.
This may backfire on the Dems if they play this too much over the next few months. Judging from reaction of most decent people, many in high positions have not piled on too much; and the rank and file American will not allow this bit of hackery to sway his/her opinion of McCain, one iota (unless some real proof surfaces).
This is true of Dems and Republicans, alike. The only ones that played this up, were the usual bunch of minor league hacks that care nothing about anything but winning an election.
hiya Mustang...garsh the ole NYSlimes yellow journalists at it again..........maddening isnt it!
Commenting by HaloScan
