UPDATED BELOW
Trent Lott, man, don’t feel alone. John McCain has, um, a new problem too. From the New York Times (and I hear that MSNBC just broke into programming to pass it along too):
For McCain, a Risky Confidence on Ethics
John McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist underscores a paradox: Even as he embraces high ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity sometimes seems to blind him to potential conflicts of interest.
UPDATE: At The National Review, Gabriel Sherman has just posted The Long Run-Up: Behind the Bombshell in ‘The New York Times.’
From the intro:
… Beyond its revelations, however, what’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain’s former staffers to justify the piece–both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves–the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain’s aides that the Senator shouldn’t be seen in public with Iseman–and departs from the Times’ usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: “In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, ‘Why is she always around?’” In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.
What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable. …
Just read that. Don’t really see anything new here — its an old story from about a decade ago. Not saying it isn’t news I guess, but not certain why any newstation would interupt regular broadcasting to “break” such a story.
Every candidate in this race has skeletons in the closet, to some degree. And I’m certain in this age of mudslinging, they will all be on display for us all to see before November. McCain will always be linked to the Keating scandal of years past. But, that was true when he was seriously being considered and asked to be the VP running mate of John Kerry in the last election.
The alleged affair stuff seems a little weak, but even if true, could give him a big boost with the Bill Clinton democrats — LOL. “I did not have sex with that woman…. uh….er…….Miss so and so…” .
You funny, afotl!
From pg. 4 of the NYT article:
Sorry, Johnny – if there’s sex, it’ll have legs.
Though I must say, op99, that “sex” and “John McCain” are two concepts I have trouble forcing into the same mindful . . .
Lotus, I know, ewwwww. I’m cool with geezer on geezer sex, it’s just geezer on someone-your-daughter’s-age sex that skeezes me out little. But that’s just me – whatever floats anybody’s boat is fine with me, as long as it’s consensual.
Two thoughts;
1) It may improve the perception of McCain being too old to be President,”….he’s still chasing girls so he must not be too old to be President.”
2) With his connections to North MS and Trent Lott…one can’t ever be sure what might turn up.
Politics is a funny thing.
Being a “sex symbol” didn’t hurt JFK or Bill…he may be the one that “leaked” the story to create/inject a “sex” theme into the election.
Shaves, hee-hee, good point.
Classic non-denial denial from the McCain campaign:
The Times just didn’t want The New Republic to be first with this story, which has been known for years, but kept covered up till now.
I’ve seen that “known for years” assertion several places now, but I can’t find a link to any rumor or hint of it prior to Drudge floating something in December – about two months ago.
Is it really something that has been an open secret for years, or is that something people are saying to minimize its impact?
Admin: No, it’s been known for years from the S&L scandal and occasional newsprint on the relationship of Trent Lott and he. It’s not going to be anything unless the Scruggs/Lott connection becomes a McCain/Lott story.
Seemed like much ink for little story. If MSNBC reported it as “breaking news” they must have been hard up to fill airtime.
MSNBC isn’t exactly a reliable source for anything other than “hollywood” type information…and even then it’ suspect.
I know that the Keating 5 is old news, other than as supporting data for the theme of the story – that McCain is ethical because he says he is and that the Keating thing is forgiven because he wrestled with what he had done and forgave himself.
But the rest of the story seems new, or at least unknown outside the beltway – that McCain had a relationship (carnal or not) with a young woman lobbyist with whom he spent a lot of time (according to his staff) and for whose clients he did a number of very specific favors (not unlike the favor of interceding with regulators on Keating’s behalf).
If one of his mainest selling points is integrity, then this relationship would seem to call that into question.
Josh Marshall, at Talking Points Memo, speculates cautiously that there may be only a few pieces of this story on the table now and that there may be more to come.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179402.php
I’ve got a lot of friends who work or live inside the Beltway. Maybe that’s why this seems like old news to me. It’s also one of the reasons why I despise near-bout all politicians.
Not sure “skyrocketed” is right. Huckabee’s up to a 1.3% chance on Intrade, from 1.1% just before the story came out.
Hey, the comment-editing feature is sweet!
Hey and welcome to folo, Chris. Don’t tell me you’re aspersing an 18% rise overnight, whilst the story’s yet young (in the MSM at least), and Intrade’s been so, ahem, spot-on all these months?!
Why, I bet that preacher thinks here comes his miracle hoofin’ toward him. Of course, I also bet he’s fullblown-batshit-gaga, but I’ve bet THAT all along. Anyhow: hee!
(Glad you like the comment-editor, too.)
Well, if Huckabee can keep up an 18% rise every day for 24 days, he’ll be over 50%.
Matt Drudge has been following the NYT’s handling of this story for some time. They have been sitting on it for some time. Waiting to release it . . . .
So, Shaves, following your sex appeal train, I guess we’re waiting for the Clinton campaign to leak rumor of a Hillary tryst w/ who, the 21-year-old cabana boy on Martha’s Vineyard? Might get rid of the Eleanor Roosevelt comparisons, huh?
The Drudge piece, published two months ago on Dec 20, 2007, said:
Thx, admin. What it all means, I have no idea. I’m ready for NMC to return!
I’m ready for NMC to return!
He’s baaaack – and all over folo’s front page. Incidentally, for those not familiar with one bloggy convention, scrolling to the top of the page and clicking on the “folo” title will always take you back to the latest posts on the blog – in this case, NMC in all his glory.
From court. Isn’t he/she in the Scruggs hearings right now?
ABCNews: the Mittens “lament”
Interesting piece in The New Republic on the gestation of the NYTimes’ McCain story.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24
Yah-ha, admin, y’owe me a Coke — see update to the post above!