HERE we go again. Failing miserably to nail down a story never prevented the Newspaper of Record and Rumor from shooting itself in the foot, or more sensitive regions, when vanquishing enemies. Why start now?
The New York Times is not an organ to pass up a chance to mug a Republican, disrespect a soldier, or destroy the lives of men born with white skin. Not when it suits its agenda.
Yesterday, the Times published a harrumphing front-page story of 3,000 words – an eternity in newsprint – suggesting the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, either:
A) Had an “inappropriate relationship” with a lobbyist younger and blonder than his bride Cindy.
B) Wanted an “inappropriate relationship” with said lobbyist, but never got to first base because his staff freaked out.
C) The lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who is 40 to McCain’s 71, wanted an “inappropriate . . .” you know. But McCain’s staff put a sock in it.
D) Did nothing.
This is the Times, a paper that holds Republicans in the esteem normally reserved for serial killers and flashers.
The story concerns events that may or may not have happened eight years ago, as McCain first pointed his toes toward the White House.
“A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet,” wrote the Times, with the breathlessness of a romance novel.
Ex-McCain staffers – anonymously, natch – told the Gray Lady that “top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself.”
So what happened? Did McCain turn into Hugh Hefner? Or Bill Clinton?
The Times doesn’t know.
Failing to find a smoking bed, the paper trashed its presumably high standards for a “gotcha” piece of journalism better suited for the birdcage.
The story-that-isn’t contains many inches of filler about McCain’s one-time friendship with Charles Keating. Huh? What his relationship with a man disgraced in the Keating Five financial scandal – in which McCain was not charged – has to do with inappropriate anything is a mystery.
The Times should stick to attacking American troops, as it did in an alarming front-page story that claimed a large number of soldiers returning from Iraq were being arrested for murder. It failed to mention that the soldiers’ murder rate was far lower than that of the general population.
Or it should return to maiming young, white men, as it did when it championed the case against three innocent, white Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a black woman, long after other news outlets discredited the story.
I have concluded why the Times attacked McCain:
It was wishful thinking that the country’s top Republican should have his campaign for the White House derailed by claims of an extramarital affair.