The McCain "Story"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:26:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Josh Marshall provides a response that I have seen in a couple of venues to the McCain story:

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go.

(Emphasis supplied.) Since, despite the protests of some, the meat of this story is the allegation of a romantic involvement with a person not his wife, I believe Marshall is referencing more evidence of the romantic relationship. And Marshall's response demonstrates what is outrageous about the Times' journalism here. If the Times cannot put "a lot more" into the article, then the allegations of a romantic relationship can not go in the article. This seems obvious to me.

Marshall also adds this troubling sum up:

Given unspoken understandings of many years' duration, a lot of reporters and DC types can probably imagine what the full picture looks like. But we're going to need a few more pieces before the rest of us can get a sense of what this is all about.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is this what journalism has been reduced to? The Paper of Record can now run allegations of romantic relationships based on what DC reporters can understand but the "rest of us" do not get to know about? If there is "more," as some suggest, then the Times has to print it, or NOT print its explosive allegations until it CAN print "the more." My view has not changed -- this is a piece of atrocious journalism. I am eager to read the NYTimes Public Editor on this story.

< NYC Succeeding With A Better Approach to Juvenile Justice | McCain Denies Relationship With Female Lobbyist >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The McCain "Story" | 83 comments (83 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well it is goo d that the (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:40:52 AM EST

floodgates are open to put out the fire.

Look (none / 0) (#1)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:45:04 AM EST

BTD, I think I was a little too snarky in my post to you on the previous McCain scandal thread, but you will agree with me that if more evidence surfaces that he acted improperly because of this relationship, it is a VERY big deal, no? I couldn't care less about politicians sleeping around but if it results in preferential treatment, favors, whatever, then I'm upset.

: If and when it emerges is WHEN (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:47:23 AM EST

the story is published. Not before.
Will you agree with me this is atrocious journalism?

There's some reports... (none / 0) (#3)
by mike in dc on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST

...that McCain's camp lobbied and lawyered the heck out of this story, back in December, and the Times decided not to run it at that time. When The New Republic indicated they were going to run with it, the NYT was stuck running the "safe" version of their story, which of course looks a tad on the inadequate side.
I think this is kind of a "lose-lose" scenario for the Times. They lose by running it, because it looks flimsy and sensationalistic. They lose by not running it, because someone else will, and it will look like they knew and sat on it for two months.

The "safe" version (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:48:30 AM EST

is atrocious and unsafe journalism at any publishing speed.


agreed (none / 0) (#9)
by mike in dc on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM EST

...since it hints at something without substantiating it more, it unfairly tarnishes both the rep of the subject of the story, and the newspaper publishing it.

I just think TNR may have put the NYT into an impossible position.


: Hardly (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:05:32 AM EST

It was a very possible position, adhere to your journalistic standards. If the story was not publishable BEFORE TNR started snooping, TNR's snooping did NOT make it publishable.
I strongly disagree with you.

No (none / 0) (#5)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:53:02 AM EST

But I will agree with you that this is money driven journalism. I think the Times thought it was going to get scooped OR they felt they had enough to publish despite Mac's opposition to the story. The first is worse than the second.

: I READ what they printed (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:57:00 AM EST

Which is what I judge.
Speculation about everything else is beside the point.
If it is NOT in the story, it is not relevant to the journalism.
You defend this or characterize it based on your speculation of what was in the mind of the NYTimes.
Excuse me, that has no relevance to evaluating the journalism practiced, which must be judged on what was printed.

BTD - your point is well taken, but (none / 0) (#7)
by scribe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:59:16 AM EST

the ship on precluding that sort of journalism sailed, oh, about 14 or so years ago. The minute we had to deal with dribs and drabs and hint and innuendo, all directed at WJC and HRC.

And then we had to deal with stenography in place of real reporting, all through the Bush years.

I agree with you, but that isn't going to change the shoddy journalism now practiced in what passes for the mainstream media. It's not like riding a bike, and they've pretty well forgotten how to do it.

I agree, (none / 0) (#8)
by ajain on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:02:40 AM EST

I think the Times should have run with the lobbying part of the story and left 'romantic' aspects out. If they have proof and will print it later then they should have done the whole thing in one article, altogether. I do not understand what this kind of journalism achieves for the Times.

BTD (none / 0) (#10)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:04:30 AM EST

If you honestly believe what you're writing you must be absolutely furious every single time you pick up a newspaper.

I am (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:06:15 AM EST

I am furious all the time. At the Media, at blogs, at the world.


So that's why we keep you around! (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:15:13 AM EST

: Heh (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:16:40 AM EST

Furious all the time? (none / 0) (#19)
by sas on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:17:20 AM EST

Me too, big tent.

That's why I play golf now and then. It is the only respite I have for a couple of hours.

When you really care, there is so much to be upset about. You care.


Ha... (none / 0) (#53)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:57:08 AM EST

... golf just makes me more furious! :)


: That's why I fish and don't golf: (none / 0) (#55)
by scribe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:01:31 AM EST

one cannot flyfish when angry. Just doesn't work.

The story is not at all atrocious journalism (none / 0) (#13)
by JeffNYCdl on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:11:01 AM EST

Lawyers remove litigable details from stories all the time. That doesn't make it "atrocious journalism." Why are you being so melodramatic?

Your argument seems to (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:14:51 AM EST

be missing something - I know - substance.

As I read you, you are saying the story is solid because of WHAT WAS REMOVED.

That does not make sense to me.

A story is judged by WHAT IS IN IT, not what was removed.

I need hardly add that you or do not know what was removed, IF ANYTHING.

But the larger point is, you can not judge the journalistic merits of a story based on what is not in it, for any reason.


you're being silly (none / 0) (#25)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:19:35 AM EST

and deliberately misreading posts.


Did I? (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:24:56 AM EST

Want to explain how?


the poster (none / 0) (#46)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:44:15 AM EST

didn't say it was good journalism because of what was removed. they made a simple and accurate point about editing for legal reasons. your attack that it was without substance and following rant merely validated their suggestion that you're being melodramatic.


What did the poseter say? (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:53:05 AM EST

Let look at what HE PUBLISHED in his comment:

The story is not at all atrocious journalism
Lawyers remove litigable details from stories all the time. That doesn't make it "atrocious journalism.

The subject line states this is NOT atrocious journalism.

The body, GENERALLY used to support what is staed in the subject line said:

Lawyers remove litigable details from stories all the time. That doesn't make it "atrocious journalism.

Ergo, a fair reading of the comment is This is acceptable journalism BECAUSE "lawyers remove[d] litigable details."

Unless, the is some unpublishable material that the commenter is relying on to make his claim that this was acceptable journalism, I am afraid you have not a leg to stand on.

Indeed, screeching that I am being "melodramatic" demonstrates how empty your argument is. You have no actual argument to make so you attack me.

No worries, it is what I expect from many of you.


you'e lost the plot on this one (none / 0) (#52)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST

your back-bending arguments simply make more obvious.


Again no substance (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:58:28 AM EST

I know what to expect from you now.

Have a nice day.


well (none / 0) (#81)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:50:36 PM EST

your poor logic is so obvious i didn't think i needed to explain, but i'll take a moment...

"Ergo, a fair reading of the comment is This is acceptable journalism BECAUSE 'lawyers remove[d] litigable details.'"

this is silly. the poster wasn't saying it's good journalism because it was legaly edited. on the contrary, they were saying legal editing doesn't make it bad. pretty basic stuff.


: And who said legal editing (none / 0) (#82)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST

made it bad?
Not me.
Are you always this filled with straw?
The question REMAINS what made it GOOD journalism?
You simply can not address a question with a semblance of straightforwardedness and logic.
Bah. I will no longer waste my time with your nonsense.

: totally irrelevant (none / 0) (#83)
by frankly0 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST

Look, the most basic point here is that a piece of journalism, more importantly than anything else, must stand on its own in terms of the evidence backing it up.
This doesn't mean that all the evidence supporting a story must be disclosed in the full detail that it is known to the reporter -- a reporter might rightly keep a source anonymous, for example.
But then the reporter must describe in that article sufficient detail about the nature of that evidence to make it clear how it is that the claims of the story have been supported. So, for example, if a source is used who wishes to remain anonymous, then the story should mention that it has an anonymous source backing up the relevant detail.
What is absolutely not permissible is to act as if there is some "secret" evidence, which you as a reporter are not even going to describe, for whatever reason (be it legal or otherwise), which somehow supports the story, and thereby makes it permissible to publish.
Again, the basic principle is simple: the story as published must stand on the merits of what is published as evidence. Doing anything else is irresponsible journalism.
What a surprise that Josh Marshall doesn't get such a basic point.

Since when is Josh Marshall concerned (none / 0) (#14)
by my opinion on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:14:51 AM EST

about good journalism? He seems to be concerned only when it doesn't fit his opinions, so what is his motivation here?

You'll have to ask him (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:16:10 AM EST

But I do note that his piece did not evaluate the journalism practiced. So your critique seems misguided to me.


I don't disagree with your statements. (none / 0) (#38)
by my opinion on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:34:02 AM EST

I disagree with his assuming that there is more to the story than is being printed. He is assuming it is good journalism without any facts. So my question is why is he doing that in this case?


I do not think he assumed it was good journalism (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST

: He is definetly giving them the benifit of doubt. (none / 0) (#45)
by my opinion on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:43:24 AM EST

Yes....but ya'll produce the best on the WEB (none / 0) (#20)
by TearDownThisWall on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:17:27 AM EST

there is...

Thanks, at least from this fan

Ezra opines (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:17:28 AM EST

that if the Times knows something about something, they should come out and say it. But my impression is that the "something" would be all about the sex. And frankly, I don't think that's something we ought to be hearing about from the Times.

Now, if they'd like to tell us the Keating Five story again, that's a different kettle of fish.

: They should have come out and said it (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:24:23 AM EST

when they published their piece.

you're way off base (none / 0) (#22)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:17:31 AM EST

jeralyn's comments last night are correct. this isn't a sex story. the potential relationship is absolutely relevant, and multi-sourced.

if this was exclusively a story about an affair, which it is NOT, i'd agree that it's inappropriate. but this is about an affair with a lobbyist before his committee that he went out of his way to act on behalf of. if media/people choose to focus on the salacious aspect so be it. that doesn't make it wrong to report.

Then leave the sex out of it (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST

If it is not about the se, then why the reporting at the top of the story of the alleged romantic relationship?

This is too disinegenuous. And frankly, unrealistic. Everyone knows that the sex will be 95% of the coverage.


the relationship is part of the story (none / 0) (#33)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:27:55 AM EST

leaving that out would be silly.

a large mistake your making is to judge the story by what others will do with it.


there's no evidence (none / 0) (#39)
by Nasarius on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:37:13 AM EST

Other than the unsubstantiated allegations of a couple unnamed aides. Leaving it out would be *responsible*.


Actually the aides (none / 0) (#71)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:20:10 AM EST

only said they WERE WORRIED that a romantic relationship might develop.

so not even that.


: exactly (none / 0) (#73)
by Nasarius on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:22:46 AM EST

I realized after posting that "suspicions" would be more appropriate than allegations. It's unbelievable that this was printed.

The ROMANTIC relationship? (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:39:19 AM EST

Explain how it was part of it.


a romantic relationship (none / 0) (#60)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST

is relevant the same way it would be if he were acting on behalf of a family member. a story about a senator acting pointedly on behalf of someone and omitting that it was a brother, for example, would be silly. we commonly associate these ties with preference and bias, and laws have grown up around this idea. you know this. you've seized to quickly on the aspect of the story you don't like. i agree that the press runs with the salacious stuff to the exclusion of the meaningful parts, but that doesn't mean it's not right to tell the story.

on a side note, your tone and language with people you don't agree with is quite dismissive and aggressive. you might consider trying harder to be civil since you do carry the burden of leadership here.


Supose that is so (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST

as I explained in my first post on the subject, there is no publishable evidence of such romantic relationship.

I disagree with you in that the prejudicial value of running with the sex story completely overwhelms the probative value of it.


whats your standard (none / 0) (#67)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:15:50 AM EST

for publishable evidence in this instance?


Someone on the record (none / 0) (#70)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:19:28 AM EST

with knowledge saying there was a romantic relationship or other evidence of equal probative value (a tape, photos, etc.).

This assumes there is relevance to the sex story which I deny.


: in the film (none / 0) (#76)
by english teacher on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:33:43 AM EST

"all the president's men", for example, there is a substantial amount of plot time devoted to woodward and bernstein's pursuit of two people who would go on the record with information about CREEP and the "dirty tricksters". it took a while but they finally got two people they could quote by name in the paper, including segretti himself.
anyway, two people on the record used to be the standard. if you have two people on the record, you don't really need to edit for legal reasons.

Can't leave the sex out of it - no one (none / 0) (#57)
by scribe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:02:53 AM EST

will look if there isn't sex. And this does deserve to be looked into.


: It won't be (none / 0) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST

Re: furious all the time (none / 0) (#23)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST

I know the feeling well.

This slimy tabloid type of story in the NYT is indicative of how our standards have fallen. That anyone would not find this kind of "journalism" repulsive is sad commentary on the lack of journalistic integrity that we now seem to accept.

Every time a pundit, columnist, talking head makes some dishonest comment and it's let stand we lose. Because it isn't about John McCain, it's about us and what we will accept so long as media is going after someone we don't like. We should be shamed of us.

The Nightly News (none / 0) (#24)
by kmblue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:19:23 AM EST

could be interesting tonight.
Like I've watched it lately.

The desparate attempts (none / 0) (#26)
by Slado on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:21:32 AM EST

to equate this to the Monica Lewinsky scandal are breathtaking.

Clinton was a known and serial aldulterer. Wherether anyone cares about that is up to them but there was ample proof of his relationship with Monica and trying to compare this to McCain is simply trying to re-write history.

BTD is consistent in his position that it shouldn't matter but you must be careful not to give any belief to this allegation by equating the two. They simple are apples and oranges.

McCain denied this releationship 8 years ago and there is no proof of it other then the speculation of a few ex-aides (one of whom was fired). Both parties deny and denied 8 years ago the relationship. McCain voted against her lobbiest intrests as well as for them. There is no story and it is lame to imply otherwise.

This is drive by journalism of the first order and as I've stated this will help McCain with his base support not hurt him.

Liberals/Progressives are under the delusion that conservatives beleive anything the NYT's puts on paper. Most conservatives believe the NYT's is out to get them, hurt american intrests etc... This is just more proof and conservatives will now rally around McCain.

Thanks NYT's for the favor.

Well (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:22:21 AM EST

I disagree with that.


Which part? (none / 0) (#47)
by Slado on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:50:19 AM EST

Just wondering.

Obviously I come at this from a different perspective but I'd love to know which part you don't agree with.


McCain is an admitted adulterer (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:54:58 AM EST

Your differentiation of them based on that is simply wrong.

BTW, I was an admitted adulterer in my past too. I throw no stones.


: Naaah. It's not "not throwing stones", (none / 0) (#59)
by scribe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST

it's "all the windows are already broken, so what difference does it make if I do throw them?"

Qui bono (none / 0) (#27)
by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:22:11 AM EST

The story isn't the story, but who wanted this story out there and for what purpose. If the press can pretty much ignore the outrageous lobbying scandals over the past seven years, there must be a reason to float this now other than the news value. For eight years this story sat in someone's folder. Why now? Why not back in December, why not a few years ago?

An interesting take (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:26:43 AM EST

I am not as cyncial as that. This was a news organization trying to "break news."

And in doing so, it broke its journalistic standards.


If you're not cynical (none / 0) (#72)
by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST

you're not paying attention.

The story was there in December. And it existed five years ago. Eight years ago.

And why when this comes up why not a refresher sidebar, or at least a mention of the Keating Five story? Why not a "Here he goes again" moment?

There is an intentionality and purpose for this story coming out now in all its expurgated glory. Strange way to hurt McCain. Is he being vaccinated from bigger things?


: On the effects of the story (none / 0) (#75)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:25:08 AM EST

I fear you are correct.

: Please read the NYT story, which (none / 0) (#77)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM EST

includes information about Keating 5/McCain.

Marshall sounds like Joe Klein here. (none / 0) (#34)
by MarkL on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:29:31 AM EST

In your view, would the same NYT (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST

story w/o any reference to whether McCain and the lobbyist had a sexual relationship, including their denial, have been an appropriate story to run now and/or in Dec. 07?

Of course (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:38:34 AM EST

Indeed WHY WAS IT NOT RUN continuously for the past year?


If the story still included the (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:01:48 AM EST

information from Weaver and the female lobbyist that they met at Union Station and his statement that he asked her to stay away from McCain now that he was going to run for President,plus the allegations she was frequently at McCain's office and at events where he was also present, readers might speculate whether there was a relationship between the two that extended beyond that of telecom lobbyist/chrm. of Senate Commerce committee, which might explain why NYT included their denial of a closer relationship in the story.

P.S. This is the same NYT series that included the story interviewing friends and associates of Obama about just how much he didn't use drugs.


But it did not just include that (none / 0) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:06:36 AM EST

They led with the romantic relationship.

A lot of you want to edit the Times piece and make it about the lobbying.

Sorry, it is too late.

I am going to write a post about THAT.


In my opinion, the initial subject line (none / 0) (#69)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:19:23 AM EST

of J's post and how she characterized the NYT story influenced how "some" viewed the story b/4 reading it. The NYT headline dealt with McCain's image as an ethics champion. The lede dealt with the concerns of some of McCain's campaign team as to how this image might be tarnished by the frequent presence of the telecom lobbyist at McCain's office and at public events.


: No (none / 0) (#74)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST

J's post had nothing to do with it.
The story itself did that.

The Times is out to sell papers.... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:32:42 AM EST

like O'Reilly is out to sell commercials.

Nothing sells like a sex scandal.

The real shame is that the possibility that McCain cheated on his wife will matter more to voters than McCain's pledge to stay in Iraq for 100 years. 100 years of occupation? Great! He cheated on his wife? That evil evil man!

The Times knows this, so they threw the sex in there.

off topic, delete if you wish (none / 0) (#37)
by jes on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:32:49 AM EST

but Alcalde & Fay's website - where Viki Iseman was employed - was disappeared this morning. Here is the wayback machine's bio of Iseman.

This is very strange.

: Huffpo (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:59:22 PM EST

had it up last night too.

I wonder (none / 0) (#48)
by BernieO on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST

if you would ever find a conservative web site complaining about the coveraged of a Democratic candidate? I find it encouraging that we actually can think in terms of principle not "us vs. them".

: Of course not (none / 0) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:55:28 AM EST

That will never be my standard.

Very poor journalism (none / 0) (#58)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:03:24 AM EST

Glad to be agreeing with you on this. People need to take the time to read the article not just the media highlights. It reads like it was edited with a dull chainsaw. I think it was rushed out for some reason.

bear in mind, (none / 0) (#63)
by cpinva on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST

this is the same newspaper that brought us, with great fanfair, whitewater, a story that could easily have been the basis for a "seinfeld" episode; it was almost literally about nothing, one among many, many failed land development deals all across the country.

it unleashed the right-wing smear machine, the "liberal media" smear machine, and pretty much helped raise clinton bashing to the level of an industry.

some $20 million (more than was actually lost on the development) dollars, an independent prosecutor and hundreds of thousands of words later, it turned out to be exactly what it was: a minor land develpment deal gone bad, with the clintons among the financial losers. yes, the principal was also involved in fraudulently acquired loans, having nothing at all to do with the clintons.

the original stories had nothing in the way of concrete evidence, simply unsubstantiated allegations. the editors of the nyt's felt this wasn't a problem.

nothing new under the sun with the mccain story.

The interesting thing (none / 0) (#65)
by americanincanada on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:11:25 AM EST

isn't the McCain angle at all. The New Republic's story was/is less about McCain and more about the Times. Their story is about the NYT foot dragging and the internal battles from December on whether or not to run the story.

What does it say that the Times may have run their story just to fend off a bad article about themselves?

This may end up tarnishing the Times far more than McCain. He may actually come out smelling like a rose.

: Good point (none / 0) (#66)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:12:43 AM EST

: If this is all they have, he does. (none / 0) (#80)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:00:50 PM EST

gotta respect BTD. (none / 0) (#68)
by kangeroo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:15:56 AM EST

he sticks to principles, and he's proving by his own example that dems have more integrity and are far more courteous to repubs than they've ever been (or probably ever will be) to us. in any case, BTD's effort is admirable.

McCain gets a pass (none / 0) (#78)
by Dadler on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM EST

This story or any other story. Hell, he got a relative pass in the Charles Keating scandal. He always does. He gets treated politically with kid gloves because he is viewed as the bravest man alive. Why? Because he murdered innocent people from thousands of feet in the air and got caught. And he survived a captivity that we'd certainly try to equal were some Vietnamese pilot to get shot down over the heartland after bombing Americans into oblivion. And he's a thug who has a long record of trying to physically intimidate people.

: That said, I couldn't care less who he f*cks... (none / 0) (#79)
by Dadler on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:45:04 AM EST

...as long as it isn't the American People. Like BTD said, the sex angle here will make it difficult if no impossible for the real issue to get followed up on.

The McCain "Story"

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment