McCain and the glamorous lobbyist: the web reacts

The blogosphere is busily dissecting a New York Times story which claims that a questionable, perhaps romantic relationship with female lobbyist Vicki Iseman (left) led John McCain to improperly wield his influence to gain favours for her clients. Liberal commentators are pondering why the New York Times chose to publish when it did, after apparently sitting on the story for several months, while incredibly, McCain seems to be reaping the benefits on the right - being attacked by the New York Times seems to have boosted his appeal among the conservative wing of the GOP in a way that his personal overtures never could. Meanwhile, The New Republic has responded to claims that investigation by one of its journalists forced the hand of the New York Times. Read the full story from our US correspondent here.

Update: As of 1800 GMT today, the New York Times article concerned had 1577 comments, most of which were attacking the story as tenuous and a product of liberal bias. This comment was highlighted in the editor's selection:

L.O., Ohio: "I read the entire McCain article and I have to say this is all unsubstantiated. Shabby journalism, to be sure.

"I also have to reflect on the timing of this. Michelle Obama was taking pretty good heat for her anti-American comments and suddenly, this story, which the Times sat for quite some time, hits the news and the coverage shifts. Liberal news media at its finest! From print media to television, you've all done a bang-up job in not only protecting the Obamas at all cost, but making it seem un-American to challenge them at all. When will the bias end?"

Here's a selection of comment from the web:

Huffington Post:

"News that the Times had an article on McCain's relationship with Iseman was known months ago, albeit with only slight hints of the romantic angle.

"So why would the Times hesitate to act? A number of theories, beyond threats of legal action, have been batted around by analysts. They range from the generous -- the paper could simply have thought it unfair to publish the story on the eve of a slew or presidential primaries -- to the nefarious -- the Times was waiting to unload on McCain only after he secured the nomination."

Booman Tribune:

"What is significant is that the sources for this article are former McCain staffers that contacted the Times in December, before the primaries started. They clearly intended to derail his nomination not destroy the candidacy of the Republican nominee, which is what this article threatens to do now.

"... I think it's a thin story. I wouldn't have published it. Frankly, I don't care about infidelity, and that is not even proven here. To show preferential or unethical behavior, more reporting needs to be done. The Times will take a well deserved hit for publishing this piece."

Powerline:

"What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story, is how thin it is. It's mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to the late 1980s. The "news" that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain's friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence....The Times is a mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, nothing more. Its smear of McCain--not the last, to be sure--is entirely consistent with the editorial policies it has maintained for many years. Tomorrow's story is just one more reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news source."

Ankle Biting Pundits:

"This is a smear of the worst kind and reeks of a reporter, or a paper, with an agenda.

"Hell, maybe in a sick sort of way this will win him some sympathy with conservatives who will sympathize with McCain for getting a hatchet job done on him by this liberal rag, and I’m sure there will be many people snickering that McCain is getting slapped by this garbage even after spending so much of his career trying to please the editorial page of the NYT."

Truthdig:

Did unwanted attention from a New Republic scribe prod The New York Times into printing its long-awaited story about certain alleged snags in Sen. John McCain’s moral fabric?  McCain’s camp apparently thinks so, but regardless, the Arizona senator’s team is switching into battle mode to counter the paper’s “smear campaign.”

The Plank (The New Republic):

"One interesting question about the piece is just how it will be received by the considerable segment of the conservative movement that already views McCain with deep suspicion (the Ann Coulters, the Glenn Becks, and other assorted anti-McCainiacs). On the one hand, as Noam notes, being "attacked" by the New York Times is seen as a feather in the cap by many Republicans and, as printed, the story is hardly dispositive. On the other hand, the story does feed into the feeling on the part of some conservatives that McCain is a sanctimonious phony who's really no purer than the fellow politicians he occasionally castigates. I suspect the first sentiment will predominate in the initial response, but keep an eye out for signs of the latter as the story develops."

The Stump (The New Republic):

"The McCain campaign is apparently blaming TNR for forcing the Times' hand on this story. We can't yet confirm that. But we can say this: TNR correspondent Gabe Sherman is working on a piece about the Times' foot-dragging on the McCain story, and the back-and-forth within the paper about whether to publish it. Gabe's story will be online tomorrow."

Finally, a statement from Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's Communications Director:

“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

Comments

[AngieNewYork]

Once again, a Republican who claims to have "family values" proves to be a hypocrite.

[Dan]

Why that old sea dog! Ms Iseman looks like she got more going for her than what turns Bill on.

[snot]

If it is true, then let the story run. Bring out the details now! The last thing this country needs is another Presidential sex scandal by this time an angry politician instead of a charismatic one. I'd rather have a clean democrat(barack) than a dirty quasi republican.

[Juno]

Who Cares?

[Cuban Pete]

I guess one Jason Blair incident in a generation is not enough. Once again, the New York Times proves that it is the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party in its promotion of lies and "San Francisco" values.

By attempting to discredit Senator McCain with a story full of lies and unsubstantiated innuendos not worth the paper it was printed on, the NYT has demonstrated again to the nation that instead of being the "newspaper of record", it has become the new National Inquirer.

Yellow journalism is now printed in black and white, and instead of Hearst, we have Zulszberger at the helm.

[Michael]

"Once again, a Republican who claims to have "family values" proves to be a hypocrite."

Actually, "once again" a confused liberal thinks that some thing speculated upon by The New York Times "proves" it...

[J House]

There is no evidence McCain lied under oath to a federal judge in a deposition, or, lied to his cabinet or the American people about covering up an alledged affair.
Nor, is there any evidence he coaxed witnesses to lie to the feds.
However, there is plenty of evidence a former President did.
Hillary went along with the cover-up until the blue dress was produced.
Now, what is the story?

[speedzzter]

First of all, where did McCain "claim to have 'family values?'" Second, where is the "proof" that McCain is a "hypocrite?"

Why is it that some Democrats apparently can't help but jump to wild conclusions based on virtually NO evidence when it involves a Republican, yet ignore "blue dress" after "blue dress" of solid proof against their slick, "clay-footed" heros?

The NYT will have to do a lot more work to make this story have any "well turned" legs . . . .

[Peter]

This report "proves" nothing. Anyone can make allegations about being "conserned".

This is total nonsense.

[Sparky in Philadelphia, PA]

ANGIENEWYORK,

First of all, John McCain does not run his campaigns on a "family values" platform. Never has.

Secondly, at this point, this is an unsubstantiated rumor.

The hypocrisy here lies in the New York Times and it's liberal defenders who glibly dismiss any and all actions by members of their preferred party.

I say these things not as a fan of McCain, but as an American citizen who is deeply concerned with the undue influence the press has assumed in our elections. The First Amendment protects their right to print, but not to slander.

[baltinoreSteve]

the only thing proven is the NYT has no value as a legit news source...what trash

[mitt martin]

Why would anyone be surprised.....his wife
prefess's shock,disgust of the NYT. ... in real
life she was having an affair with McCain when he was married to Carol....she didn't
see anything wrong with shacking up as
they call it in Arizona.....while he was in Vietnam Carol was in a car accident.....4-5 yrs.rehabilitation....lost 4" of height....learn to
walk & talk....he comes home....moves to Wasington.....starts running around & boozing with John Kerry.....both having affairs...looking for women w/money.....Cindy
father owned beer distributorship in Az.that
looked like a lot of money to McCain....divorced his wife & married the
woman he was having an affair with....Kerry
came out better....married a woman who
inherited a republicAn senators money...
the Heinz fortune.....later McCain's people
contacted Kerry about McCain being his
VP during the presidential race of 2004....
McCain also contacted and met with democrat senators for a yr. about becoming
a liberal sentor for the democratic party.....so
McCain has been a liberal for yrs.,voted
just enough conservative to stay in party
and keep F_ _ _ _ _ _ _ them over. So,no
one in the party will have much sympathy
for the mess he is in....someone just pulled
a dirty trick on him.....of which he is famous
for.....like passing the Feingold-McCain bill
comes to Fla for the primary, and tells lies
on Romney two days before primary,with
the Feingold/McCain bill Romney was not
allowed to respond,so lots of people out
there cheering anyone on and saying
BRING IT ON COULD'NT HAPPEN TO A
NICER PERSON.

[William Moody]

Once again the New York Times has proven to be its own leprous pariah of common news room hacks bent on manipulating the news to further a leftist agenda and has exposed the times as the ensign for the dark side, bias, slander and fraud. Don't be surprised if one morning they find their collective asses in the gutter outside their place of business !!!! They are almost there now....seb....

[etrokman]

It didn't take long for the Times to attack McCain. The liberal bias favoring Democrats is so instilled in it's writings that they freely publish "all the news that's unfit to print" about Republicans, while giving the Democrats a free ride. Can't wait to see the first negative Obama article sometime in year 2016, after he has safely completed his second term.

[EMRJ]

he cheated on his first wife; why not the second?

[Matt]

And here I was worried that this election would be decided on relevant issues. Glad to see the New York Times has elected to undo any possibility of that. Just in time to prevent people from having to think for themselves. Whew... that was a close one! Thanks NYT!

[Kelly in NY]

I met McCain once and found him to be flirtatious and a little inappropriate.... for whatever that is worth. I guess this does not surprise me.

[Eddie T.]

McCain as a war stategist ????, from his ranks of 5th from the bttom of his 899 member class at the Annapolis Academe........Who crashed 4 planes before being shoot down in Vietnam in 1967?.....not Ron Paul.......How many of his fellow POW's call him a turncoat due to his strongly suspected cooperation with communists at the infamous Hanoi Hilton in North Vietnam during the war. This nation of ours can not have tis type of an individual as President.........Oh where is Ron Paul ????

[Old School Conservative]

I watched the news conference wishing so badly that Cindy would step to the mic and say "There's no blue dress here folks."

[JEJ]

Texas held early voting today. I've always voted Democrat, but annoyed by the ill advised NYT article, I went with McCain. This is the kind of brainless journalism that moves Democrats into the Republican camp. What were those people thinking?

[Catholic]

The best advice is not to listen to gossip.
I feel bad for Sen. McCain's wife. She shouldn't have to listen to this. No one can prove anything so let it be.

[Clive Britcher]

I find it extremely disturbing that, in order to be nominated for the most powerful position in the world , candidates must run the gauntlet of illicit sexual encounters, mafia connections, nepotism, economic insolvency, possible criminal activities...and so on.
Doesn't anyone care about what these people have to offer in government, or are they only interested in finding Mr Squeaky Clean?
It does not bode well for the rest of the world.

[Bill Keller]

Suggest if the NY Times addressed the carnival of access that existed in the Senate at K-Streets zenith in which John McCain was dancing then it might do the reader a benefit. If it shows the weakness of political endorsement vetting by NY Times, then another service is being provided by the paper. If all it provided is Fleet Street journalism with inky type, then a monkey is madly using my name.

[Felix]

Have you seen Mccain's wife Cindy's eyes lately. Such a excellently dressed woman, but lately DAMION looking eye makeup and that plastered on smile, what happened to the beautiful looking Lady we have seen only a few months ago. Has she become possessed ?

[Mike Frazier]

The NYT publishes what amounts to an allegation of infidelity and dishonor of his office by Senator McCain, with no factual basis whatsoever, and the first comment here says, "Once again, a Republican who claims to have 'family values' proves to be a hypocrite."

One of the few downsides to democracy is that it gives idiots like this an equal voice in the process.

[busy bee]

I thought that Cindy and John McCain's remarks toward Michelle Obama were so self righteous. They could have given her a break; it showed a mean character for them to jump on her like they did. So I thought this scandal in all the news today was funny. What goes around comes around. And if John isn't guilty of anything else, he is guilty of making questionable decisions.

[Iyoel]

Take that!!! Cindy, it's for the twisted and immature comment you made about Michelle. Be well advised and thoughtful before you start playing hardball. Or if you still need to sober up, do that first. Forgive me Senator, but I have to thank the NYT for this one.

[Christopher Hobe Morrison, Pine Bush, NY, USA]

When you are dealing with The New York Times, you are dealing with a newspaper that is losing money more and more and has been trying to cut its expenses. Maybe they decided that by increasing its profile with stories like the one on McCain or the one on how Obama wasn't taking enough drugs they might get more people to read their paper, or rather to buy their paper. Actually I rather like the paper. Of course I don't trust the people who run the place as much as I do the people who write, edit, and research the stories but people I know used to say the same things about The Wall Street Journal. I would say that about almost every paper.

If Mrs. McCain thinks that it is disgraceful that Michelle Obama is unhappy with the current state of the country this is her right. Mrs. McCain and Mrs. Obama both have considerable numbers of people on their side. But Mrs. Obama doesn't lack respect for her country, what I think she means is that she loves her country and feels it has a potential it hasn't been living up to lately but can in the future. To think that your country is always great no matter how it is run or what its leaders do, to me that is a disgrace. But it will be up to the voters to decide in November whether they prefer the patriotism of John F. Kennedy or that of Richard Nixon.