Is the NYT implying that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist?

Sort of a weird story. I guess it's relevant. Few years ago, Mr. Maverick got a little too cozy with a female lobbyist. His aids said stay the fuck away from him. He says it never got romantic. NYT says it's an example, though, of how his confidence in his own ethics often blinds him to situations that could be seen as a conflict of interest. McCain is clearly not happy with the story, as he only commented to Bill Keller after calling to complain about the paper's inquiries.

The nut graph is, basically, John McCain is honorable -- as far as we can tell -- but he can be imprudent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

 

In the least surprising story of the day, the Times' love affair with McCain ends as soon as he gets the nomination. Expect more of the same. Much more.

 

If you read the story though, it's something they've been working on since December. So I'm not sure the "what great timing" card can be played here.

 

We can never know, but I would bet every penny I own that if Romney or Rudy were neck in neck with him, this story sits for now.

 

Interesting story.

Sounds like they'd been working on it a long time, and McCain called to complain at least once.

 

Wonder if this is the one the L.A. Times was working on, as well, when the "blogosphere" was electric with the thought that it was Edwards?

 

Please. If the NYT were really that diabolical, they would have pushed pro-Romney stories, because he had no freaking way of beating anyone in the general.

 

That's the reflexive response.
However, I'm more interested in the notion that St. John might have been doing favors for this lady than I am in whether or not he was doing, well, her. The fact that aides got involved is significant. It takes stones to go to someone and say, in the middle of a campaign, "We think you're shtupping our boss. Stay away." The repercussions can be pretty severe. These guys mist have been terrified that Rove andf the Bushies would get ahold of this.

 

Or they disagree with you on Romney, or as I'd guess, they don't think any GOP candidate wins, and went with the one who is honestly their favorite. They didn't like Romney, they liked McCain in the sense of "in the land of the blind, the 1 eyed man rules". Now, they like Obama much, much much better.

I predicted it here, and that the Hillary attacks would stop when she got the nomination - we'll never know on that one.

 

It's only about sex. Time to move on.

 

McCain now has a statement out.

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker:
"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

The last paragraph is interesting.

If there was nothing to suggest impropriety -- which, let's face it, there clearly was -- what makes it a smear?

 

The lobbyist strikes a stunning resemblance to another overly-botoxed bottle blonde, doesn't she?