Lefty Blogosphere Turns on Dime to Promote McCain Smear

By Jon Henke (Bio | Archive)
February 21, 2008 - 19:12 ET

The Left is positively gleeful at news that John McCain may have had a "close bond" with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. Apparently, anonymous claims that people close to the campaign were "concerned" is all it takes to justify a major story in the New York Times. And exuberant blogging from the Leftosphere.

Fortunately, one Lefty blogger -- Greg Sargent -- stopped to think about what they were making a fuss about...
Let's try a little experiment. Let's take the meat of the big New York Times story and substitute the words "Dem Presidential Hopeful" for "John McCain" [...] If these words had appeared on the front page of The New York Times, wouldn't we all be yelling and stamping our feet about "panty sniffing" and condemning the use of anonymous sources who suggest a possible affair that may or may not have happened and wasn't directly alleged by anyone?

That's a sincere question. Wouldn't we?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
The answer is "Yes, the Left would." Come on, do you even need to ask? Am I the only one who remembers...
  • ...2004, when John Kerry was accused of having an affair.

  • ...2007, when John Edwards was accused of having an affair.
In both cases, the Leftosphere was apoplectic. Media Matters ran multiple attacks on anybody who dared to discuss the 2007 allegations. Slate and Mickey Kaus were attacked by Lefty bloggers for mentioning the story, with some even pushing to have Kaus fired. In both 2004 and 2007, the Leftosphere was outraged - outraged, I tell you! - that people would cover these "sleazy whispering campaign" allegations.

Today, they're covering the vague allegations. Enthusiastically.

So this is the pattern:
  • Thinly-sourced, unconfirmed 2004 rumor that a Democrat may have had an affair: the mainstream media won't cover it, and the Left bulldozes those who mention it.

  • Thinly-sourced, unconfirmed 2007 rumor that a Democrat may have had an affair: the mainstream media won't cover it, and the Left bulldozes those who mention it.

  • Thinly-sourced, unconfirmed 2008 rumor that a Republican may have had an affair: Front page of the New York Times

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"...If these words had

February 21, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Chris Norman

"...If these words had appeared on the front page of The New York Times..." Small problem with his theoretical question. This story, if about a Dem candidate, wouldn't have appeared there.

CN - beat me to the

February 21, 2008 - 20:06 ET by FastEd

same conclusion - his analysis is wrong from the start, as well as the assumption. If the new yellow tabloid was reporting the news, then where was the reporting about the so-called acusations by Jones, etc. I thought that just making the acusation was enough to get the story 'reported'.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

The non-starter nature of

February 21, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Chris Norman

The non-starter nature of theoretical questions like his are why we are here. Guys like him don't recognize the bias - ergo - the irony.

One lonely voice of reality in all the left-o-sphere?

February 21, 2008 - 19:47 ET by c5then

I would not be surprised if he got flamed for even asking the question.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

The New Electronic Crucible

February 21, 2008 - 23:00 ET by

<Yawn> I thought every politician had relationships with lobbyists.  I know they all take money.  And I'm sure most of them have sex.  Some are more or less successful at one or the other.

Anyway, can we talk about something besides the media's reporting of love affairs?  Honestly.   Let's move on, people.  If we didn't consume that shit, they wouldn't produce it.   (And no, I don't mean that everything the NYT prints is shit.)

Too Easy

February 21, 2008 - 23:05 ET by Cool Arrow

Answer:  It wouldn't happen.

There is already an accusation (not an innuendo) from 1999 (same as McCain) concerning Barack Obama on youtube, and the NYT has not even touched it.

♣ a seal

I agree

February 21, 2008 - 23:08 ET by celator

Rumors about Obama and Edwards have been floated, but we let it go. I think we tend to not look at this stuff except when it becomes extraordinarily egregious--ala Billy Clinton.

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

Rumors

February 21, 2008 - 23:20 ET by Cool Arrow

That's why this McCain thing is so insidious.  Hillary wanted this story out there so it would look like the McCain camp forcing the Obama story nationwide just in time for the Texas Primary.

If I'm right, a major outlet will report on Obama's 1999 limo ride Friday or Monday.

♣ a seal

Are you talking about that

February 22, 2008 - 03:28 ET by Blackwater

Are you talking about that guy from that youtube video? If so, I would be rather suprised if someone put that on the msm. Though it would be funny seeing that guy take a lie detector test and find out he was telling the truth.

youtube

February 22, 2008 - 10:07 ET by seaniep

I don't buy that guy about the obama limo ride, it doesn't make a lot of sense and it is ripe with silly stereotypes

the white guy did coke, the black guy did crack . . . ?  IFF obama was out there doing drugs, wouldn't he at least class it up enough to do real coke and not crack?

I think that guy is just looking for money or something

To the left, the ends

February 22, 2008 - 01:09 ET by rbosque

To the left, the ends justify the means. To them, it doesn't matter if the smear is true or not. They just want to put it in the minds of voters that he did something wrong- therefore, he is not electable. In a month or so, they'll pull out another "story" and so on.

They're giving him the Bush-treatment.