So The New York Times has released a story by a four-person investigative team alleging a potentially inappropriate relationship between Sen. John McCain, the apparent GOP nominee for president, and a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman, three decades his junior. There is no proof of an inappropriate romantic or sexual relationship, merely suspicions by staff members now said to be disgruntled. So why is the Times biting on this story? A look back at a few Clinton sex scandals suggests a different standard for Republicans and Democrats.
When Arkansas state troopers told The American Spectator and the Los Angeles Times in 1993 they secured sexual conquests for Gov. Bill Clinton, we found:
As in the Gennifer Flowers case, the Times initially buried Clinton's sex scandal in small wire stories on the back pages. Washington Bureau Chief R.W. Apple proclaimed "The New York Times is not a supermarket tabloid." But the Times ran a front-page Maureen Dowd story the day before the release of Kitty Kelley's book -- without any of Kelley's critics, or any attempt to prove Kelley's allegations [that Nancy Reagan had an affair with Frank Sinatra]. The Times also ran a 1991 Fox Butterfield article which revealed the name of William Kennedy Smith's accuser and described her "wild streak," her fondness for drinking, and her speeding tickets.
In 1999, when Juanita Broaddrick came forward to charge Bill Clinton with sexual assault in a Little Rock hotel when he was attorney general of Arkansas, once again, the Times tried to be last and least:
The newspaper that published Kitty Kelley’s allegations about Nancy Reagan’s sex life on page one also touched the Broaddrick story as a media critique, lamenting that "smaller outlets on the Internet and cable television" are "overwhelming the slower and more sober judgments of mainstream news organizations." The Times followed up with a short mention from White House reporter James Bennet and a few TV articles from reporter Lawrie Mifflin.
The "news" alleging adultery against McCain is not "fit to print."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Endorsed?
February 20, 2008 - 23:20 ET by Mike From CanmoreIsn't this the same NYT that endorsed McCain? Listening ot CNN AC 360 right now and they are discussing whether or not the NYT sat on the story. Endorse but then release. Things that make you go hmmmmm.
There are 2 types of politicians. Those who know AGW is a sham and stupid ones.
I think the Times thinks of
February 20, 2008 - 23:43 ET byI think the Times thinks of it as a good thing.
Like "way to go John, you'd da man."
LOL
So predictable
February 21, 2008 - 01:45 ET by NofThis is only the opening salvo on Jauncho McNasty. The media will bring all guns to bear on his "straight talk express". Meanwhile they will embrace Osama...uhh...Obama with cream puff puff stories of him kissing babies, healing the sick, and pulling money out of his arse to give to the needy...etc....god i'm so sick. Third party?? anyone...anyone?
"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" R. Reagan
The real story here is the way the media manipulates
February 21, 2008 - 04:29 ET by kgThe real story here is the way the media manipulates the election process of
the American people. The NYT sat on this for a for months (claiming they didn't
have enough evidence).
In the process of strategically sitting on the story they praised McCain and
bashed Romney. Out of nowhere McCain suddenly has a comeback as the press fawns
over him.
Now after Romney drops out of the race and McCain is all but assured the
nomination they decide to run with the story. This is not new to the NYT. They
played the same stunt by sitting on Foley in '06 and shortly before the election
spring it on the American people.
We all knew this was coming. The media had done this many times before.
The FEC and even the U.S. justice department should look into the way the
press manipulates the elections in the U.S.
It is about time this practice comes to a halt. Perhaps this is the 'change'
is talking about. (not a chance in hell). The people of the U.S. should be
embarrassed at the way the media operates.
The media has become one of the biggest problems for this country. I
certainly hope the FEC and the Justice Department has the balls to investigate
and press charges against the tampering medias.
The media is as corrupt if not more so than the politicians.
you don't say
February 21, 2008 - 00:01 ET by candanceYou mean the MSM found dirt on McCain that conveniently didn't surface until after he sealed up the nomination?
No way!
You mean the great thinker Leon was wrong?
Is Leon wrong..... hmmm...
February 21, 2008 - 09:12 ET by JerryIs Leon wrong..... hmmm... Is ice cold? Is water wet?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Dirt on McCain
February 21, 2008 - 00:23 ET by Cool ArrowAs I posted in an earlier thread:
Remember how confusing it was that the NYT endorsed McCain?
Maybe it's clearing up now with the NYT hit piece today on Juan McCain. An innuendo story concerning McCain and a 40 yr old female lobbyist. Their endorsement of McCain may be nothing but political cover.
NYT also endorsed Hillary who, according to Dick Novak, has some serious dirt on Obama.
But the Hillary camp fired a campaign official last month for asking questions relating to Obama selling drugs, and when he last used them. So the "back of the limo" story fits in nicely with Hillary's plans.
With Texas and Ohio next up, the timing of the McCain hit piece is such that the "back of the limo" story will go MSM just in time to foul Obama's coronation.
♣ a seal
♣ a seal
Well, the NYT just hurled a bathroom sink at McCain.
February 21, 2008 - 00:31 ET by R D HelmNow all we have to wait for is the other bathroom sink, the two toilets, the tub, the kitchen sink and the two cars parked out in the driveway.
Then they are going next door for some more stuff.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
The guy who tried to nail
February 21, 2008 - 00:39 ET by MightyMouthThe guy who tried to nail McCain for a year and and half was just on H&C and gave him a clean slate, couldn't find ANYTHING against him. Let's face it folks McCain is the real deal (as far as no scandals go). In some areas he is a liberal Puke, but not all... lucky us.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM, I am not buying the NYT story on McCain. Not for a second.
February 21, 2008 - 00:54 ET by R D HelmBut, at the end of the day, it really does not matter.
What I am saying is that this is just the very beginnings of what McCain's alleged "friends" in the MSM have in store for the man. He is about to find out (in a manner most rude) that the liberal MSM really doesn't like him as much as he apparently thinks they do. I'm guessing they really do not like him at all.
McCain is toast, and the liberal MSM hasn't even plugged in the toaster yet.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
Apples and Oranges
February 21, 2008 - 00:31 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistGo back and read the Times article again, Mr. Graham. Its theme is possible violations of political ethics by Senator McCain. The suspicions of McCain's aides about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Iseman---a lobbyist---are presented in that context. The sexual allegations about other public figures that you mention had no connection with possible political ethics violations.
hey agrarian
February 21, 2008 - 00:41 ET by candanceDidn't you promise to stop coming on this website because it was such a waste of time? Because you were a certified genius (with points to spare!) and had no patience for Republican robots?
We were hoping you would keep that promise, yet you've let us down.
Of course it's "political
February 21, 2008 - 06:40 ET by motherbeltSo, AD, have you been eagerly watching the papers to find a juicy story with which to launch your return to NB??
Of course it's a "political ethics" angle, ....they have to make it look good. No mere "affair" to sink McCain. they spent too much ink defending Bill Clinton with that angle (a personal matter, nothing to do with government, no tabloid journalism...). They studiously ignored the ethics of a CEO having an affair with one of his employees.
The Clintons couldn't just fire the Travel Office staff and replace them with their own people (which they had every right to do); they had to slime Billy Dale in order to claim they were "cleaning house." Similarly, the NYT can't just use a "sleazy" allegation against McCain; they have to doll it up into an "ethics" scandal, so they can say they're not just doing tabloid gossip.
Who knew what when?
February 21, 2008 - 00:56 ET by BarkerNYT Endorsement (emphasis added):
"Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator
John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the
George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry
fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound
bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of
Americans than the rest of the Republican field.
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain's occasional, tactical pander to the
right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on
principle."
--NYTimes, January 25, 2008
This is disgusting. First
February 21, 2008 - 01:25 ET by ziplinedownThis is disgusting. First endorse a candidate for president, then when he gets the nomination smear him. Its obvious that they did this to destroy the republican party. They should no longer be allowed to call themselves news. This is about as fair and balanced as we are here at newsbusters
"give me a break!" - John Stossel
Maybe?
February 21, 2008 - 01:32 ET by BarkerIt could also be an attempt to blunt any real 'sex story' that may be looming on the horizon for another candidate.
How About McCain's Proven Adultery?
February 21, 2008 - 01:32 ET by PopularTechHey don't listen to me - what the hell do I know?
Betrayal, deceit, corruption and John McCain (The U.S. Veteran Dispatch)
"While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 - just a month after dumping his crippled wife and securing a divorce."
Don't worry though McCain was adulterous because he wanted to be 25 again and now probably just wanted to be 45 so it is "OK".
McCain to crash and burn!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
au contraire. This hit
February 21, 2008 - 05:20 ET by Jack Bauerau contraire. This hit piece will rally many conservatives, who are wary of McCain, right behind him.
If you don't understand that, you don't get much in human behavior. Bet right now, McCain WILL NOT "crash and burn" as you predict. Rather the opposite.
I will wait for the Playboy spread
February 21, 2008 - 01:34 ET by Lame CherryStrangecain seems to have pretty good taste in women unlike Bill Clinton whose choice seemed to be whatever was walking by to attack.
So I will wait for the Playboy spread as certainly a tart who would commit adultery selling herself to Strangecain will for a million dollar Hefner check sell herself again.
If no Playboy shoot..........well the Times has got it's hand in the wrong panty drawer.
Interesting Barak Obama has a perv willing to and going to do a poly test to prove he and Barak had a queer union in a limo before the altar of a few lines of cocaine...........has filed suit.........and the worst the Times can come up with is adultery charges.
Got news Times, Strangecain has a former wife and a current wife he did the scarlet letter with. Not much news there.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Wow. Even if it were true,
February 21, 2008 - 01:37 ET by rbosqueWow. Even if it were true, why did they give Clinton a pass when he was accused of rape?
rbosque,
February 21, 2008 - 01:49 ET by R D HelmBecause Wee Willy had his handy dandy get-out-of-jail-free card.
The "D" after his name. :-)
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
RD, I posted something
February 21, 2008 - 06:25 ET by motherbeltRD, I posted something similar above....this is why they are dressing it up as a matter of "political ethics" rather than "just an affair"....to save themselves from looking like hypocrites when compared to the Clinton thing.
"to save themselves from
February 21, 2008 - 17:10 ET by Cortillaen"to save themselves from looking like hypocrites when compared to the Clinton thing." BWAHAHAHAHAAA! Sorry, but that's just funny. The Times not looking like a bunch of hypocrites? It'd take someone being blind, deaf, and moderately insane to see them as anything but.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
I'm confused
February 21, 2008 - 01:48 ET by von8I've been under the impression since 1998 that action with someone other than your spouse while you're president is a good thing. Democrats have been saying Lewisky wasn't a big deal for the past 10 years.
All of Clinton's scandals didn't slow him down any. It just contributed to his rockstar persona among some.
Unfortunately for McCain, he doesn't have a rockstar persona according to anyone....except maybe a few ladies at the local nursing home.
Getting angry
February 21, 2008 - 01:50 ET by KC MulvilleMost of the time, I blow off these obvious attempts at smear. And to be clear, I'm not the biggest fan in the world of John McCain. But this one gets me angry. The New York Times isn't just the "paper of record." They also have quite a record themselves.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
I followed the link and read the story. Remember last summer, as McCain was failing miserably, and he cleaned house? He got rid of a whole bunch of staffers. Clearly, this "news" story is told from the perspective of the campaign staffers who were fired. (By the way, McCain started to succeed the moment they were fired. Wonder why?) Well, this story is nothing more than the pathetic, sour grapes grumbling of those campaign hacks. In their telling, they had to "save" McCain from himself. McCain needed them because he was too naive to appreciate the need to keep up proper appearances. Sure McCain was honest (or maybe not? they suggest), but they were the "professionals" who had to protect him from himself. Clinton has his Bimbo Squad, and these losers now want to portray themselves as McCain's Squeaky Clean squad. These hacks are just trying to restore their reputation, now that McCain is winning without them.
I happened to catch some of this reported as "breaking news" on TV. It appears that this story was written during the summer, but the NY Times held off on publishing it. Why?
Bill Keller (and/or the rest of the New York Times) are completely irresponsible. I'm all for freedom of speech, but in this case, I'm perfectly willing to make an exception. But if they want the right to publish second hand hearsay to embarrass a candidate from the party they don't like, then I want the freedom of speech to call them the lying, malicious, idiotic traitors that they are.
All the Slimes that's fit to print
February 21, 2008 - 05:15 ET by Jack BauerMmmm, so I guess the question to ask is...
What did the New York Times know, and when did it know it.
By the way, the SLIMES spiked this story in December 2007 because it was defamatory, unsubstantiated, un-sourced, and based on nothing but rumor and innuendo.
The only reason they have run it now is because the extreme left The New Republic was about to publish a story sliming the Slimes, for the NOT running this McCain hit piece.
There are plenty of reasons for conservatives to be wary of Jonh McCain, but this is the least of them. I expect it will rally many fair-minded conservatives behind him.
These people have the
February 21, 2008 - 05:39 ET by USA4freedomThese people have the efficiency of a German concentration camp. With the sign over the gate: Work will make you free.
What was it maybe a month ago this very paper indorsed McCain. Now the moment he has it wrapped up they pull this story out that is about10 years old. Did they just find this story? Or is it like that sign at the gate, every thing is lies coming from this paper..?? Yea, come on in, we are on your side, remember that sign? Well work with us and we will set you free. We know you smell death in the air but don’t worry, that is just your evil friends on that fringe right, that are not enlightened like us, that only want you to lose. Remember “we endorsed you” We are your buddies, don’t forget, now just line up for the showers.
These are the same people that tell us, hey we put out that article about national security because we care for the people and their right to know.
See John, we on the right don’t like you because you hurt our cause. With all the laws you have tried to enact Mc Cain and (fill in theblank). The left just hates us, they always will, they hate you too John, they just hate you just a little less then us but when it comes to voting they are going to vote for someone they like, not hate less..
We respect what you have done in the past, you have made real sacrifices things that people cannot dispute, but we have a different set of principles and we stand for these, and a large part of your past legislation does not. You seem to want to make friends with people that laugh at your sacrifices as well as you personally. The same people that when the time comes, will walk you thru that gate, with all the promises of support.
John do you smell Zyklon B..??
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
More Liberal Media Spin
February 21, 2008 - 09:22 ET by Oscar GoldmanI have a couple observations after reading the story. Most important, this story could have been easily written to put a positive light on Senator McCain's character. Read between the lines and one can see how a man snared by the Keating 5 debacle emerged with a lesson learned about appropriate and inappropriate interactions with lobbyists. Lobbyists are a fact of the Beltway and a necessary one. We are all lobbyists in some respects. Ever call and meet with your elected representative to express your viewpoint? The second observation is exactly what Tim said -- "news" ... not "fit to print." This story is not news! It was reported years ago.
Here's the real story. Senators Obama and Clinton run around the country claiming they are advocates for the proloteriat, yet both missed the February 10 Roll Call vote on the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. The Bill passed 81-16. I am not fan of giving tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes. The Act is not the point. Senator McCain voted "yea." I disagree with President Bush on the Act. In all fairness, Senator McCain did, however, miss one important vote this year and so did Senators Obama and Clinton. They all missed the roll call vote for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, which passed 91-3. Had I been an advisor to Senator McCain, I would have made sure he was in Washington for that vote. He can stand on his impeccable record on defense.
The MSM voraciously attacks Republicans as heartless conservatives who don't care about the poor, but don't call to the mat the hypocrisy of Senators like Clinton and Obama. What are elected "representatives" who roam the country on private aircraft with Secret Service security details second only to the President and miss votes on legislation that is the centerpiece of their party platform?
Real name of NYT!
February 21, 2008 - 09:52 ET by PawpawNThe real name of the NYT is N'ER YER TRUTH!!
As an Arizona resident, all
February 21, 2008 - 10:08 ET by BDAs an Arizona resident, all I can say is.....
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
You play with sharks, you end up getting chewed on Johnny Mac!!!
You thought that they would leave you alone because you said bad things about conservatives on your most cool "Straight Talk Express." You thought they LIKED you...
What a maroon.