redblueamerica.com

I just saw this article about a McCain top advisor in a search about today's news. It's interesting to say the least.

Listen Here to the interview : http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

... that term describes both your thoughts on how the GOP race could shake out, and the entire New York Times piece. But if you lay down, put a cold compress on your head, drink some tea (and read more of me!), I think you'll be fine. The New York Times' fever, I'm afraid, is terminal and has now melted what was left of its credibility.

I've been a newspaper man my entire professional life. I've read the story four times, and I'm wracking my brain to come up with an example of a thinner justification to run such a damaging story. No editor I've ever worked for would run it. In fact, I'd be reamed out for wasting the time of the paper, my editors and myself.

So, McCain was overly chummy with a female lobbyist nearly a decade ago -- in the view of two unnamed staffers who left his circle because the "had become disillusioned with the senator" (no ax to grind there, huh?) As The Campaign Spot notes:

So this is the story? Not that they had an affair, but they hung around each other enough so that people began to talk? I mean, if you're going to make the accusation, then make the accusation.

Heh. Of course, The New York Times can't make the accusation. If they had the goods, they'd show 'em. They obviously don't. But even without the only-hinted "affair" angle, we're supposed to be aghast that Mr. Clean was doing favors for lobbyists. And even that is pretty thin gruel.

The follow-up by The Washington Post says that the woman's firm had issues before the Commerce Committee. Well, yes. Lobbyists who want to influence commerce issues -- otherwise known as the Constitutional guarantee to influence your own government -- wouldn't be very effective if they were lobbying the Veterans Affairs Committee. But here's the "gotcha":

Iseman clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.

I'll let David Freddosso at The Corner take it from here:

Hang on a second. Eighty-five grand? Over eight years? That's it? [McCain] was the chairman of the committee!

If McCain is an extortionist, he's a pathetic excuse for one. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) shook down the hedge fund industry for ten times that amount in a single month. That's how you take advantage of people under your purview. [bold emphasis mine]

And, it should be noted, that there's no smoking gun of quid pro quo here. No huge piece of legislation. No amendment McCain slipped into a bill to benefit the woman's clients. Writing a couple of notes to federal bureaucrats? Please. That's about as lame as it gets in Washington influence-peddling. Indeed, there is no mention at all of what her clients have to show for the efforts of McCain and his lobbyist friend. Because nothing happened.

It is also telling that most of the story consists of old-news filler about the Keating Five scandal, which was more than 20 years ago and for which the voters of Arizona have punished him by continuing to send him back to the Senate. I suppose now this hit piece is his ultimate reward.

Shameful, but typical, of the partisan New York Times.

Sorry this is so long. I've tweaked this reply and made it a post on my RedBlueAmerica blog.