home

My View: The NYTimes Becomes The National Enquirer

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

My thoughts on the NYTimes story on John McCain (Jeralyn writes about it here) are summed up in my headline. More extensive thoughts below the fold.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

This is irresponsible, even despicable "journalism." Anonymous sources say THEY feared there was a romantic relationship 8 years ago? Suppose for a second, this is relevant, how could you possibly run this with just that? A responsible news organization would not.

But it gets worse.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship.

The two principals flatly denied the existence of a romantic relationship. No one has first hand knowledge or evidence or even can say - yes there was a romantic relationship. A responsible news organization could not possibly run this story.

What of the rest of the story? I do not know. The egregious tabloid journalism practiced by Bill Keller and the New York Times makes the rest of the article seem superfluous.

And let me make this perfectly clear, I do not care if John McCain slept with 20 women. That is between McCain, his wife and his conscience. It has nothing to do with the public. I said that about Bill Clinton. I say it now about John McCain.

During the 1990s, the tabloid press was the first stop to writing about Bill Clinton's sex life. It was "out there" was the mainstream press's excuse for writing about it. Since then, no barriers exist. And now, the Paper of Record, the New York Times, has pushed us to a new low.

There is no place lower to go. We have no responsible press anymore.

< Texas May Be Hillary's Last Chance | McCain Slams NY Times Article Linking Him to Female Lobbyist >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:41:00 PM EST
    Remember the lesson of impeachment: that killed Republicans in the northeastern suburbs for who knows how long.

    Whatever did you do to so irritate (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:34:21 PM EST
    the DKers?  I just dropped into Kos's "Whitewater" piece, but the comments got off track really quickly.  Which is worse, anyhow, you or Whitewater?

    Parent
    off topic! (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    Absolutely. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:46:06 PM EST
    But, as we learned this a.m., TL doesn't yet have a night watch person.  Don't make me read all 500 comments!

    Parent
    What is this (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    "responsible news organization" of which you speak?

    I vaguely recall there was something like that once...before Iraq...

    Just remember, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:53:31 PM EST
    McCain voted to convict Clinton at his impeachment trial.

    Karma.

    And because he is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:57:24 PM EST
    Karma for the entire Republican party.

    Parent
    And that's why the sex angle (none / 0) (#69)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:35:25 PM EST
    is relevant.

    H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

    Parent

    The phrase that comes to mind, of course, is (none / 0) (#2)
    by phat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    "it would be irresponsible of us not to speculate."

    phat

    Remember the Monica Lewinsky scandal (none / 0) (#3)
    by maritza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    started similar to this with a Newsweek article.

    I wonder if there is more to this story.

    It's none of our business though. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    Remember when the shoe is on the other foot. My boss during the Lewinsky stuff was from another country and he said "you Americans are so foolish sometimes".

    Parent
    That is true (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:13:45 PM EST
    but read Jeralyn's take on this: It isn't the sex, it's the influence. McCain had made some decisions based on a close relationship with a lobbyist. So much for Straight-talk.

    Of course, it isn't illegal, but it will expose him to a lot of crap he otherwise would not have gotten. I feel a little more hopeful for an Obama GE campaign now.

    Parent

    After reading all four pages, what is new (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    exactly? He wrote about it in his book if I'm reading the last page correctly.

    If there's anything too bad, I can't believe the Bush campaign didn't make sure this was known if the "relationship" was during the 2000 primary. Maybe they didn't know or maybe the Times is reaching now.

    It seems the Times is trying to create a story out of old news here. And we wonder why so many decent people won't enter politics.

    What of the rest of the story? (none / 0) (#5)
    by robrecht on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:52:42 PM EST
    "What of the rest of the story? I do not know. The egregious tabloid journalism practiced by Bill Keller and the New York Times makes the rest of the article seem superfluous."

    The rest of the article does  not seem superfluous.

    You think not? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    Watch and see how much followup it gets.

    Parent
    I'm withholding judgment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    This isn't about sex, it's about his casting himself as an ethics reformer when he has engaged in conduct that shows differently. Read the whole 4 page article. The hook is that she was a lobbyist, whose clients had business before his committee. He flew on the corporate jet of one of them.

    I don't know why they ran with it today, how long they've been sitting on it or whether there's more.  

    The Times doesn't run stuff like this normally, I suspect there is more but we'll know soon.

    Hopefull, all the candidates will stay away from it.

    If it is NOT about sex (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    then do NOT put the sex in the story.

    Pretty simple.

    Parent

    there were no sex allegations (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:59:30 PM EST
    there was a statement that his aides suspected they had a romantic relationship and both denied it. It's  relevant to the reasons his aides were concerned the woman's access to him would lead to tarnishing his record as a reformer -- because her clients had business before his committee.

    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:01:45 PM EST
    Sure Jeralyn. That is in the story WHY?

    We simply disagree on this.

    Parent

    So what? (none / 0) (#27)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:12:57 PM EST
    It's an unseemly fact that was revealed by the NYT.  It's not Jeralyn's duty to limit the damage done to McCain.  She's not out there hitting McCain below the belt.  There is no need for Democrats to sweep the unseemly back up under the rug.  It's not their job.  It's not democrats fault that McCain got hit once when Democrats have been hit far worse far more often.  So don't ever forget that Republicans have benefited from this slime.  Once again.  Spare me the outrage.  I agree it's bad journalism but let's keep a little perspective here.

    Next thing you know the Democrats will be voting on the Senate floor a bill to sanctify the marriage of St. McCain.  

    Parent

    I am not talking about Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    I am talking about the NYTimes.

    I am talking about irresponsible journalism.

    Parent

    My question is (none / 0) (#93)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:13:01 AM EST
    why now? The Times supposedly has had this information for awhile so why wait until McCain pretty much has the nomination sewn up to put it out? If they think people have a need to know this stuff, then they should have known it BEFORE they voted.
    This behavior is what a lot of Hillary supporters have been complaining. The media is only now starting to vet Obama when he is well on his way to getting the nomination. This makes absolutely no sense. Is the media playing a game of gotcha with the voters?
    I urge everyone to email the Times' ombudsman and complain about their irresponsible journalism.

    Parent
    Just found the answer (none / 0) (#97)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:27:03 AM EST
    to my question. According to Taylor Marsh the New Republic has an article about the Times holding off on this story and the infighting about it. Guess the Times decided to run with it before the NR came out. Very strange.
    Of course, if it had been Bill Clinton.....

    Parent
    Its the quid pro quo (none / 0) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM EST
    that matters, not the specific quid and quo.

    Did he do favors for Ms Iseman? If he did the favors for cash, you would be all over it. The only question that matters is did he do favors for Ms. Iseman and did he get any quo in return?  

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    You folks keep pretending that is the "story."

    If ALL that is true, then do NOT include the "romantic relationship rumors."

    Parent

    In fairness you have to explain the quo (none / 0) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:05:33 PM EST
    otherwise the story is McCain did a favor. So what. McCain did a favor was paid for it is a different story.

    So did he do any favors for Ms. Iseman? If he did was it out of the kindness of his heart?

    Parent

    Is the allegation (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    these were sexual favors?

    Now that I did not get that at all.

    Indeed, I deny that is the alleged quo.

    Parent

    According to the article, yes, McCain. who (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    was chair of the Senate communications committee, acted favorably toward Ms. Iseman's client, a telecommunications company.

    Parent
    In exchange for sex? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:12:16 PM EST
    Is that REALLY the allaegation?

    Is is NOT.

    this is sophistry.

    Parent

    Maybe I am more cynical than you (none / 0) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:21:56 PM EST
    I don't know that it was as crass as you put it, though it certainly lends itself to such crass charges. It could be an older man made a fool out of himself over a younger woman. In order to impress her, he did a couple of favors. Its not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before.

    That would be a breach of ethics, using his position to do favors to gain favor.  

    I withhold judgment until all the facts are in. But the questions have to be asked now that the story is out. If I were the editor, I would like to think I wouldn't do the story without solid proof.

    Parent

    There is no a shred of evidence (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    presented that supports that charge.

    It is irresponsible journalism to run that.

    I say they did not run THAT STORY.

    Parent

    You may be right as to the NY times motivation (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:29:02 PM EST
    I presume the story was done in good faith. If not we are screwed- because it will become the left has Borked McCain.  

    Now that the story is out there, the voters deserve the truth. And so does McCain.

    Parent

    The voters don't deserve anything in regards (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:35:25 PM EST
    to John McCain's sex life nor anyone else's.  That's pure BS.

    Parent
    Not his sex life (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:47:04 PM EST
    only whether or not he did favors to gain favors. The sex is incidental.  As I said he would not be the first older man to make a fool out of himself with a younger woman. 8 years ago he was a media darling at the top of his game. His ego must have been at an all time high then.You think there is no way a little flirting didn't go to his head and he did a favor or some favors for her clients to impress her? And if he did, you don't think that is a breach of public trust?

    Parent
    It may or may not be a (none / 0) (#65)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:16:53 PM EST
    breach of public trust.  If it was, there's not one iota of proof in that story.  That story led with the sex because it was the "real" angle.


    Parent
    not for sex (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:35:29 PM EST
    but because of their personal relationship -- it could have been a male or a female -- she was a personal friend and he did a favor for her client and flew on her client's corporate jet when the client had business before his committee. It puts it in context.

    Parent
    We disagree (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:41:46 PM EST
    I do not buy that for a moment.

    Parent
    I highly doubt (none / 0) (#74)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:18:43 PM EST
    that this story would exist if the lobbyist was a man, unless they were found in a bathroom stall together. ;-)

    One has to wonder if this had come out during a McCain campaign against Hillary, how would she have acted towards it? I'm guessing she'd rightfully deplore it.

    Parent

    McCain in Bed with Lobbyists (none / 0) (#18)
    by robrecht on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    The campaign's fear of a romantic relationship illustrates how close the relationship was.  You cannot ignore that part of the story.

    Parent
    I must ignore it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM EST
    as the story itself forces me to with its irresponsible allegations.

    Parent
    If you read the entire four pages, (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    you would learn McCain's associates were worried about the appearance of impropriety due to the fact he was in a Presidential primary campaign, was emphasizing his part in ethics reform, and, even after Keating 5, was embarrassed by his pulling strings on behalf of Ms. Iseman's client with the FCC.  

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    the story is about the sex, and ALL OF YOU know it and are pretending like it is not.

    Would the story have been about all the tings you folks want to talk about? sure. IF the sex was NOTin the story.

    Now the story is ALL ABOUT the sex and pretending it is not is just plain silly.

    Parent

    I think you watch too much TV. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:32:37 PM EST
    Read the story.  

    Parent
    I Don't Watch Any TV (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST
    And this story is dripping with sexual innuendo. Almost every paragraph

    "He is essentially an honorable person," said William P. Cheshire, a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. "But he can be imprudent."

    Mr. Cheshire added, "That imprudence or recklessness may be part of why he was not more astute about the risks he was running with this shady operator," Charles Keating, whose ties to Mr. McCain and four other lawmakers tainted their reputations in the savings and loan debacle.

    and

    A drive to expunge the stain on his reputation in time turned into a zeal to cleanse Washington as well.

    Mr. McCain's friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.

    Mr. McCain's confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

     One recalled asking, "Why is she always around?"

     Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.

     ...

    placing the nation's interests before either personal or special interest,

    "her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us." He declined to elaborate.

    "I never had any good reason to think that the relationship was anything other than professional

    And on and on....

    Parent

    I couldn't agree more! (none / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:34:10 PM EST
    Jeralyn, if its not about sex, my suggestion is (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    change the title of your post.  

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:07:24 PM EST
    and it's not Jeralyn's fault that the NYT interjected the sex angle.  There is a lobbyist/ethics issue that should be pursued.  That's all well and good that the republicans are finally concerned about journalistic standards . . . we democrats should welcome them to the table.  But come on.  There are very few republicans that lecure us on sex, media, and politics with a straight face.

    The republicans would have hired a special prosecutor if McCain's name was Clinton.  So spare me the outrage.

    Parent

    Appalling (none / 0) (#11)
    by delandjim on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM EST
    This is so bad it will make dems come to his defense! You even if there was anything---is it really any of our business? Remember how Bill Clinton's popularity went up when he was attacked? And that had some parts that were true. WHO CARES, it will make him more popular.

    By the way, MSNBC cut into programming to talk about this. That kinda says something.

    If NYT has become the National (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:58:20 PM EST
    Enquirer, hasn't TL also?  [I am not referring to this particular post.]

    Please note the NYT did quote John Weaver and cited information received from Ms. Iseman:

     

    Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about her.

    "Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation's interests before either personal or special interest," Mr. Weaver continued. "Ms. Iseman's involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort."

    Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about "her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us." He declined to elaborate.

    It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.

    Ms. Iseman acknowledged meeting with Mr. Weaver, but disputed his account.

     [Emphasis added.]

    With the exception of the unsubstantiated rumor of sexual relationship, denied by Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman, the remainer of the information in the article is, in my opinion, relevant to judging Mr. McCain's candidacy.  

    Hell of an exception you identify (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    I don't care either....but I do care that (none / 0) (#24)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:10:12 PM EST
    the GOP smeared a perfectly good president for sleeping around, and this DOES feel like poetic justice (just after McCain declared himself the nominee).

    So...I agree that the NYT is acting very slimy here, there is a part of me that is saying: "how does it feel Republicans?"

    The thing is (none / 0) (#50)
    by delandjim on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    The thing is I don't remember McCain joinging in very loud on that. He may have but I sure don't remember it. I think this will get him a lot of sympathy.

    Parent
    He voted to impeach (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    But (none / 0) (#98)
    by delandjim on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    Was he real active on running him down? Or just vote in the end?

    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#51)
    by delandjim on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    Joinging = joining

    Parent
    He doesn't have to be Henry Hyde to be (none / 0) (#57)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    implicated.

    He was an enabler....just like he has been for Bush on everything (including torture apparently)

    Parent

    Bravo. (none / 0) (#29)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    Scathing yet utterly fulfilling (as usual) analysis.  Thanks, BTD.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer guy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:20:37 PM EST
    McCain has shown to be absolutely shameless in his pursuit of power.  He will say anything to anybody at any time.  He has a serious financial scandal in his past, not to mention the circumstances in which he left his first wife.  He makes things up.  He is temperamentally unsuited to be President.  I welcome any story that examines patterns of behavior in light of McCain's newly found love for hard right fundamentalists.

    Now if he were caught in bed with Karl Rove (none / 0) (#34)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:28:14 PM EST
    they might have something LOL....

    someone on MSNBC just said... (none / 0) (#35)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:28:35 PM EST
    ....that the NYT basically had the research on this story completed by last December, but sat on it out of various concerns.  Then they heard that The New Republic was about to run a story about the NYT sitting on this story, and the NYT board had a meeting and then decided to run the story.

    What research? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:29:12 PM EST
    They have no evidence of a romantic relationship.

    Parent
    It doesn't need to be romantic, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:31:47 PM EST
    she was a lobbyist.  Smell test and all that.

    Parent
    Then leave it OUT of the story!! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:40:43 PM EST