New Media Alliance - Gary Schneider

From time to time we will be featuring a new effort that we are initially calling the “Wireside Chat,” where all your favorite New Media Alliance bloggers, editorialists, and thinkers will get together and chime in on a single topic that is in the news. This week we will be focusing on the aftereffects of the disastrous New York Times front pager “exposing” GOP contender John McCain’s affair… or not… with a blond lobbyist. Did I say “disastrous"? Disastrous for whom, is the question? Let’s see what our NMA writers have to say about this one…

On February 21st, The New York Times published a “bombshell” report about GOP presidential candidate John McCain that was apparently supposed to shock the world. On the front page of that morning’s Times ran a story with a headline gravely warning that “For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk.” this story “revealed” that John McCain once had a relationship with a female lobbyist that caused his campaign staffers to worry that a scandal was brewing.

According to the Times, “The lobbyist Vicki Iseman” had a “relationship with Mr. McCain troubled some of his aides.” Also it is claimed by the Times that staffers scurried to head off a sex scandal that would ruin their candidate. It all seems pretty salacious until you find out that this un-affair happened 8 years ago and that there was never any confirmation by any source that the relationship was either sexual or that McCain gave his lobbyist hunny undue favors in the Senate.

Yes, the story turned out to be a bombshell all right, but one more akin to a hand grenade dropped at their feet by the NYT as opposed to a salvo that would destroy McCain.

So what do our NMA writers think about this little hunny of a story?

Let’s start with Thomas Lindaman who takes a different angle on this so-called sex story. He is less interested in the salaciousness of it and more interested in the other part: the lobbyist part.

When is a sex scandal NOT a sex scandal? When it involves John McCain and a lobbyist.

Of course, that’s not the real issue at hand here. The issue isn’t sex with a lobbyist; it’s sex with a lobbyist. Let’s not forget it was John McCain who made his name as a maverick by bucking his party on lobbyist influence on legislation. As it turns out, the “Straight Talk Express” doesn’t talk so straight when it comes to lobbyists. He’s been connected to telecommunications lobbyists since the mid-to-late 90s, so this “latest” scandal is nothing new. The sex thing? That’s new, but it’s the parsley garnish on the blue plate special: for looks only.

Thomas echoes one of the biggest reasons that some conservatives are wary of John McCain as a candidate and that is his many long years as a deep Washington insider. It’s hard to believe a “straight talker” that has such a long and storied political past as does John McCain. To folks such as Thomas, “maverick” merely means he hates his own party.

Let’s consider this question next: Which has this story hurt most, John McCain or the New York Times?

Our own Peter Lemiska is sure that it is the NYT that ended up more the worse for wear with the breaking of this “story.”

The Times piece has clearly brought more discredit to the paper, especially in view of their earlier endorsement of Senator McCain. Any objective reader can only conclude that its goal was to set up a Republican candidate who it viewed as vulnerable, only to expose that vulnerability at a crucial time in the campaign – a clear effort to sway the election.

And our Daniel Clark also feels that the Times came out with a black eye after this little stunt.

In this case, most of the media stopped to consider the strategic consequences before attacking McCain, which is why they’ve almost universally condemned the Times. They realize that if McCain is destroyed before the convention, he will be replaced by a nominee less to their liking.

The shortsighted Times couldn’t help itself, though. It mistakenly thought it saw a wounded Republican, and when it leapt prematurely, its prey eluded it. As a result, it must fend off all the angry media jackals, who had been patiently biding their time, and now feel cheated out of their share of the carcass.

It did seem quite like the feeding frenzy by the media attacking the NYT over the following week, didn’t it?

Frank Hyland also thinks the NYT really shot itself in the foot here. Not only that but Frank thinks it may signal the final death spiral of the so-called “paper of record.”

The article is so egregious that a growing parade of Democrats present and former national office holders have found themselves unable to waffle on the issue and have delivered unvarnished criticism of it – it must have been very painful for former Rep. Harold Ford to have to criticize the NYT on Fox News, but he had to do it by the reality of the situation.

This was a tipping point for the NYT, one on which we’ll look back and say was decisive.

Ken Marerro, the Blue Collar Muse, also thinks this looks like the end of the Times as a legitimate news source.

It’s hard to take the NYT seriously anymore. It would help if they would pick a position and stick with it. Even if it was silly. They had been working on this McCain story for some time. In fact, it is my understanding they were working on it during the time in which they endorsed McCain for President. Thus, the NYT endorsed and torpedoed him simultaneously. Either the NYT is open minded enough they can endorse McCain even though they believe the allegations or they got the story or the endorsement (or maybe both) wrong. Either that or they’ve lost so much money they don’t care what they say as long as it sells papers. That seems to be more of a National Enquirer approach to the news. It also seems an inglorious end for a once proud paper.

For his part, Chris Adamo thinks ruminating over who was hurt “misses the point.”

Any considerations of whether will be helped or hurt by this situation, when considered as an isolated event, entirely miss the point. This is merely the opening salvo of a protracted battle, not a Waterloo. McCain’s momentary boost that has resulted from honest people’s revulsion over the nature of the tactic will fade. But the nature of the accusation will remain. It is the first of the “death by a thousand cuts” that the Times, and all of liberal media (whom McCain foolishly courted as allies) intend to inflict on him. Add to this the very likely eventuation of some version of a “blue dress,” whether entirely concocted ala Mary Mapes, or resulting from further damming evidence that the Times might presently have, but isn’t planning on disclosing until the most strategically inconvenient time (from McCain’s perspective), and the threat to McCain’s candidacy becomes apparent.

Most ironic of all is that if any of this scenario unfolds within 60 days of the general election, grassroots organizations will be completely thwarted from rising to his defense on account of … McCain/Feingold (aka Campaign Finance “Reform"). And who does McCain have to blame for that? When one lives by political grandstanding at the expense of the Constitition, one may well die by it also.

Another question that comes to mind with this story is if conservatives will flock to McCain’s banner if only to assist in the defrocking of the vaunted Gray Lady.

Peter Leminska thinks it may well have… but he also has a warning.

For now, in light of the surge in contributions to his campaign, it seems to have helped galvanize Republicans, however the left will not let this go. If they reveal any concrete evidence of malfeasance, it could cause irreparable damage to McCain’s support.

Frank Hyland agrees. He thinks that this story will bring conservatives to McCain’s support “More and faster than they otherwise would have.” But, just like Peter, Frank worries just a bit that this story will be all too easy to keep bringing up time and again.

If not followed up by pieces such as this one, it will recede a bit in the average Soap Opera or NASCAR fan’s mind. It is a measure of how serious the NYT’s sin was, though, that the mere mention of the piece is all it will take to bring it back to the front burner.

Well, there you have it. A little bit of what several of your favorite NMA writers have to say about this little New York Times debacle in our first “Wireside Chat.”

Warner Todd Huston

Senior Editor and Director of Staff communications