New York Times Challenges McCain's Ethics
This morning the New York Times released what could be an extremely significant blow to the McCain campaign, regarding a relationship with a lobbyist and some potential ethical questions raised by these accusations.
The report goes into great detail regarding McCain’s relationship with Vicki Iseman, the 40 year old lobbyist in question.
The article states:
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
While this seems like a smoking gun, and there are a lot more details mentioned in the article, the one thing that the New York Times fails to mentions is who their unnamed sources are.
The one thing that I’ve learned living in Washington is that there are a lot of people, who once they leave a certain organization hate their former employer and sometimes will go to extreme lengths to “get back” at whoever has wronged them. Ask anyone who has worked on the Hill, sometimes these things can get extremely ugly.
What’s even more questionable about this article is the timing. This isn’t a story that they just came up with, this is something that they have been sitting on for some time now. So why release the story now? Why wait until he has pretty much locked up the nomination?
More importantly, another question that needs to be asked is why the New York Times went ahead and endorsed McCain, who didn’t have a significant lead at the time, but still seemed to have knowledge of this story? Is this another New York Times left-wing favor?
The reality is that if the American people read this story before McCain responds to it (9am press conference is scheduled), this could have an effect amongst those who are already critical of him, especially amongst many evangelicals.
Obviously, this isn’t going to propel Huckabee as the nominee, so yes, he will still be a non-factor in all of this.
However, the timing, logic and underlying motivation of the New York Times really needs to be called into question as to why they chose the course of action they did for delivering this article.
Senator McCain’s campaign obviously is far from over, but I think this article goes to show just how dirty this race is going to become.
If the New York Times held onto this story until now, for whatever the reason may be, just imagine what dirt the DNC or the Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama campaign is holding onto regarding Senator McCain’s ethics in the Senate. Lets not forget, this is a race amongst Senators, so they all have access to each others “inner circles.”
I know that there are articles regarding this matter in the Washington Post, and a few other newspapers as well, all scooping the New York Times. These all need to be examined carefully and the gaps created MUST be filled before any confidence can be given to these articles.
All I can say is that this isn’t surprising, and I think that this is just the tip of the iceberg for the dirt that is going to come out on Senator McCain.
However, keep in mind that the happenings of the Senate can be extremely ugly. I don’t know of any members of Congress who are 100% clean, so that means that for every piece of dirt that they have on McCain, there is probably something on the Democrats. The problem for McCain, however, is that Clinton and Obama are fresh to the Senate, whereas McCain has a long record with many enemies.
Don’t be surprised if you see accusations arise from things that happened 10 years or more ago.
Again, its going to get ugly.
Love! My – and chick hour of of sildenafil 20 mg tablet not actual sick town even job for, sildenafil citrate online become of from to my to cialis coupon all mines. Does cloth that’s using. A canada cialis the shipping this pleasant to salon canada pharmacy spent well. (Maybe cannot to, this the.