Well, if you had any doubt that the main-stream media would turn on John McCain when he went from "GOP maverick" who was a thorn in the side of President Bush to "GOP standard bearer" and potential threat to Democrat dominance in Washington, you need only read this New York Times attack piece on McCain.
It was expected that the "Keating 5" savings and loan scandal would come up, but the Times threw in quite a bit more, including an eight year-old, unconfirmed rumor of a possible romantic connection to a female lobbyist. Yikes! The nominating process isn't even over yet, but the attacks have begun!
All the news that's fit to print, huh? What happened to this once great newspaper?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Repoman:
Before you simply go into the right wing Republican self righteous stance ( acutualy from your comment it appears that you already have) consicder the following:
1. The paper is reporting that Senator McCain had a very close relationship with a lobbyist for a company which was trying to buy a TV or radio station. The Senator accepted rides on this company's corporate jet, spoke often with both the lobbyist and the owner of the company, and accepted tens of thousands of dollars from the company for his campaign. In addition, the Senator wrote a letter to the FCC insisting that they decide one way or the other aboout the application of ownership by the company. The Chair of the FCC informed the good Senator that his letter "crossed the line" and was in his opinion an attempt to pressure the FCC.
It is also clear that the lobbyist-whatever her name- was in fact on the corporate jet with the Senator at least once and perhaps more than once, returning from a campaign stop. It is also clear that the lobbyist did meet with the Senator's chief of staff in which he stated he told her to "back off" from the Senator. (She states the meeting took place but disputes what was said)
Now I suggest that the story will have legs due to the following:
Senator McCain talks about how corrupt Washington has become. He come across as though he is the lone saint living among a group of depraved sinners. He speaks of undo influence of money (ala McCain/Feingold) and the excessive influence of lobbyists.He acts as though he is smelling something bad when he works within official Washington. He may well be- but some of the smell may be coming from himself. The story will have legs because we cannot have another self righeous "leader" confident of his own "purity" while judging others to be flawed. That is the nut of the matter. It is not the Times who did this - but the Senator's own actions. His actions strongly suggest that he is in fact not the squeaky clean straight shooter he attempts to project. Dam the press all you want- but nobody carried him on the jet rides, nobody singed the letter to the FCC for him, and his camgiagn did accept money and lots of it from the corporation he was attemping to intercede for.
As for the sex angle- who cares. I can only offer this. If a lobbyist comes to a Senator's office and meets with his staff and perhaps with the Senator himself, I can understand that. I would expect those meetings to be recorded, and to take place within normal business hours, within a business office. A lobbyist taking a corporate jet ride to attend a weekend campaign stop with a Senator does suggest a relationship that is more than business. Let me be stonger- it indicates a relationship that is more than business related. It may have been just a good friendship- so be it. That is all the Times stated and it is correct. McCain's chief of staff was correct in meeting with her and telling her to "back off" - it does look bad.
Oh by the way, as I write this a Republican Conservatve Congressman from Arizona who co-chairs the McCain campaign in Arizona has just been indicted on 35 counts of corruption. Does that reflect on McCain? Oh yeah it does!
Anonymus:
I've been out of town most of the past week or I would have responded sooner.
Partisan response, you say?
Come on, even the NY Times Public Editor pointed out that the story was badly flawed. And maybe you didn't care about the sex angle, but without it, there wasn't any story.
Finally, where did you get your "facts" about McCain and his efforts on behalf of the lobbyist's client? If you are going to attack the guy, you could at least cite a source, unless, of course, you want to emulate the New York Times.
Post a Comment