Let's see. The New York Times has apparently been working on a story on John McCain's 2000 Presidential campaign, with the focus of the story being the allegedly improper relationship the Arizona Senator had with a lobbyist: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin. There are two implied accusations in the story: 1) That McCain was involved in influence peddling, and 2) That his relationship with the (female) lobbyist went beyond professional. Notably, in making these claims, the largely unsourced story relies on second- and third-hand knowledge. Essentially, it's hearsay, and not very reliable hearsay at that.
As well, the timing of this is jus so suspect. By all accounts, the Times has been sitting on this story for months. Yet, it waits until now, once McCain has effectively secured the Republican Presidential nomination, to publish this. Why? I can't think of any other reason than that the Times is beginning its process of attempting to torpedo a man they think stands a decent chance of keeping the White House out of the Democrats' hands. Maybe I'm out on an island in so believing, but I can't see it any other way.
2 comments:
I heard a radio clip of some left-winger who was pushing this and the host kept arguing that there wasn't any evidence to back the claims. In an article I read McCain said he is friends with the woman, I wonder if she has commented on this. I also agree with you that this is solely about timing, especially since the Times did an editorial a few weeks ago saying if they had to endorse a Republican it would be McCain. He seems to be handling it well, so I hope it doesn't hurt him too much. It reminds me of the accusations against Clarence Thomas.
Debra Saunders has an interesting column on how this will hurt the Times.
Post a Comment