by Teh Nutroots | The New York Times has published a piece that's stirred up an internet shoutfest and completely altered the current of the current endless jabber-jabber of discussion of the candidates (NYT) Rallying at last to McCain's cause, conservative bloggers and columnists are yelling "Foul!" and launching their little firecrackers in the Times' direction. What are the chances they'd be calling names rather than feeding the rumor mill as fast as their little fingers could type if the piece had been about Clinton, Obama, or any Dem? You and I both know that the people complaining most loudly about the McCain piece would be all over it like cockroaches on cotton candy if the NYT had so much as hinted at a sex scandal involving a Democrat.
You can see why they're outraged. After all, Republicans never become the subject of allegations of ethics scandals or sex scandals or sex 'n ethics scandals. Okay, hardly ever. Okay, not in the last two months or so. Anyway, whenever they are, they get drummed right out of their family-values-loving party, at least if the scandal involves allegations about gay sex
After all, they righteously roughed up Larry Craig, though they weren't quite so vehement in denouncing in advance of the facts Senator Vitter or Rudy Giuliani when certain allegations about them were all the talk of the internet. They weren't even that hard on Vitter after---in the words of Jon Stewart---he took his trip to Sorrytown. They're really only interested in gay sex scandals and ones involving Democrats.
But I won't deny that both sides are guilty of applying a double standard to scandals. No matter which team you're on, it always seems different, or at least distinguishable, when your guy does it. For example, I didn't hear nearly the amount of denunciation and sanctimony from their team when National Enquirer published a piece about John Edwards which sank without a trace when the woman involved indignantly denied it.
And perhaps the allegations concerning McCain will sink of of sight just as quickly. On the other hand the Enquirer ain't The New York Times, so I wonder.
But don't think I'm happy about it. For the record, I'm as pissed off as they are that the NYT saw fit to publish the McCain piece now. What if it starts a backlash and gets us one of the Republican candidates I really can't stomach, such as (insert name of any recent other Republican candidate here)?
Anyway, here's the nutshell version of the alleged scandal between McCain (71) and the much younger (not that most people aren't) lobbyist, about which I don't give a damn, though I imagine a number of voters might.
The part that I do give a damn about---if I believed these allegations are true, which I don't have an opinion about now---is the part that would (if true) reflect on McCain's ethics. If shown to be true, I'd be even more disapppointed in him than I already am. At present, I prefer to remain my detachment.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement. (Read more here if you want more details...) (NYT)
The Washington Post has more.
Shut up, New York Times and WaPo. There's a time and a place for tarnishing the reputation of a candidate I don't support, and that time is after he gets the nomination. I don't hate John McCain or anything, but it's a bit freaking previous to be opening up his can of worms for him, isn't it? First, the nomination and then the swiftboatings! Have we learned nothing from the last two elections?
If this is true, this would not of course be the first time John 'Keating Five' McCain has been what his friends (who include a couple of my co-bloggers) call 'imprudent.'
“He is essentially an honorable person,” said William P. Cheshire, a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. “But he can be imprudent.”
Mr. Cheshire added, “That imprudence or recklessness may be part of why he was not more astute about the risks he was running with this shady operator,” Charles Keating, whose ties to Mr. McCain and four other lawmakers tainted their reputations in the savings and loan debacle.(NYT)
That time, the dirt---and the potentially more permanently damaging charge of hypocrisy--- didn't stick. Maybe it won't this time. And as one blogger pointed out, it might even bring them all together.
To read the pissing and the moaning and the gossip and the gloating and all the other chatter, you have only to click here.
Memeorandum has a big ass blogger round-up on this one.
Here's some who've weighed in just on the NYT article. And there's lots, lots more.
New York Times, American Spectator, Guardian, Crooks and Liars, Firedoglake, Hullabaloo, US Elections, ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Publius Pundit, The Natural Truth, Bang the Drum, Los Angeles Times, Political Punch, Political Radar, The Campaign Spot, TalkLeft, Booman Tribune, NO QUARTER, DownWithTyranny!, Shakespeare's Sister, South Texas Chisme, Left in the West, Salon, The New Republic, Daily Kos, Open Left, No More Mister Nice Blog, The Moderate Voice, Mercury Rising, All Spin Zone, the talking dog, Wonkette, Attytood, AMERICAblog, Prairie Weather, Pandagon, THE LIBERAL JOURNAL, MyDD, Oliver Willis, The Democratic Daily, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Gateway Pundit, BlueOregon, Brains and Eggs, Truthdig, and Taylor Marsh
Related BN-Politics Postings
Jon Stewart: Senator Vitter's Trip to 'Sorrytown'
It's Not the Sin, It's the Hypocrisy
Bathroom Blunder Causes Conservatives to Eat Their Own
Sen. Craig's Arrest: Was there Enough Evidence? (Updated)
It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid (Part 3)...
It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid (Part 2)..
Comments