File under Law of Unintended Consequences . . .
There has been significant speculation in the MSM that an upshot of the NYT's McCain piece could be to rally support for McCain from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh who heretofore have been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about the Arizona senator.
Typical was this exchange from today's Good Morning America, which followed an appearance by McCain campaign advisor Charlie Black.
View video here.
DIANE SAWYER: Let me ask you about Mr. Black saying a half-a-dozen times at least "liberal New York Times, liberal New York Times." Is this going to rally conservatives who have been a problem for Senator McCain, and he said there would be no libel suit; he certainly implied that. Short of that, what will they do with the New York Times?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: There's not going to be a libel suit. You can't win a libel suit by a public figure like Senator McCain against the New York Times. But I've been talking to McCain strategists. They are going to go after the New York Times, in the words of one strategist, "with extreme aggression. If they are going to act like a partisan in this race," says this advisor, "we're going to treat them like partisans in this race."
And I do think that has the potential to rally conservatives who have been very critical of Senator McCain. We already saw Sean Hannity last night going after the New York Times. It's going to be interesting to see today what Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have to say.
Indeed.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
MSNBC is saying that McCain
February 21, 2008 - 09:25 ET by motherbeltMSNBC is saying that McCain is going to have a press conference at 9 AM, ET...
I imagine this subject is the reason...
It's hilarious to hear Sawyer sounding so offended by someone saying "the liberal New York Times."
I don't blame the McCain campaign for treating them like the partisan Democratic shills that they are.
hmmm
February 21, 2008 - 09:28 ET by allanfHow does "the liberal Diane Sawyer" sound?
Oh puhlease, George...
February 21, 2008 - 09:28 ET by HelenSWhat's really pathetic about Georgie Snuffelupagus is that he really thinks he's ahead of the game and has predicted Rush's or anyone else's reaction to this "news". I can just see him rubbing his hands in glee at his cleverness, just chomping at the bit to say "I told you so, I told you so!".
I will have to listen to Rush today to hear him set the little punk straight.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
I'm sure Rush will have
February 21, 2008 - 09:49 ET by motherbeltI'm sure Rush will have something to say about it. But my guess is that he won't be so much defending McCain as hitting back at the NYT.
I wonder how big a story the NYT did last year on Dianne Feinstein's "conflict of interest" involving her husband's company garnering millions in contracts awarded by the committee that she was chairman of?
Presidential Candidate vs. California Senator
February 21, 2008 - 10:58 ET by CaringwhiteguyAll the moral relativists will say McCain is a Presidential candidate and DiFei is merely a simple US Senator from across the country. And then of course there's the "sex" angle. A little nookie (especially when a Republican is accused of being the nookier) always plays better than the arcane process of awarding Government contracts.
Georgie boy, being a
February 21, 2008 - 10:54 ET by dscottGeorgie boy, being a Clinton MSM Operative is playing a major head game here. The fact that he "said" Rush and others are going to defend McCain against the NYT is baiting Rush and others NOT to defend McCain. This is just another play on the lib tactic of Projection. This is just another step in isolating McCain from any support by the Conservatives if he should happen to wise up and have a meeting of the minds. My guess is the NYT is in on the game, that's why they spent 3000 words on a unsubstanciated allegation from former disgruntled employees. Lot's of fluff to give the appearance of impropriety. This is a major political black ops to weaken McCain.
McCain needs to rethink his game plan because both the NYT and MSNBC are working to defeat him. Any illusion that the MSM is going to sit on the sidelines or be even handed because he is a liberal have just been exploded. He needs conservatives now more than ever, so he needs to make nice with the likes of Rush and Ann. If he can't do that with them, he certainly can't do it with the rest of us.
We can always count on sleazy people to overplay their hand as they try to insure the results they want, yes, come to poppa...
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Rush will not hit McCain on this But
February 21, 2008 - 09:57 ET by DelsaRush will not hit McCain on this But he will question the ny times. Did McCain do the bidding of the lobiest? This is a story about ??? The sources are whom?
And when oberman gleefully boke into the HardBall show with "Breaking News" I thought it had to do with the pilots who's jets crashed in the Gulf of Mexico
Was the times was holding this until after the nomination. If this happens now maybe the Republicians will have the brokered convention?
Romney on the first Ballot!
Delsa, we agree that Rush
February 21, 2008 - 10:03 ET by motherbeltDelsa, we agree that Rush will go after the NYT and their sleazy tactics (see my comment above you.)
On MSNBC right now, they are talking about the Times attempting to influence the nominating process and thereby the election. Not even Mike is on their side...how bad is that?
GMTA on the Romney thing too...no posting, but I was wondering if "suspending" means that Romney can get back into the race if this blows up.
Motherbelt
February 21, 2008 - 10:11 ET by DelsaSuspend means Romney can continue getting delegates, and reatains the ones he has. Yes is is viable as a candidate.
To hear Mike on msnbc support mccain is very interesting and speaks to the fact there is, nothing there - there
But i think they ran the story because they were holding it until AFTER the nomination.
What SOB"S! And as a Romney girl i am not exactly warm to McCain.
What will the HUCK vulture do?
Who are the McCain insiders?
February 21, 2008 - 10:05 ET by DelsaWho are the McCain insiders talking to the press?
The times and the new republic should answer.
The new republic says, "we were just going to ask, in an upcoming article, why the ny times was holding this story? What?
What story?
Delsa, after McCain made
February 21, 2008 - 10:15 ET by motherbeltDelsa, after McCain made his statement the very FIRST question was (paraphrasing) did your staffers ever ask you not to meet with this woman or tell her to stay away from you? He said "No."
The are sooooo predictable.
Update: The same question was just asked again, with the wording slightly changed.
And McCain is amazingly calm. Good thing he's not doing a Torricelli! LOL
"And I do think that has
February 21, 2008 - 10:15 ET by Evoke"And I do think that has the potential to rally conservatives who have been very critical of Senator McCain."
I gotta admit when the news first broke my initial reaction was one first of incredulity then anger. However easily manipulated I probably am, this story firmed up my support for McCain a bit. Of course we all knew the mudslinging would start very soon. Let's play ball!
Motherbelt
February 21, 2008 - 10:21 ET by DelsaThe affair question was a give me. The more serious question would have been, Did you do anything in your committe to help this lobbyiest or her intersest?
But what reporter would ask a serious question?
McCain should have made his
February 21, 2008 - 10:31 ET by motherbeltMcCain did a calm version of "I did not have...."
He should have made his statment and walked off. Now they are going to re-examine evry single word that he said in this PC. He might have given them more ammo...they will not let it go. He could end up hoist on his own petard.
I won't say he's toast, but this could be the beginning of the end.
Evoke
February 21, 2008 - 10:22 ET by DelsaYou speak my thoughts as well. I was and remain pissed off with the MSM
I go tohis support side as well. Rush and others will too. This is not a policy difference it is crap journalism.
John and Cindy did a good job
Chris Matthews just
February 21, 2008 - 11:14 ET by motherbeltChris Matthews just questioned the NYT's editorial judgment in using the picture of the Ms. Eisman, dressed in a glamorous gold evening gown. Why, he asks, didn't they use a photo of her in business dress?
That's a valid question which points even more strongly at what the Times was trying to convey.
Correction at 1015: Joe Scarborough just pointed out that the glamour shot Matthews held up and attributed to the NYT was actually in the Washington Post. Matthews admitted he got his papers mixed up in his pile when he was looking at all the different stories.
And another thing
February 21, 2008 - 10:32 ET by DelsaSupposedly, this lobbyiest works for telecom companies and McCain evedentially McCain voter against stuff before his committe 12 times when it was before his committe.
this will be an all day story at the very least
I am listening to Laura Ingraham online now to see what she says and she says, McCain should learn something form this. He needs the conservatives to win so he should learn who his friends are or could be. ( paraphraseing) and she suggests he be a warrior for Conservatism not a warrior for ethics
Pat Buchanan just said
February 21, 2008 - 10:36 ET by motherbeltPat Buchanan just said McCain ahs challenged the integrity of the New York Times and now this will be a fight to the death.
McCain had better be purer than the driven snow....
Actually MB -this could be McCain's shinning moment
February 21, 2008 - 10:51 ET by Dee BunkIf he can prove he can successfully tarnish the NYT. Most independents don't see the times as a completely biased left wing rag. If an independent like McCain can bring out their true colors to more people it could be good for Republicans in general.
I have my doubts that he will be any good at it, but if he is able to blow the head off the media bias in a big way then all will be forgiven for the way he played into before. No other Republican official has ever been able to make a dent in the bias and if he can do it will seal the deal for me.
That's a possibility too,
February 21, 2008 - 10:58 ET by motherbeltThat's a possibility too, Dee....it could go either way. Either people will flock to McCain as a backlash against this kind of "reporting" or they will be turned off McCain because they don't wnat any more Clintonian "sleaze."
That's why I said McCain had better be clean.( Sorry, I just realized that is in another thread). He has challenged the integrity of the NYT. They will pull out all the stops now to try to prove their story true.
They(MSM) don't need to prove it true, it's just out there!
February 21, 2008 - 11:01 ET by PawpawNThey(MSM) don't need to prove it true, it's just out there! They put it out there to harm the Repub candidate, just like the NG story on Pres Bush. You just plant a seed, then let each individual water it with doubt, dismayment, etc. Remember they say "a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can even start to get out"! Oh how true. Remember the over 10,000 dead in New Orleans, the over 600,000 civilians deaths in Iraq, etc. We all know now they were not true, but some people still aren't sure!
Correction: My saying that
February 21, 2008 - 11:06 ET by motherbeltCorrection: My saying that McCain had better be clean is in this thread, a couple of comments above my reply to Dee.
motherbelt,
February 21, 2008 - 15:32 ET by R D HelmMcCain had better be purer than the driven snow....
LOL-In that case, he's roadkill.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
RD, I only meant he'd
February 21, 2008 - 17:10 ET by motherbeltRD, I only meant he'd better be clean on this one. Because they are going to examine everything he said, with a microscope.
One thing I don't understand:
It's a lobbyist's job to try to influence legislators, right? And it's legal, right?
So what's the point here? If he acted according to her client's interest, that's wrong? Or is it only wrong if he acted in her client's interest because he had a thing for her? Would it be OK to act in her client's interest if he disliked her?
That's why I think they would try to nail him on the infidelity thing....not actual lawbreaking, but the perception of the unfaithful husband.
Am I missing something?
motherbelt,
February 21, 2008 - 17:29 ET by R D HelmOh no, you are missing absolutely nothing. Despite my rather profound derision for the man, he just doesn't strike me as being prone to marital infidelity.
It's just that, when I saw "purer than the driven snow" I started thinking about all the legitimate stuff they are going to be flinging his way rather soon.
I guess I was just having trouble associating McCain and pure. Lol.
I just hope Mitt and Huck are keeping their calendars clear through at least September, as I don't think McCain is going to make it that far.
Seriously.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
Certainly no supporter of
February 21, 2008 - 10:36 ET by MassConservativeCertainly no supporter of Obama but if he is smart I think he comes out today and denounces this as the trashy hit piece it is.
The only thing conservatives despise more than the Clintons is Pinch Sulzburg and his fishwrap NYT. The timing of this piece has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the times is in the tank for the Dem nominee. I do believe this will rally conservatives primarily against the Times and every hit against the times from here on out is going to be a hit against Obama unless he distances himself from this kind of gutter politics.
It will not hurt him with conservatives, who would vote "none of the above" before they would vote Obama but it would damage him amongst independents which is going to be the group to sway this election.
The question is will the inexperienced Obama be smart enough to figure that out.
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
OK, 'No supporter of Obama"
February 21, 2008 - 10:37 ET by motherbeltOK, 'No supporter of Obama" then why are you strategizing what would be a great move for him????? LOL
Read the last statement of
February 21, 2008 - 11:22 ET by MassConservativeRead the last statement of my post. "Will he be smart enough to figure it out". My guess is no, it will prove his inexperience, and it will harm him.
Trust me, Obama would not get my vote for sewer inspector (he would just hope they are ok and never actually get in them).
I consider myself right-leaning. Of course, if I lean an further to the right I would likely topple over.
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
"best newspaper out there"
February 21, 2008 - 10:38 ET by EvokeMattwews just said on msnbc that the the NY times is the "best newspaper out there" LOL I'm sure he'll take this story as far as he can.
Where is NYT story on Obama & his land deal?
February 21, 2008 - 10:46 ET by PawpawNWhere is NYT story on Obama & his land deal? Shouldn't that be a front page story if this is? SOOOOOO BUYASSSSSSSED!
Obama momma
February 21, 2008 - 10:49 ET by Delsathe only reason Obama would say anything would be to get his wife off the, I am not proud of my country stuff.
MSMers don't understand
February 21, 2008 - 10:52 ET by mattmMSMers don't understand Conservatives. They think Conservatives are motivated by the same petty, vain and sophomoric nonsense that motivates them, rather than by ideas, ideals and principles.
The NYT's blatant anti-conservative, pro-Democrat, anti-American, Leftist bias and estrangement from the truth is a seperate issue from McCain's deficiencies or qualifications.
If they think Conservatives can be swayed toward a candidate just because they're pissed at the NYT, they're idiots...or ignoramuses, or just so myopic that they can't reason properly...
I hope this sinks McAmnesy
February 21, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Six String Spiff...and PAVES THE WAY FOR ROMNEY!
There is something very suspicious obout the timing of this release though. This bomb was detonated prematurely. Could one of the NYT's competitors have forced them to drop it early, so as to be 'first'? Either way you look at it, the liberals just shot themselves in the face. (Yay!) If this is true, McAmnesty is DONE, and Romney steps back into the scene. Even if it is NOT true, it is still a glaring example of MSM liberal bias for anyone with a brain to see, and thus further decrease the NYT payroll. This will be VERY interesting.
Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range At 0800 Daily.
Spiff Romey can't just jump back in - It would be Huckabee
February 21, 2008 - 11:01 ET by Dee Bunkif anything, but this isn't enough to derail McCain in the Primaries. It only hurts him in the general.
Actually even Huckabee couldn't win
February 21, 2008 - 11:10 ET by Dee BunkI think the best we could hope for would be a brokered convention and I don't know if Romney would be allowed back in for that or not.
According to the reaction
February 21, 2008 - 11:14 ET by mattmAccording to the reaction from Clintonopolous and Slaver you'd think this would actually help McCain, not hurt him. At least that's what they seem to fear....
I'll take any Republican over McAmnesty...
February 21, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Six String Spiff...Even if he is aloud mouthed bible thumper. I think he would have what it takes to face down Iran too. Little Ahmedineedajihad would be worried if Huck was in. McCain is just a wussier Bush. I've had my fill of wussies in this party. FED UP WITH THEM actually
Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range At 0800 Daily.
Spiff - I like Huckabee better than McCain also
February 21, 2008 - 15:24 ET by Dee Bunkbut he's not going to win. Anyone is better than Obama including Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton
Romney can't jump back in?
February 21, 2008 - 15:04 ET by motherbeltRomney can't jump back in? Why not? He suspended his campaign, he didn't drop out.
Hi mb... I too was
February 21, 2008 - 15:10 ET by bigtimerHi mb...
I too was wondering the same thing earlier when I saw the post, anyway I was going to try and find it and you saved me time.
He just suspended his campaign, so why couldn't he get back in and get back what he already gave to McCain should it come to this?
Anyone know the specifics?
Sorry - I shouldn't have said that - I guess I don't reall know
February 21, 2008 - 15:27 ET by Dee Bunkbut I would assume that he's already taken off ballots in many states and it would be hard if not impossible to get back on.
I'm sure he could be a write in - but write in candidates never stand a chance.
Hi Dee... I do not know
February 21, 2008 - 15:38 ET by bigtimerHi Dee...
I do not know how any of this would work, what you say makes sense too with his name off of the ballot now, I did notice Romney got a small percentage of votes still on Tues. which seems like eons ago now.
Guess we will find out further on down the road...
BT - I'd be thrilled if somehow Romney could step back in
February 21, 2008 - 17:21 ET by Dee BunkBT - I'd be thrilled if somehow Romney could step back in
I'd be thrilled if Fred
February 21, 2008 - 17:31 ET by Clear thinkerI'd be thrilled if Fred would do the same!
Clear - I liked him best also
February 21, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Dee BunkClear - I liked him best also
Ct and Dee... Well you
February 21, 2008 - 17:38 ET by bigtimerCt and Dee...
Well you both know how I felt too...still do.
Dee... I was more than a
February 21, 2008 - 17:45 ET by Clear thinkerDee...
I was more than a little peeved about Fred. Not because he got out, but of what people expected from him. I definately got the impression that people wanted him to act like the Ringmaster of a three ring Circus. You know, like the way the others have acted. I for one loved his low key approach as it proved to me that he did not want the WH as badly as other candidates do. He was willing to serve the people, but he did not have this all consuming desire to do anything it took to win the position. I still love the idea behind a true citizen servant of the people, not someone who is power hungry just for the sake of being power hungry.
Unfortunately, the voters in our country want a circus!
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
I agree CT - I don't think Fred was as narcisstic as most
February 21, 2008 - 17:49 ET by Dee BunkI agree CT - I don't think Fred was as narcissistic as most people who run for President.
His biggest problem was getting in too late.
bt & Dee,
February 21, 2008 - 17:36 ET by R D HelmAnd it wouldn't hurt my feelings in the least if Mitt brought Huck along as well, as it least he would be bringing the Fair Tax with him. I know they don't exactly like each other, but it isn't as if would be the first time a president and vp didn't like each other. I mean, there is no law that says they have to, anyway.
In looking at McCain's weak (IMHO) response to the NYT's hit piece, I hope this isn't an indication of how he intends to respond when the MSM starts throwing the really heavy stuff at him.
Then again, upon further reflection.......
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
NY Times = Commie fishwrap
February 21, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Missouri Conservative"women and minorities hardest hit"
While I posted last night
February 21, 2008 - 11:28 ET by bigtimerWhile I posted last night about being curious to what Rush would say today, which I still am, nothing any talking head has to say from either side of the aisle forms my own opinions...
I find this curious to sit back and watch all of this and wonder who is more hypocritical, as far as I am concerned if this was the other way around we would be all over it....
My biggest question in all of this is why would McCain need to hire a top lawyer like Bob Bennett clear back in Dec. if he did nothing wrong...I feel McCain seems to think he is owed this chance at the Presidency again...I feel McCain is one of the biggest hypocrites there are in the Senate, I feel very angry with McCain for letting this go on as long as he has knowing all the time this may come out, therefore hurting our choices out here on who we want to trust, stand behind and vote for...
I watched the news conference, I don't believe John McCain, but then again I have watched him for years on the Senate floor, plus hearings of his, he is not always what he projects n television...at all.
He has stuck a stick in a lot of our eyes out here with his votes in the Senate that have hurt this country as far as I am concerned, he has had power for too many years and it has had a big influence on how he conducts himself with other people behind the scenes...
As to the NYT's...they have, always will make me sick, they always have an agenda, what they have done to a lot of voters out here by putting this out now is absolutely horrendous....
I hope all players pay in the end, one way or the other.
Bigtimer
February 21, 2008 - 11:45 ET by DelsaMcCain hired the big Bob Bennett to impress the NY Times.
the more important question for me is, or would be, did McCain use his influence on behalf or this lobbyiest? Regardless of the type of relationship.
I am glad it is out now. We can elect another candidate at our convention. If it comes to that. Better out now than after our convention.
Maybe McCain will learn humility??? maybe???
Good morning Delsa... I
February 21, 2008 - 11:52 ET by bigtimerGood morning Delsa...
I don't think he hired Bennett just for impressing the slime machine NYT's...he had to have some other reason, like he did not want the story out there.
The hypocrisy with people like McCain when it comes to lobbyists will be coming out more and more in my opinion, he is not above reproach in this regard in my opinion.
I too feel the same as you do about the convention and possibly what may come before the convention.
Guess we will all have to have a lot of patience that is for sure...no matter how we all individually feel about all of this.
Going to be interesting.
I'm with bt on this one,
February 21, 2008 - 12:18 ET by motherbeltI'm with bt on this one, Delsa. He may have been trying to impress (did you mean "intimidate"?) the NYT, but hiring a high-powered lawyer (especially the one who was on Bill Clinton's team!) doesn't look good.
I think Romney should quietly get the word out that he is "available" to replace McCain if it looks like McCain is going to be a seriously flawed candidate. ;-)
Good morning mb... I sure
February 21, 2008 - 12:28 ET by bigtimerGood morning mb...
I sure agree with you regarding Romney...
I do think more is going to come out, if McCain knows this and I personally feel he does, I hope he does the right thing for this country, steps down and gives his delegates to others...
I know I am being premature here, but it is just an early morning thought here.
As an aside, I do not want to be made to feel we have to all join the McCain band-wagons vs. the filthy leftist press and their agenda..I want the country and the voters coming first.
The only good thing about all of this for me is that it's just Feb. we have time to correct this if it needs correcting.
I do think more is going
February 21, 2008 - 15:07 ET by motherbeltI do think more is going to come out, if McCain knows this and I personally feel he does,
I agree, bt. I said in the other thread this may be the beginning of the end for McCain. The MSM will now examine every single thing he said in his press conference...this may be a drip, drip, drip until his support evaporates.
Dee
February 21, 2008 - 11:38 ET by DelsaThe station talking heads are all saying that the ball is in the ny times court.
they have to put up or shut up.
We shall see.
Delsa -on the networks or cable or both?
February 21, 2008 - 11:40 ET by Dee BunkIt would be great if this were another Dan Rather Moment where even fellow liberal journalist would have to agree they went too far
The Times is claiming that
February 21, 2008 - 12:14 ET by motherbeltThe Times is claiming that the story is true. They say no one has refuted the story.
They then define "the story" as reporting the fact that someone told them these things. So they are not making implications, just reporting someone else's implications.
Pretty Clintonian, huh?
Yeah and Dan Ratheresq - Someone told Rather the documents
February 21, 2008 - 12:22 ET by Dee Bunkwere real right?
why benett
February 21, 2008 - 12:55 ET by dostrowwhy not bring out the heavy artillery when you can have the campain pay for it
Just for giggles let's look
February 21, 2008 - 14:46 ET by dscottJust for giggles let's look at the National Enquirer. http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ What's that I DON'T see, no article on John McCain. It's official folks, The NYT doesn't even rate the level of the National Enquirer! HOW PATHETIC IS THAT?
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
If I were Huck and Romney, I wouldnt stray too far from a phone
February 21, 2008 - 15:29 ET by R D Helmconservatives like Rush Limbaugh who heretofore have been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about the Arizona senator.
LOL-Well, Mark, no one can accuse you of not being charitable here.
If I were Huck and Romney, I wouldnt stray too far from a phone. At the rate the MSM is going after McCain, he my not make to the convention. :-)
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."