Thursday, February 21, 2008
|
|
Will the NYT Speak?
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
9:15 AM
|
McCain's released a statement and is currently giving a press conference (at which he could stand to be a little more righteously indignant, if you ask me).
Given the numerous questions about the thin sourcing of the NYT piece and the fact that it can potentially affect a presidential campaign in a significant way, will the NYT reporters be answering any questions about their quite questionable reporting?
They were on "lock-down" last night:
The four Times reporters primarily involved with the McCain story, along with top editors, were in lock-down Wednesday night..
Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet, when contacted by Politico, wrote in an e-mail: “I am going to pass for now. The story speaks for itself.”
Reporter David Kirkpatrick echoed a similar line when reached by phone: “I think the story speaks for itself. This one I can’t help you with.”
They're refusing comment to Patrick Hynes' radio show, but given that he's a McCain operative, that's more understandable than other radio shows. Will they appear anywhere else? Hugh's always good about getting press types on the line.
It's infuriating that reporters can just whistle past a graveyard of their own creation, and pretend they're not part of the story.
Ha: "Since it was in the New York Times, I don't take it at face value," McCain said when asked about former adviser John Weaver.
That was my favorite line. I think he should have been more explicit about the absolutely deplorable quality of the reporting involved.
|
|
and the NYT is already trying to cut him off at the knees. It looks like they were using a plastic picnic knife to make the try.
To me it indicates the Times is really concerned that he could be the next POTUS, and are flailing around to derail it. |
|
That bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. But is this news (no pun intended)? Why are we always surprised when one does what one has always done in the past?
Did anyone really believe that just because the NYT endorsed McCain that they really wanted to see him elected? He just had more skeletons under his bed than any of the other Republicans. I'm not saying that this is a skeleton, but it gives the appearance, which is the purpose of the NYT - not that it is true.
John McCain has reached across the isle and gotten his hand bit off. Like your new found buddies John? They're great aren't they?
|
|
|
Maverick must attack the Republicans again soon to get back in the NYT's good graces. |
|
|
Mccainiacs..honestly...the people who are undecided or don't like McCain already think he's a political weasel...why do you think this story is going to matter to anyone? The GOP or die voters have already decided, in spite of his terrible record, to support this guy because..gosh, there is nobody else...those few of us to whom past deeds do matter, have already given up and are in various states of despair. Are you seriously telling me that you think McCain having an affair is going to change anybody's mind? Most of you have decided that character doesn't matter and aren't holding him accountable for his record; why are you pretending to care about marital infidelity? Seems to me the outrage on this is a bit staged. If you don't care about his record, I daresay his marriage shouldn't phase you either. |
|
because at this early stage, I doubt this will have the impact of a smear attack in September or October would.
Then again, far-lefties aren't known for their intelligence. |
|
Seems to me the major meat of the story will be that McCain, despite his straight talk, honest politican facade, typically associates with lobbyists just like all the rest of the sleezy pols he works with.
The Times shouldn't have pushed the innuendo about possible infidelity, after all, as many here have posted, it's not really a secret that he's had some issues with that in the past.
But, as long as his own allies in the media attack the unsubstantiated sex and liberal NYT angle, he might bury the story and fire up some waning conservative support. |
|
With McCain's press conference the issue moves from what the Times should or shouldn't have done to whether the press can prove any of McCain's rebuttals to be untrue. It seems unlikely after all this time that anyone will prove that an affair took place. However, the question of whether there was a staff intervention to distance the women from McCain- that seems like something that could be proved if it indeed did happen.
If it is proved that McCain lied on this point his whole response will be called into question. On the other hand, if the Times cannot prove this point in the face of his denial the NYT will indeed be hurt. |
|
|
I think Weaver spoke this morning about the part about distancing McCain from the lobbyist is true--but not because they felt there was any sort of romantic issue involved. He did say that they wanted to have her keep her distance because she had been making untrue claims about her access and influence with McCain and his campaign. But again, no mention whatsoever of any wrongdoing, ethics violations, and especially nothing on the supposed "romantic relationship" between the two. This was a hit-piece with no evidence, plain and simple. |
|
|
because, as Hillary and McCain are learning, you meet them again on the way down. My advice? Get a parachute and don't forget to write. |
|
Weaver's statement does not contradict McCain in any major way. The question I raised goes to the claims of the unnamed sources. They are the ones who claimed to have conspired to block the woman in question because they believed there was an affair between her and McCain. You can read of similar staff intervention if you read about Governor Bill Clinton and his staff when he was in Arkansas.
If this happened with McCain's staff, several people would have known and McCain would have heard of it. This is the place where the ax will fall- either on McCain or the NYT. |
|
I've been reading and hearing various theories that this episode will finally "rally the conservative base" for McCain. Apparently, they think that we conservatives hate the NYT so much that we will take advantage of this dust up to take fight them. These are the same people who argued that we would come around once faced with the prospects of an Obama or Hillary presidency. Apparently, it takes some really loopy logic to defend the "Straight Talk Express".
This is a great "we told you so" moment for us. |
|
|
Why did The NYT endorse McCain if they thought he had done something unethical like giving favors to a lobbiest or even having an affair with her? They had the story before the endorsement. The NYT is trying to sabotage the Republicans this year. I voted for Gore and Kerry. I'm not a GOP fan. But I see that the media decided long ago that Obama would be the next president. They won't make him answer questions even during debates and when either Clinton challenges him they are bad. (I don't like any candidate still in the race on either side so I have no reason to say anything here other than I think this is outrageous).The reason this came out today is to take Michelle Obama's statement about not being proud of this country until now out of the news. They are trying to help Obama. The media needs to get back to Michelle's comment that she made TWICE and make her respond to it and not shove it aside because of this story that has no facts to go with it yet. We know what she said. They need to deal with that and Obama's choice of minister becauce that goes to judgement and character and beliefs. His church matters more than Romney's. |
|
|
Why did The NYT endorse McCain if they thought he had done something unethical like giving favors to a lobbiest or even having an affair with her? They had the story before the endorsement. The NYT is trying to sabotage the Republicans this year. I voted for Gore and Kerry. I'm not a GOP fan. But I see that the media decided long ago that Obama would be the next president. They won't make him answer questions even during debates and when either Clinton challenges him they are bad. (I don't like any candidate still in the race on either side so I have no reason to say anything here other than I think this is outrageous).The reason this came out today is to take Michelle Obama's statement about not being proud of this country until now out of the news. They are trying to help Obama. The media needs to get back to Michelle's comment that she made TWICE and make her respond to it and not shove it aside because of this story that has no facts to go with it yet. We know what she said. They need to deal with that and Obama's choice of minister becauce that goes to judgement and character and beliefs. His church matters more than Romney's. |
|
|
You are over analyzing the problem. The GOP rigged the primaries to allow the Dems to nominate their candidate. We went through all of his ad nauseum for the past year and yet here we are. We all saw it coming. You have to secure the backing of your base before you venture into the enemy camp. The base is still here. We need to find a party where WE get to pick our own candidate. McCain's problem is not our problem. |
|
|
Just out of curiosity, but how did the GOP "rig the primaries"? |
|
"Since it was in the New York Times, I don't take it at face value," McCain said.
Interesting, given that McCain had no problem touting their endorsement in Florida and in the debate in California prior to Super Tuesday. The McCainiacs ate it up. McCain is 71 years old and still hasn't realized that he has been a pawn of the liberal media. They loved him because he operates as a wedge in the Republican Party. Perhaps now he will realize that he and the McCainiacs have been played like a fiddle by the liberal media. They don't really care about McCain one bit. They only care about the downfall of the Republican Party, and they're getting it.
Already the drumbeat has begun. I saw the headline that Obama beats McCain in November. Get used to hearing this day after day as poll after poll show this and liberal media outlet after liberal media outlet makes darned sure that the public knows it and doesn't forget it. |
|
|
The media likes him because he's opened to the press. Most of them are liberals so, of course, they won't back him for the presidency. The NY Times haven't proved anything & until that time, I stand by McCain. The media also accused the elder Bush of an affair also when he was running for president. |
|
And people wonder why few career Senators have ascended to POTUS in US history?
Whether the allegations are true or not, the fact remains: McCain is an established beltway politician and is bound to have countless skeletons knocking around in his closet. Washington, D.C. corrupts even the most heroic and well-intentioned public servants. Did anyone really believe John McCain was Mr. Clean and the liberal media would simply hand him the White House?
This is what you get for picking career politician to be the GOP's posterboy. |
|
|
I love when MKH acts all journalisty . . . reminds me of the newsreaders at fox. |
|
""There are new words now that excuse everybody. Give me the good old days of heroes and villains, the people you can bravo or hiss.
There was a truth to them that all the slick credulity or "incredulity" of today cannot touch."
Bette Davis
No better measure of this truism is exampled than the declining tabloid of the once mighty NYT. |
|
|
|