NYT Accuses John McCain of Cheating
The New York Times accuses John McCain of cheating on his wife with a female lobbyist, back in the 2000 campaign.
The liberal newspaper the New York Times has published an article that could - if the story catches on - destroy John McCain’s chances of winning the presidential elections. He may have the nomination of the GOP locked up, but if this story spreads and if other newspapers and networks repeat it time and again, McCain could be done for.
There’s only one problem with the article: it’s a very dangerous subject, but the Times doesn’t have any proof. They basically accuse McCain of cheating on his wife, but they don’t have any solid info to back that claim up with. This means, of course, that it could very well be that this story dies a quick death, but it could also mean that the story will damage McCain nonetheless and that, as a result, an article that should never have been published effects the outcome of elections.
Just about every blogger in the blogosphere wrote about this ‘revelation’ or ‘breaking news’ and the general consensus (among conservatives, centrists and moderate liberals) is worded by Big Tent Democrat: ‘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.’
Perhaps more importantly though, I consider this to be none of the Times’ or anyone else’s business. If he cheated on his wife, that’s something between him, his wife and the woman involved. You all are not electing Husband-in-Chief but Commander-in-Chief. Some of the greatest political leaders cheated on their wives; we all know that. Yet, they were great, even the greatest, leaders.
Interesting to see by the way that the NYT was sitting on this story back in December 07 already, and even endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination knowing that it would, someday, publish this article.
Your hyperbolic rhetoric notwithstanding, I’m skeptical that this story is going to have legs unless there’s far, far, more evidentiary support forthcoming. As to whether a politician’s cheating is our business, many folks believe it’s reflective of character. In fact, last night on Fox, some conservative functionary made itquite clear they felt that way. It’s really not any sort of a disqualifier for me as long as the aggrieved party (the wife) is accepting of it. I’m electing a president, not a husband. So I tend to care more about political malfeasance than personal failing. But I’m satisfied with the basic "we report, you decide" rubric SO LONG AS WHAT’S REPORTED IS FACTS and not innuendo. If a pol has in fact been unfaithful, then I think people have a right to know and decide what it means to them. Thus my troubles with the story are entirely constrained to the issue of the lack of factual basis. It’s easy to manufacture an appearance of impropriety, and the responsibility of any journalist in such instances is not to report on the basis of mere appearance using circumstantial evidence. Like when Gary Hart got caught with the bimbo sitting on his knee. That’s corroboration. Positive votes on lobbyist-related issues is purely circumstantial. I’ve yet to see evidence that proves that the Times was certain to someday publish this story, rather than waiting until they had everything they wanted. It’s also quite plausible that they didn’t think the story, as it was, was actually a disqualifier, in which case, the conflict you imagine between the story and the endorsement would not have existed. I have no trouble accepting as plausible the notion that they sat on it, and might have waited longer, but something came up that made it necessary to for them to release it now. Like someone else preparing to tell the tale, thus stealing NYT’s thunder. But I’ve yet to hear proof.
"Like someone else preparing to tell the tale, thus stealing NYT’s thunder. But I’ve yet to hear proof."
What thunder? Who else was lining up to tell a story from unnamed sources, about something that may or may not have happened, with no other evidence? Evidently, TNR was going to castigate the Times for not running the piece, but after reading it I can see why the Times was hesitant. It is shoddy journalism.
As for the timing of the release of the "story", I think it says more that it comes hard on the heels of McCain hitting Obama on the use of public financing and Obama’s reneging on the issue. The message is "Why listen to McCain’s criticisms of anyone…he sleeps around on his mife!! (maybe)"
Your hyperbolic rhetoric notwithstanding, I’m skeptical that this story is going to have legs unless there’s far, far, more evidentiary support forthcoming.
What? Did you actually read the article?