TNR BLOGS

September 06, 2008 | 3:43 PM
September 05, 2008 | 8:32 PM
September 05, 2008 | 8:16 PM

September 05, 2008 | 2:53 PM
September 05, 2008 | 3:45 AM
September 05, 2008 | 12:25 AM

September 06, 2008 | 3:14 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:10 PM
September 05, 2008 | 4:28 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

September 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
September 03, 2008 | 1:01 PM
September 02, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.02.2008
The McCain Story, Ct'd

One interesting question about the piece is just how it will be received by the considerable segment of the conservative movement that already views McCain with deep suspicion (the Ann Coulters, the Glenn Becks, and other assorted anti-McCainiacs). On the one hand, as Noam notes, being "attacked" by the New York Times is seen as a feather in the cap by many Republicans and, as printed, the story is hardly dispositive. On the other hand, the story does feed into the feeling on the part of some conservatives that McCain is a sanctimonious phony who's really no purer than the fellow politicians he occasionally castigates. I suspect the first sentiment will predominate in the initial response, but keep an eye out for signs of the latter as the story develops.

--Christopher Orr

Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:09 PM with 18 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

primwallflow said:

I agree that you'll see more of the former at first, but it won't be a loud, full-throated counterattack against the Times, since the story all but spells out that there's more the authors aren't telling.

February 20, 2008 11:44 PM

teplukhin2you said:

What's the scandal, again? That McCain heeded the advice of a lobbyist to relax media ownership rules that everyone now agrees are idiotic in an age of digital media (and that were seen as idiotic by intelligent people decades ago)?

Or is it about having a mistress eight years ago?

Either way, this strikes me as rating somewhere close to Rezko on the BS meter.

February 21, 2008 3:59 AM

lymon1 said:

Has anyone commented on the timing of this?  Those voters paying much attention are focused on the Dem race -- if the Times had waited until Sunday this would have got far more attention.  With the debate tonight, how much are people going to be talking about McCain?  

February 21, 2008 7:10 AM

Eupatrides said:

Just to show its fair-mindedness, why does the NR cease so sedulously refusing to investigate the many current rumors about the sainted Obama and and the once-beloved Hillary? McCain stands accused of an impropriety. The allegations about Obama and Clinton involve, among other things, accusations of illegal behavior -- smoking crack and kick-backs from lobbyists in the form of suspiciously profitable cattle-futures investing. Which is the more serious?

February 21, 2008 8:49 AM

drdannyu said:

I think that the reaction will be different from the different anti-McCain factions.  I have no idea what the Coulter harpy will say, since her words have only a nodding relationship with reality, and thus cannot be predicted accurately without the use of entrails.  But the Dobson branch will likely use this to justify digging in their heels, since McCain clearly doesn't share their values regarding the sanctity of marriage.

February 21, 2008 8:50 AM

drdannyu said:

Smoking crack?

February 21, 2008 9:19 AM

tembrach said:

What makes this a story? Is the implied accusation that this woman slept McCain in return for relaxed media ownership restrictions? Well, good luck proving that

Shouldn't the debate be strictly on the merits of McCain's efforts vis a vis concentrated media ownership? Why do we have to muck it up with unprovable accusations?

Really bad decision by the NY Times

February 21, 2008 9:30 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Tembrach:

Sex gets people's attention. The rest is really boring (if still important).

Taylor Marsh predictably defends McCain:

www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php

I expect an endorsement soon.

February 21, 2008 9:35 AM

nbarry said:

One clue to the conservative reaction is Michelle Malkin's admonition to McCain over his courtship of the media.  "When you lie down with dogs ..." is the gist of her message.

February 21, 2008 9:40 AM

tembrach said:

VirginiaCentrist, spot on. Yup, sex sells.

February 21, 2008 9:50 AM

The Plank said:

Chris, just a small piece of evidence towards your theory that conservatives might react badly to the

February 21, 2008 10:50 AM

Lundell said:

Tend to agree with your theory outlined in your second-to-last Chris.  I have always thought McCain to be more stylized as a maverick than an actual maverick.  Sure, he's voted with Democrats, but did anything big outside of McCain-Feingold result from his moderate stances (and let's face it, McCain-Feingold for any warts it may have caught the zeitgeist of a public that is fed up with how campaigns are run)?  

And I beleive what has pissed conservatives off is that McCain has been able to use all these empty anti-righty invectives to build a separate identity while basically remaining a rock-ribbed conservative.  It's kind of like a political version of Robert Frank's notion of positional goods.  

What has amused me is watching this "tiger in the lockerroom" transfrom into a "kitten on the court" as he tries to make amends with the right wing, which he clearly has to have energized and behind him if he's to occupy the White House.  It's hard to tell how this story will affect those efforts once the dust settles, but I don't imagine James Dobson is a very happy camper this morning.  He may be chuckling the consdescending "knowing laugh," but I don't imagine he's looking forward to having to think about a McCain endorsement.

February 21, 2008 11:19 AM

butchie b said:

Well, I'm pretty conservative, and I consider the story a hit piece pure and simple.  But I especially loved the breathless announcement that the lobbying firm in question has given $85,000 to McCain's campaigns.  Over 8 YEARS!!  Big effing deal.  Chuck Schumer shakes down lobbyists for more than that over breakfast.

Anyway, is this it?  Is this all you've got?  Cause if it is, Johnny Mac is home free.  Gee, seen in public with a lobbyist years ago. Wow!  What a story!

Jeez.

February 21, 2008 11:37 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

The Times ’ story on John McCain’s alleged affair with a lobbyist during his last presidential run crashed into the political discussion today like a flaming satellite tank filled with toxic innuendo and accusations. People are wondering a

February 21, 2008 11:39 AM

teplukhin2you said:

A black eye for the Times. But hey, look on the bright side. At least they're not pushing stories about black love children

February 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Lundell said:

The Times might get a black eye, but anyone who doesn't think this is a punch to McCain's solar plexus is kidding themselves.  He may still be standing after the punch, but he's going to be doubled over for awhile.

February 21, 2008 1:28 PM

teplukhin2you said:

I'll take that bet, and double it, Lundell. This is another version of Mapes-Rather. Incompetent journalism and inept PR efforts, easily outwitted and outgunned by Dem superlawyer Bob Bennett,  that rallies the right-wing base.

Unbelievably stupid, so much so it makes you wonder whether Bill Keller's made a secret pact with McCain to help him with Limbaugh et al.

Deja vu all over again. Does our side have some deep impulse toward self-destruction? Is it genetic or learned?

February 21, 2008 3:10 PM

Lundell said:

tep, I don't think it's only the sex angle that hurts McCain here.  McCain has always tried to position himself as being different than everyone when it comes to his behavior toward special interests.  He's been caught with his hand in at least one cookie jar here and even if the sex doesn't stick, he can't go around saying he's more principled than everyone else when it comes to behavior toward lobbyists.  Other candidates can say "Everyone else is doing it so why can't I?"  McCain shouldn't be able to do that.  He can't rail against special interest excess and then be the beneficiary in the next breath.  At the very least, this will take a lot of teeth out of any ammo he planned on using against Obama and Hillary.  Our side is nuts if they let him slide on this angle or . . .once again everyone, KEATING 5!

February 21, 2008 6:18 PM