I am heartened to read that Kirchick is dismissive of old gossipy stories about McCain. Funny though, I seem to remember a Kirchick post last fall when he breathlessly waxed indignant about a gossipy story involving Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd that allegedly happened....30 years ago.

Ordinarily, I'd agree, but this story doesn't read like it never had the goods. It reads like the goods were lawyered out of it.

Well, yes, if you read the story looking for a sex angle, it will be a great disappointment.

But the story actually stands pretty well as a portrait of McCain's style of, for want of a better word, followership. McCain is attracted to charismatic people who can help his climb to power, and he trusts these people for whom he develops follower-crushes to the point that he projects the moral outstandingness he attributes to himself onto them.

In other words, McCain is a generally upstanding fellow who believes he can look into the eyes of a person, get a sense of his soul, and that's all he needs to know about a person.

What's more, he sometimes expresses his followership for charismatic women as well as charismatic men.

Which actually isn't a terrible indictment of McCain or anything. Nobody is perfect, and this story gives us a very useful glimpse at a major flaw in this particular candidate's personality and judgment. That's good to know, and voters can weigh this flaw against the strengths in McCain's character when making a choice.

But a question to Kirchick: How does one square the assertion that the NY Times is "in the tank for Obama" with that paper's endorsements of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain, endorsements that seem to be permanently displayed on its main opinions page? Or is this yet another example where a smug lack of restraint and the absence of responsible editorial oversight allowed the author to overstate his point in an unfortunate closing paragraph?

I'd put this at 9 out of 10 on the Peretzian scale. And Kudos to Chris Orr for calling Kirchick on his bullshit.

As someone who defended you against the relentless, remorseless tide of liberal planksters during that ted kennedy episode (and i'd do the same thing again today, rest assured), i must disagree with you on this one. I happen to think character matters, and how do i determine an individuals character or lack thereof? By how they've conducted themselvest throughout their lives, naturally. While i don't think this single episode defines him, the keating 5 episode was a black mark on mcain as well as the others.

I do not know, as yet, what to make of these alleged sexual escapades. When these kinds of stories come from former employees, i tend to take them with a grain of salt.

If i were asked to give mccain a word of advice before he begins the fall campaign, it would be the same as the old time trainers used to give to prizefighters....women weaken legs.

This is a non-story. But I happen to think that even if he'd been banging the lobbyist every chance he got it would still be a non-story. This is one of the rare times I have to agree with Kirchick; the potential sex scandal is by far the article's main draw, and it's entirely unsubstantiated. The majority of the article reads like padding---though interesting, it seems as if it were spliced in simply to save the article from being a paragraph or two of speculation. I read it and thought, "So that's why conservatives hate the New York Times." If that had been a Fox News story, well, we'd all be talking about Rupert Murdoch's secret machinations.

wildcat...

women weaken legs...god now wonder my legs ain't worth s--t...

I am only partially kidding when I say that this story actually elevated my opinion of The Mummy: Good lord, to still be angling for some Strange as he approached 70.  Wow, that is something...I've given up all hope and I not quite 50...

That's a pretty impressive post from Kirchick, considering he typed it with his elbows, his hands covering his ears and screaming "La la la la I can't hear you!!!"

ARE YOU KIDDING ME JAMIE?!?!?!

An interesting footnote to the Times bombshell and the Post 's lesser but interesting version is

If McCain is having an affair with a 40 something blonde bombshell, that helps him in modern American politics.

He wasn't boinking the help in the White House (or Senate) closet.  It's a real grownup affair, in Georgetown or some such.

Congrats, old man.

You should realize that the Times initially was looking to run this piece in December 2007, and that at the time it was far from clear that McCain would be the Republican nominee.  But don't let actual information get in the way of your whining that the NYT ran this story as a favor to the Democratic nominee.  Seriously, consider reading a little more widely before you write your posts.

Poor Mitt Romney just missed the boat...

Bay Buchanan on CNN was very upset tonight that the NYT didn't cough this up in December, when they apparently discussed it with John McCain. She thinks they sat on it in case he became the nominee, so they could torpedo him/the Republicans when it was too late to pick someone else.

Also, Anderson Cooper kept mentioning a TNR story about the NYT - what is that all about? Did I miss it?

Yet, in truth, wouldn't it make sense if Romney pulled off the mother of all flip-flops and jumped back in, un-suspending the suspension of his race? I wouldn't put it past him.

jaunty - my woman causes me to go weak in the knees but it 's a transient condition ;-)

I'm with Jaunty and Channy - a) on the lameness of this post by Kirchick: burn on that bias old NY Times, you tough guy you! b) this should do wonders for the "is he too old?" idea. c) not comparable to Monica.

I hope this whole thing backfires on the press - maybe the natives will finally rebel.

Here is the take of a liberal Assistant Editor for The New Republic on the New York Times McCain hit piece: What Story? So here's the essence of the Times' 3,000-word "bombshell" on John McCain. John Weaver, whom McCa

Oh good, now Kirchick is being used by McCain's propaganda apparatus.  They mischaracterized Kirchick as "liberal," but otherwise this was totally predictable.

Thank you, James, for all that you do for TNR.

Everday that Jamie is allowed to continue on at TNR lowers the magazine's stature. There isn't even a point in addressing the merits of this post, like everything Jamie writes, it has no merits. Just another opportunity to grind his axes. I'm only surprised there wasn't a reference to Jimmy Carter or Jesse Jackson.

Well, for what it's worth, I think that the sex angle is far less bothersome than the ongoing questions about his ethics that the article raises.

Not that logic is likely to convince Kirchik, but if the NYT was really "in the tank" for the Dem nominee against the Republicans, wouldn't they have published this story at almost ANY OTHER TIME in this election cycle?  Think about it: if they publish it just before the primaries begin (or, for maximal effect, just before New Hampshire and South Carolina), it has a fair shot of killing McCain's chances before his campaign ever has a chance to get off the ground, thus taking out the only potential GOP nominee who has any sort of chance of winning in November.  Or if they wanted to hold back some more, they could get it out there right around the time of the GOP convention, to mitigate the convention bounce that most campaigns get in the polls, or even the week before the election, in an attempt to re-create the dynamics of the Bush DUI arrest revelation that (arguably) cost Bush the popular vote in 2000.

But if the NYT wanted to take out McCain on behalf of the Democrats, the one thing the paper WOULDN'T do is publish it at a time when (a) McCain has effectively clinched the nomination, and (b) the Democrats are still fighting it out, and thus unable to focus their full attention (or anything close to their full attention) on maximizing any potential damage to McCain that the story might generate.  In other words, if this story was going to come out at all, this is quite literally THE BEST TIME FOR MCCAIN to have it revealed in public.

A few thoughts:

1. Were I a Republican, I'd be pretty miffed that this bombshell wasn't exposed beforehand.   One part of the 'story' is that this is old news.  If it's so old, why didn't Romney smack him with it back in January?

2. That said, McCain should have let this be aired 6 months ago - way before  the primaries.  If it's a non-story (and the TPM and others seem to think there's a mound of muck still to be uncovered) then let it blow over with enough time to clear the brain before the primaries.   At this point the GOP is stuck with a guy that more than 50% don't want... and now he's saddled with some scandal-ish weirdness.

3. Also, how many voters under 35 remember the Keating 5?  That's important to air out now.

4. McCain is the presumptive nominee for a major party.  He has been loudly criticizing his main rival (Obama) for ethical lapses (two: the faux-pledge for public funding and for Michelle Obama's treasonous dislike of America).   Since I don't read the paper NYT, I don't know if either of those two criticisms of Obama made the front page.  If they did, then the Times has full right to dish some dirt on McCain.    I mean, I know that adultery with a lobbyist who seems to have been paid off for her services is not as important as Michelle Obama not liking the 80s....

Oh wait, which Plank writer flogged the Michelle Obama story?

I don't think this is a big story except that it illustrates a persistent and troubling trend among our political class: sordid affairs with not particularly attractive women.  Bombshell?  Did you guys not see the picture of this woman?  I mean, a step up from Monica, but that's not saying much.  

I demand a President who uses his power and influence to sleep with extremely hot women, dammit.  JFK, where art thou?!

Isaac thinks John Weaver's quote is the most damaging part of the NYT 's McCain story. Jamie

C'mon Jamie!  If McVain were having an affair with a lobbyist who could further his career, it would be totally in character.  He began romancing the current Mrs. McCain, a very rich Arizona heiress, who launched his Arizona political career, while still married to the original Mrs. McCain.  She had supported him throughout his POW ordeal, but was no longer useful to him in his new role.  

He is consistent in his duplicity on all fronts, yet the media insisit on calling him a "staight talking maverick"!  Sheesh!!!

I love the comments about the Times endorsing McCain.  Does anybody think there is the remotest chance of the Times endorsing McCain in November?  Four reporters labor for months to uncover shocking information that a lobbyist enhanced her business, briefly, by getting some attention from a committee chairman.  Who'da thunk such things could happen in our nation's capital?  I will sleep better knowing that no Democratic committee chairman would ever pay any attention to a lobbyist, but, in case I'm wrong, the Times will put four reporters on the case.

haggai,

you have returned. Did you enjoy the SF Noir fest?

jb aka cookie

Hey, Poster Formerly Known As MrCookie1...yes, I went west for the noir festival again, and it was a great time.  

The real story was reported on by the AP and WaPo.  Basically, that McCain obviously used his power on the Commerce Committee to help the pet causes of Iseman.  It doesn't really matter if she just helped bundle campaign contributions his way or if there was an affair.  He sold his influence.

Also, there's one tiny fact contradicting that the NYT is "in the tank" for Obama...

www.nytimes.com/.../25fri1.html

Was that a film noir festival? Its my favorite of the movie genre's, and i can't say enough about double indemnity. Rates right up there with classic westerns such as once upon a time in the west. I also have the highest regard for john garfield and the postman always rings twice. A shame they don't make movies like those anymore, but if they did, maybe the old ones wouldn't have the same charm.

Upon reflection, jamie, i can understand your heading of this post. Yes, if there's any problem with mccain and lobbyists, it should be looked into. As i wrote earlier, character matters. But, taken all in all, this appears to be but a hit piece from the NYT. I suppose they wanted to hold off publishing till the moment they determined it could do maximum damage, but felt they had to go now, lest they get pre-empted by TNR.

In other words, you are (in the main) right, and christopher orr is (wholly) wrong. Maybe he should stick to reviewing movies, that is -his- genre.