Others, including the McCain Campaign, are focusing on answering and analyzing the charges from the NYT regarding a lobbying "scandal" and potential infidelity dating back to the previous millenium. My interest is waiting to see what the Times has in store for the coming months.
This was simply the opening salvo to a long campaign season. John McCain was also involved in a messy divorce, there was the Keating Five scandal and McCain uses sailor's language from time to time. (The last of these is understandable, he was a naval aviator.) I don't think these smears are going to have an effect on the electorate but the media won't stop there.
Campaigning is a terrible business and the media willingly wraps itself in the mess like flies to a rotting carcass. This has been true a long time but now the media has decided to include itself as part of the story of politics and add its own fecal matter to the pile. A pile delivered fresh to your day every day.
The Times article was a piece of shoddy journalism poorly timed but I wonder if the Times has more. Pictures, witnesses, tape recordings, that they are holding back to use later. The Times normally uses all of their ammunition at once but who knows, maybe they have an entire series of articles ready to go. The goal being to catch McCain in a lie or a coverup. We'll see.
Understand this, John McCain is mortal with all the rights, privileges and faults therof. It would not be hard to conjecture he finds his wife attractive:
And, noting the similiarities it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine McCain would find Vicki Iseman (the lobbyist in question) attractive:
This is perhaps the worst of it, no one would be especially surprised if McCain did have a relationship with this lobbyist. In the absence of evidence there is always the perpetual guiltiness of being male. (Yes, men and women are different). If the Times has more and are waiting for another day to catch McCain in a lie then they are practicing political strategy rather than journalism and deserve denunciation; If this is it, if this is everything the NYT has on this "scandal" then the Times deserves ridicule.
Time will tell; In either case the Times doesn't deserve continued notoriety.
1 comments:
true. true. It seems as if the NYT was throwing a piece of bait out there and hoping someone bites, so they can pull in more. The lack of sources and a time peg in the published story shows they have almost nothing or something that they are holding onto strategically, which definitely brings the newspapers right back into the ethical debate arena.
Post a Comment