Michelle Malkin » A lesson for John McCain Update: McCain responds– “It’s not true;” Update: TNR reports on the “constipated” NYT

A lesson for John McCain Update: McCain responds– “It’s not true;” Update: TNR reports on the “constipated” NYT

By Michelle Malkin • February 20, 2008 09:55 PM

Scroll down for updates…

If you lie down with MSM dogs, you wake up with stories like this.

***

Allah’s got the latest involving the McCain camp’s claim that The New Republic pressured the NYTimes to run the story.

Dogs. Fleas. Karma.

***

Parting thought number one: Instead of dredging up old news, maybe the National Fishwrap of Record could have actually broken fresh ground and pursued the George Soros-open borders-Reform Institute angle. The Reform Institute is mentioned in the NYT article, but only in the context of rehashing past reports on the think tank collecting “hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee” and paying the salaries of key McCain aide Rick Davis.

Parting thought number two: Maybe McCain will really mean it now when he jokes about the “jerks from the media.”

***

2/21 9:37am Eastern. McCain holds a press conference this morning to respond to the NYT: “It’s not true.”

John McCain denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is “not true.”

“I’m very disappointed in the article. It’s not true,” the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood alongside him during a news conference called to address the matter.

McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.

The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to stay away from McCain.

Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about Iseman.

McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation.

Here’s more on the political advantages of going to war with the NYT.

Here’s the vid of McCain’s press conference. He seems unusually subdued:

More reax from conservatives here.

Update 2:15pm Eastern. TNR –not exactly in the best position to be wagging its finger at anyone else about poor jounalism, but I digress–runs its story behind the NYT’s thin, recycled story. My favorite paragraph:

Inside the Times newsroom, the Drudge item sent the McCain piece into hiding, making it both tightly guarded and “a topic of conversation,” as one staffer put it. “The fact that it ended up on Drudge pushed it into secrecy,” added another staffer. “The paper gets constipated on these things,” a veteran former Times staffer said, describing the editors’ deliberations over whether to run the piece.

I find it amusing that the paper had constipation–and then ended up with diarrhea all over its front page.

***

Allah’s got the best summation: “They got a tip in November, threw four reporters at it, couldn’t substantiate the affair with anything sturdier than hearsay, then dithered about whether to spike it or toss it out there. The compromise solution: Bury it at the end of a long rehash of McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five, to give it some heft by association.”

Posted in: John McCain

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (227)

trackbacks (27)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]

#201

On February 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm, emjem24 said:

Twiggman:

What are you congratulating RIC on out of curiosity?
#202

On February 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm, emjem24 said:

Purple:

I fear you’re right. McCain should have seen it coming. Anything out of the NYT, even an endorsement, should have a question mark next to it. /sigh/

This whole election cycle is a mess and McCain’s history of dissing conservatives will bite him. Just see the reactions already on this blog. They are well-deserved but also counterproductive.
#203

On February 21st, 2008 at 3:32 pm, fred5676 said:

On February 21st, 2008 at 1:10 pm, Brian72 said:

I’m wondering what else the NYT is sitting on right now. …

Also, when does the whole battery unload in a sustained, landscape-withering barrage? (The whole battery means WaPo, LAT, BosGlobe, ect., ect.)

On Friday before the election, as in DUI story on Bush in 2000, and LAT story on Arnold just before his first election.
#204

On February 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pm, purplepeep said:

emjem24 said:
Purple:

I fear you’re right. McCain should have seen it coming. Anything out of the NYT, even an endorsement, should have a question mark next to it.

Maybe he should have said “thanks, but no thanks” to the NYT endorsement. But I think doing battle with the NYT now certainly doesn’t hurt him with the base. Or with folks in general, I think they usually know a sleazy cheapshot when they see it.

I see he has a slim lead in Texas polls over Obama; he could use some big state wins.
#205

On February 21st, 2008 at 3:42 pm, Laree said:

James Carville predicted this back in 1998 he said future canidates will have to pass a purity test. John Edwards already went through this cycle with his supposed love child with a staffer.

http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=n9802241c

Thanks Purplepeep, TNR intimidates the NYT? into running innuendo, with questionable sourcing, you can’t make this stuff up. Really this is what the Left has come to? I can tell they don’t learn from experience very well. TNR -all the Stuff, I can Print and get away with.
#206

On February 21st, 2008 at 3:45 pm, Laree said:

I forgot to mention that now since the NYT set the standards, the Right can come out with all their innuendo,rumors and gossip, about Obama and Clinton. The Swamp is going to fill up pretty fast.
#207

On February 21st, 2008 at 3:45 pm, Leatherneck said:

The New World Order’s mouth, the NYT, throws a bunch of lies at McCain. Why?

Just about everyone on the right rallies around John McCain now, plus it splits the country. This action brings change.

The same thing in Kosovo me thinks.
#208

On February 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm, purplepeep said:

Laree said:
Thanks Purplepeep, TNR intimidates the NYT? into running innuendo, with questionable sourcing, you can’t make this stuff up.

And then there’s TNR taking the NYT to task for being “constipated”.

“That’s comedy gold, Jerry! Gold!!”
#209

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:10 pm, cwdancer said:

Ombre Rose - Don’t waste your vote on Romney (was my guy too) in the TX primary..Join me and vote for Obama. Gonna be the only time I can vote AGAINST Hillary. Thinking of wearing my red, white & blue vest with the elephants for the occassion. Bet I’m not the only one that will be doing that. I’m betting the reporting will be light Rep turnout and record Dem…LOL
#210

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:11 pm, Paul said:

Quick, Someone leak a national security secret so that the NYT can regain its self esteem.
#211

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm, emjem24 said:

Purple:

I agree with you about the comedy bit. I don’t think NYT has a bloating problem anymore though. They seem to be flushing out a lot of staff and advertisers.

May I suggest the following to solve both the NYT’s and Frank Rich’s “constipation sensation” (props for Harry Potter Book 6 had to use it:
Dulcolax…

No more potty analogies I promise…
#212

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pm, Irish Rose said:

On February 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

Emjem, I was not going to do this, but you forced my hand. I have reviewed some of your posts, but not all cause they are long, tiring. Here are some examples of your attacks on others: these are your quotes: I did not want to do this, but I have to now.

Oh, puhleeeze.
Pardon me while I puke.
#213

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm, graysonret said:

As far as the NYT goes, their credibility with me is so bad, that if they said the sun rose today, I’d go outside and look…just to make sure. When you are having trouble with an opponent, spread a rumor about morality. As I said a few days ago, let the muckraking begin! Next week, the Obamas never got married!
#214

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm, emjem24 said:

IR:

Hey there. How ya doin’? That was about my reaction as well. No offense to RIC but she’s been lecturing me reams about Mr. McCain. I don’t think I’ve lectured anybody except perhaps Rags about his historical analogy (sorry can’t quite shush the history teacher background in me).

Hope you’re feeling good. Have fun in the “snake pit.”
#215

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:45 pm, Irish Rose said:

RIC needs to get the hell over herself.
#216

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

There goes Irish ROse again, can you be more elequent please. WOW, I am blown away by your way with words. Maybe you should be BO’s VP. “Puke”, so clever, so smart, I am speechless. I have never been a supporter of bullimia, but whatever rocks your boat.
#217

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pm, graysonret said:

emjem24, May I suggest something better than dulcolax. I would write a prescription for Lactulose…10cc an hour. In 4 hours, you would have a brand new, feeling refreshed, NYT. They don’t have regular constipation, they have “high end” constipation.
#218

On February 21st, 2008 at 4:55 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

I wonder if anyone wants to guess what the next McCain story will be and when it will come out? I heard Bob Bennet say that he gave the NYT lots of cases where this woman’s lobbying was turned down by McCAin, but they ignored it. However, I still wonder, why would McCAin hire someone like Bob Bennet? The Clinto Paula Jones lawyer? A life long democrat? It just does not look very good.
#219

On February 21st, 2008 at 5:31 pm, capitano said:

Do Foer and his cronies at TNR really have that kind of clout that they can pressure the “National Fishwrap of Record” to run a story or is that just a ruse to make it look like they didn’t really want to run it but their hand was force?

I guess I missed the chance to find out. Franklin F’n Foer was just on Hardball talking to Chris Matthews and all I got was the tail end. No doubt Matthews asked him that question — I’ll have to wait for the transcript.

Yes Franklin F’n Foer to discuss ethics in running the McCain smear. It doesn’t get any better than this.
#220

On February 21st, 2008 at 5:41 pm, Irish Rose said:

RIC:

You miss, are a self-aggrandizing narcissistic little bully masquerading as a person of faith.

Here’s what I think about you, miss:

Your opinions are neither rational nor educated, they are for the most part based on the same talk-points and drivel that obsessed and misguided right-wing talkhosts and pundits like Rush and Laura spew from their own talk shows and columns on a daily basis.

You seem unable to think for yourself, and your posts are indicative of a thought process that is strikingly shallow.

Oh dear, have I attacked you? Have I insulted you? Have I hurt your widdle feelings?

Go ahead, RIC - cry victimhood. Accuse me of an ad hom. attack. Cry like a toddler about hurt feelings, and then fling some invection. You always do.

No worries. I’m sure that the resident mob of virulent narcissists who are watching and waiting in the wings will show up any moment now, to defend your “honor” and stick it to the “evil McCainiac”.

I for one am sick and tired of the provocative, passive-aggressive bullying and hypocrytical, infantile whining about victimization here on this blog by some of the regulars. I wish to h*ll that Michelle would do something about it before the lot of you stifle any chance of intelligent debate here at MM, but I fear it will never happen.

There are a lot of people (members of more prominent blogs than this one) who have lost all interest in Michelles’ blog because of rude, proselytizing
bible-thumpers and people like you who dominate every single discussion and gang up like a pack of rabid dogs on anyone with an opposing opinion, I’m sorry to say.

On February 21st, 2008 at 9:43 am, MrScribbler said:

I find it telling that so many people here are willing to eagerly buy into a story — from a blatantly biased paper — that is filled with unnamed sources, allegations, vague hints and the rest of the weasel-worded BS so common to MSM hit pieces.

If the Times had dissed Romney, the infant “conservative,” for manicuring his fingernails, all of you would have risen up in righteous wrath.

I’m also surprised that the NYT bothered. Why not report on the attributable comments of MM, Rash Limbaugh and the rest of the so-called conservative pundits who have done a more effective job of dynamiting McCain than the Times could do on its own?

How much “damage to the conservative movement” is done by the “movement” itself? When total ideological purity is demanded and, when not forthcoming, results in attacks of a viciousness even the Clinton machine can’t match, why would anyone seek the “support” of the rabid righties?

This is the ultimate folly of true believers. They are willing — eager — to hand the nation over to one of two Democrats, each of whom has skeletons in their closets that elevate McCain to choirboy status, out of simple spite.

I’m glad that someone else here can see the blinding hypocrisy.

/the incessant, retaliatory whining from the emotionally wounded “victims” will now commence.
#221

On February 21st, 2008 at 6:19 pm, Ragspierre said:

I’m still waiting for you to give us a source that proves your whole John McCain is a Fabian Socialist theory.

Proves…

PROVES…???

It was an historical analogy. You know, the kind based on HISTORY.

You only prove those by having them realized.

Can you see why nobody here who understands logic can dialog with you?

You go down the road just so far…then

the wheels fly off one side, and you go careening off into the deep, dark woods.
#222

On February 21st, 2008 at 6:23 pm, Ragspierre said:

RIC:

You miss, are a self-aggrandizing narcissistic little bully masquerading as a person of faith.

Here’s what I think about you, miss:

Your opinions are neither rational nor educated, they are for the most part based on the same talk-points and drivel that obsessed and misguided right-wing talkhosts and pundits like Rush and Laura spew from their own talk shows and columns on a daily basis.

You seem unable to think for yourself, and your posts are indicative of a thought process that is strikingly shallow.

Oh dear, have I attacked you? Have I insulted you? Have I hurt your widdle feelings?

Go ahead, RIC - cry victimhood. Accuse me of an ad hom. attack. Cry like a toddler about hurt feelings, and then fling some invection. You always do.

No worries. I’m sure that the resident mob of virulent narcissists who are watching and waiting in the wings will show up any moment now, to defend your “honor” and stick it to the “evil McCainiac”.

I think you have lot more to worry about from Michelle, since you have flagrantly violated her TOS.

But that’s just my opinion.

Nice job of “moderation”, BTW.

Very persuasive.
#223

On February 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 am, Irish Rose said:

As I can still log in this morning, rags, I clearly don’t have as much to worry about as you like to think.
#224

On February 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am, Ragspierre said:

A bucket sometimes fills by drips, Rose.

But, withal, you are a known quantity here.

BTW, why can’t you tell us which of the conservative values/rights/positions you would care to “moderate”?

What particular brand of Christian allows you to excoriate people as you do…

without pangs of guilt, I mean?

Simple questions…give ‘em a whirl.
#225

On February 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm, GaijinBob said:

Wow. All this furor over alleged innuendo of McCain and Iseman. Imagine the poop-storm if Ms. Iseman came forward with a personal story of how he raped her!

Oh, wait…
#226

On February 22nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm, Ombre Rose said:

Ya know, all this “moral outrage” in behalf of McCain might be impressive if he had any character to defend.

However, considering how he got the wife standing on stage beside him these days, I am sooooooooo not impressed.

And yes, Carville, there was ALWAYS a morals purity standard for our Presidents, before Clinton. IF some skated by, it was then because of the same thing now - the Press had their own agenda and did not let the American people know everything THEY knew.

The Press on all sides of the aisle is obviously really heavy into it, THIS YEAR.
#227

On February 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 pm, Ombre Rose said:

On February 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am, Ragspierre

You are doing absolutely great, Rags. Totally smashing.