The Straight Talk Express has made so many U-turns it looks like it's going around in circles.

If it's in the NYT now, there is nothing the Democrats need do. The media will either ignore it or descend like vultures. Who will make the decision? The managers of the editors - or, in the case of Fox, likely Rupert himself.

humping a lobbyist

what a maverick

CNN is so inclined.

The MSNBC website is carrying the NYT piece

Fox is covering rape, murder, drunk driving, and kidnapping.

The NY Times bashing McCain with unnamed sources and alleged facts? Let's try a little investigative reporting, guys.

It is common for presidents and people in Congress to have affairs so if McCain was having one that really is not the business of anyone other than the two involved in the affair and their families. However, the point voters should be concerned with is McCain's judgment which is brought into question in this story. The NYT story notes that McCain was warned that a liaison with Ms. Iseman might jeopardize his career, but if this story is accurate it appears McCain's proclivity for indulging his emotions took precedence over acceptable public conduct and sound judgment. I recently flipped through his book "Faith of My Fathers" and noted a similar pattern of behavior in his childhood and youth. Then there are reliable reports about McCain having a violent temper. For me this latest story is a sign it is time to put another bar across the door to keep him from getting to the phone that sends the military off to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran or some other country that upsets him.

The media will either ignore it or descend like vultures. Who will make the decision? The managers of the editors - or, in the case of Fox, likely Rupert himself.

If Murdoch sees he is likely to make more money off this story than sitting on it, then McCain is relegated to being just a footnote in some history book. On the other hand, Murdoch might decide to make a deal with McCain with the hope McCain might show some sign of appreciation for Murdoch's "discretion" after McCain is in the White House. But that scenario is looking less likely each day.

Wait, no OR-5 talk? WTF?

Why should the Republicans be held to a lower standard than the Democrats? This issue is being pushed by the NYT, which is in fact just doing its job -- reporting a story. If the same story were to appear about Obama or Hillary, I'd expect the same.

Furthermore, if the Democrats do decide to jump on this issue, more power to them. The Republicans have been fighting dirty for so many years, it's about time that the Dems respond in kind -- especially if it allows them to kick the R's out of power in November. This is just blowing a whistle on unethical behavior. Yes, it's kind of like fighting dirty, but it's not by any stretch in itself unethical behavior.

Thanks, Sal.

Last night we went to the local community college to see John Frohnmayer talk about the intersection of law, religion, and politics. Great presentation where he challenged the audience to answer questions and didn't just speak at us.

One of the topics was whether there is a universal moral code, and the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) was mentioned.

Here is where we should draw the line. One of 2 things is true: 1) Any member of the "other party" is fair game, and if voters don't like that attitude they can just register Independent.

2) Fair is fair no matter who is involved. If Democrats were outraged by what the Bushies did to Max Cleland in 2002 and offended by the Swifties and other attacks on Kerry in 2004, why is it OK to do that kind of attack on a former POW who you may not like but is a war hero?

I always thought it was a sign of character that no matter how Democrats disagreed with Bob Dole, there were never the attacks by Carter/Mondale supporters in 1976 or Clinton supporters in 1996 on certified war hero Bob Dole.

Making fun of someone's personal life does not house a homeless vet or get health care for kids or otherwise help people who are financially struggling. This is a test of what kind of people Democrats are.

The mother who is worried that her son on his 3rd tour of duty (without a year at home between the 2nd and 3rd tours) is wearing himself down is not going to get any comfort (or respite from worry about her son) from a story like this. It seems to me that adults in politics worry more about that Mom, or the mothers of young infants, or the homeless vet, or the people financially just barely scraping by than about this kind of story.

Laughing at a story like this in times of trouble for many Americans just makes someone look like a juvenile.

NYT editors are merely softening the blows coming our way concerning Obama's indiscretions. The blows may also come directly from the NYT to attempt to resurrect Clinton.

The GOPers are just getting some of there own style of politics. This will be a huge blow to the straight talk express.

Hopefully this will at least put a damper on mean-spirited Cindy McCain's enthusiasm to attack Michelle Obama and snidely demagogue her remarks.

Sorry, but I am still a demo that makes some judgements on morality.

I am in agreement with the sentiments of those who have already posted that we should not seek to exploit this for political purposes. We win in 2008 on the merits of the critical issues facing our country. And if we can do so, it will be a precedent that can be followed in the future.

This applies to the Dem primary as well. Someone above said something to the effect of "if Hillary goes negative...". Huh? I think we crossed that bridge weeks and weeks ago and look at the results. She's lost 25 of the 36 contests and is now 14 points behind in the national polls.

This is a somewhat old story. I am inclined to think that it was resurrected by the right wing as a last ditch to stop the McCain march to the nomination. Limbaugh will be all over it.

Josh Marshall at TPM has a good take on this story: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179402.php

Apart from the carnal aspect of this we know John McCain is no angel when it comes to doling out the goodies in Washington. Remember the Keating 5 scandal. Also here's a post at Daily Kos which fleshes out some of the lobbyist/influence peddling part of this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/02419/4767/786/460926

The lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, is certainly attractive, and probably smart too. No doubt, any number of people would be, and are attracted to her. As others commenting before me have noted, this kind of allegation raises the greater concern about the integrity of McCain's judgment and trustworthiness rather than his moral integrity. Clinton was a lowlife for having sex with intern Monica Lewinsky in the White House, and then denying it to the public. Doesn't McCain make the more damaging error in judgment when he allows assumptions to be made that a possible romantic affair with a lobbyist might lead him to offer political favors to her clients in exchange for that relationship?

Bravo NYT. "It's the first time in my adulthood life to be very proud with OUR NYT".

eeeeewwwwww! The man is seriously OLD to be boinking a gal not 10 years older than me.

But squeamishness aside, affairs are very silly things to get upset about (unless it's YOUR marriage getting ruined, that is). McCain would never get my vote because of his policies and past votes.

I don't see what is so interesting about another old man making a fool of himself with a much younger woman.

Now if Hillary pulled it off, that would be sweet revenge (and just desserts), but she's far too clever to get caught.

Anything and everything within the law should be used to take down John McCain's candidacy.

This strikes me, though, as akin to the Bush drunk driving revelation. It probably won't go far.

Is it just me or is Sal the indicative of the very grandstanding that he is so appalled by. He reminds me of the guy who sells insurance door to door. If I have to read one more post about how he something is beneath his high moral standards I might lose my top.

How is the Frohnmayer campaigning going anyway - up to 1 1/2% yet? Please re-register as an independent or better yet a Green so you can truly be more superior to all of us. I'm sure LT could be your campaign chair or manager....she's always right too.

If you actually read the NY Times McCain story it's more about ethics and special favors for the very interests that he claims to be so against. It's appropriate to take the alleged relationship into consideration if it resulted in a violation of the public trust.

Matthew,

Who is the "we" who would not seek to exploit? And what control does one individual or group have over another that has an interest in who becomes president? If a Democratic presidential campaign decided to exploit McCain's possible indiscretion, I doubt we would find out that they were behind the effort, at least not before election day. Then there are the hundreds of groups and wealthy individuals who could do their own campaign. The news media could keep it alive themselves if they can make it sound juicy [seems unlikely with McCain].

There is no "we" in this situation. As the Swiftboaters showed, anyone with sufficient media access can become a player in a presidential election.

LT: If we are to gain the confidence and respect of the world community, we must get past the military worship. McCain's plane was shot down over Viet Nam for the same reason a foreign invader's war ship would be shot down if it were threatening Portland. McCain was not a "hero" for participating in an illegal, immoral war.

Under the War Crimes Act, a breach of the Geneva conventions that results in the death of civilians is a capital offense. No one deserves to be tortured, but the fact of McCain's torture does not in and of itself make him a hero.

So what?

What does Gordon Smith have to day about this lobbyist kerfluffle? McCain's his man, right?

Really, the worst part is what is being reported at dailykos right now - the improper letters McCain sent which appear to be for the purpose of strong-arming federal agencies to act in favor of clients of the lobbyist.

The key point in the NY Times story and later in Wash. Post is the tie between the lobbyist and using undue influence on public policy. The real story here isn't about McCain's sexual issues. It's about the corruption of politicians and private interests over the public interest, and the role of campaign funding. A case in point was the intervention by McCain on behalf of Isleman's client, Paxson Network, on the FCC, in 1999, and tried to intimidate the chairman into stating ahead of time what the vote would be on Paxson so he could bring the full pressure of the Senate on him. Paxson in turn funnelled many thousands of dollars into McCain's campaign.

This is exactly the kind of dynamic that Obama has been criticizing Clinton for. She takes more money from drug companies than all other candidates combined, and defends the role of lobbyists in making legislation. How is she going to look out for the public interest in her much touted health care plan when the drug companies are busy taking us all to the cleaners and funding her campaign? They didn't give that money for nothing. Same could be said for McCain. He talks about cleaning up Washington when he is part of the problem, and in this case "intimately" part of the problem.

All the news thats fit to slime.

Mister Tee would be just fine with slime and sleaze in the newspaper if it were something more about Neil Goldschmidt.

The NYT is once again showing why most print media is rapidly going down the toilet. John McCain in the most honorable legislator in DC.

The "John McCain is the most honorable man in DC" meme is just like the "Obama voters drank the Kool-Aid" meme: some sort of goofball shorthand that the media recycle as a way to avoid actual investigation and analysis.

joel,

Get used to it. Since no Republican policies make sense, soundbites are all they have to sway voters.

YAWN...

8 years ago McCain and Iseman spent time together and both deny a romantic relationship. Two anonymous insiders resented Iseman's access to McCain. Sounds like a couple of political groupies got their little feelings hurt because McCain wasn't paying attention to them.

Some people have suggested the mere appearance of impropriety should be made an issue. Hmmmm, whatever happened with the issue of Sam Adams and his mentoring???

When I first read this article, I was thinking "Why is the NYT publishing an article on an incident from eight years ago? Is this their screwed-up way of trying to discredit McCain?" Don't think I'm some conservative defending him, my whole family is Democrat. In any case, this story should've either been published a long time ago or not at all.

What really bothers me though is that the lobbyist was consistently following him. What did she do when she came into contact with him? Bribe him to comply with some bill the entity she represented wanted to pass? Have an affair? This kind of contact between a lobbyist and politician really pisses me off. The role of the lobbyist was, originally, to present issues to politicians and how they (the entities represented by the lobbyists) want those issues solved, not to bribe politicians, be it with money or other things.

That's all I have to say.

so tired

so tired

so tired

of this storyline

This is shoddy, lazy, irresponsible journalism on the part of The New York Times. Good journalism would have resulted in something like the sort of cited, detailed, legitimate information The Oregonian once dug up on a certain gubernatorial candidate.

Is not everyone tired of the politics of innuendo and petty personal attacks? We can win on the issues and on "character" . By character, I mean the character of OUR candidate. We do not need to trash opponents' characters. I am not going to vote for McCain and most Americans are not ...And its not because of stories like this ..true OR NOT.

The Democratic nominee will win by proving that people prefer candidates who deliver a message on their own vision, own platform, own story, and own demonstrated abilities to lead and offering an alternative to the failed politics and failed policies of the past.

By the way, the timing of this story's release benefits those Republican movers and shakers who would like a different nominee since it is before the Republican National Convention. That is what we should be paying attention to.... It would be nice to KNOW that McCain will be the nominee and not replaced by someone more formidable...and I do not mean Huckabee.

Is not everyone tired of the politics of innuendo and petty personal attacks? We can win on the issues and on "character" . By character, I mean the character of OUR candidate. We do not need to trash opponents' characters. I am not going to vote for McCain and most Americans are not ...And its not because of stories like this ..true OR NOT.

The Democratic nominee will win by proving that people prefer candidates who deliver a message on their own vision, own platform, own story, and own demonstrated abilities to lead and offering an alternative to the failed politics and failed policies of the past.

By the way, the timing of this story's release benefits those Republican movers and shakers who would like a different nominee since it is before the Republican National Convention. That is what we should be paying attention to.... It would be nice to KNOW that McCain will be the nominee and not replaced by someone more formidable...and I do not mean Huckabee.

To TorridJoe: It is usual practice for the politics of bowling; Set em up, knock em down. Everyone knew that the instant McCain had solidified the nod, he would start being attacked by the MSM that got him the nomination in the first place.

This is a serious mistake by NYT for a few reasons.

No matter what "two associates" say, it has not been backed up by anything of substance. McCain has denied it, and has not had any contact with this woman for quite some time. He called her "a friend" but with no influence. Even the New Republic admits the lack of evidence, as Jack points out.

Lets look at the news cycle. B. Hussein's wife made another speech recently that brought attention to her lack of American pride prior to this election cycle. Also, McCain is beginning to effectively make the argument that Obama is an inexperienced, young, and empty potential nominee. A divergence was needed, and this smear seemed like a good opening salvo from the lefty NYT. The fact that there is not a shred of REAL evidence doesn't concern most of their political articles, so why should it now (sarcastic hyperbole)? However, it backfired in that no one believes it, thus causing the NYT to sink even further into oblivion (even in NY their subscriptions are down).

Most conservatives (not just the far far right wing) have problems with McCain, for his recent amnesty bill attempt, as well as McCain-Feingold, and his voting against the tax cuts. Now however, many conservatives, after saying "WE TOLD YOU SO" about a million times, are defending the man we hate. This is last thing liberals want, especially with their two extremely vulnerable candidates; a unified conservative base supporting McCain, a base that no longer squabbling about McCain's liberal leanings, and Huckabee interloping.

A divergence was needed, and this smear seemed like a good opening salvo from the lefty NYT.

The problem with your conspiracy theory about the Times is that it was the reporters urging publication of the story, but the editors were the ones holding it back. But no good conspiracy theorist ever let facts get in the way, Ethan, so plow ahead.

Kari writes: I don't particularly care if John McCain is getting some nookie. It's the nookie with a lobbyist with business before his committee that bothers me.

Let's be real, it's the nookie that we find fascinating, just like it was the gay sex in the bathroom that riveted us to the Craig story (not the hypocrisy). If the MSM were to write stories about every Senator who has a close friendship with a lobbyist and intervenes with a federal regulator on that lobbyists behalf, there wouldn't be any room for other news. And that includes just about every Democrat in Washington. Anyone who has spent time on the Hill can confirm this.

I agree with Mary Wendy.

Negative attacks have not worked well this year.

This should show what Democrats are made of . Are Democrats the party proud of their nominee, their issues, their success in the 2006 elections?

Or are Democrats still so scared that they think the only way to win is to smear the other side?

McCain is vulnerable on a number of substance grounds. One of them is the "brain drain" bleeding of military officers retiring, the families concerned that their loved one is being worn down by multiple deployments, the problems with recruitment (and Guard units having trouble dealing with home state disasters because of the stress of combat deployments), the number of homeless vets.

Even Brian Boquist (Iraq vet, R- Polk Co.) gave a speech last year on a House resolution painting a picture which varies sharply from McCain's speeches about "our brave troops" and how the surge is working and failure in Iraq would be catastrophic. Boquist said "support the troops" means hot meals, cold drinks, vehicles which match the mission, etc.

Now here is the challenge: Does the Democratic Party want to debate logistics of the Iraq War, policy in the region, why we continue to be in the middle of what is basically a civil war, why so many troops do multiple deployments with very little time in between? Do Democrats want to be the party which elected so many vets in 2006 (incl. Webb, Walz, Sestak)?

Or is it really all about 20th century politics of personal attack? Are we better people than those Republicans who attacked Max Cleland, or is it same song, different party? Are there Democrats who would do like Chuck Hagel did in 2002 and tell the party they should be ashamed of themselves for attacking a veteran?

I would be proud to be a member of the party which cares about veterans and elected so many in 2006. I want no part of "let's see if we can be as nasty to McCain as Rove et. al were to Kerry and Cleland". If Democrats are nothing more than an attack party, I will re-register NAV after the primary.

Veterans we disagree with deserve as much respect as those we agree with. Which is why I was so involved in the Judicial Review of Veterans Claims crusade in the 1980s.

Miles- "The problem with your conspiracy theory about the Times is that it was the reporters urging publication of the story, but the editors were the ones holding it back. But no good conspiracy theorist ever let facts get in the way, Ethan, so plow ahead."

FYI, I wasn't positing a conspiracy theory, just an idea that could possibly make sense given event chronology. Nice job discounting me as a conspiracy theorist though.

And towards that idea, if I was claiming some conspiracy I don't understand how your response refutes that supposed claim. Wouldn't it be the editors (i.e. the one's holding the story back) that are in on it ? And so holding it back until a good moment...or.. maybe they should have waited until they could make the claim that it was JOHN McCAIN that causes global warming, and so should be tried for murdering Nessie. Sounds right their ally.

good times.

The New Yorker, in its Feb. 25 issue, notes that the New York Times published an item about Obama recently, mentioning his youthful drug use--which of course Obama had discussed very openly in his first memoir, published in 1995. In other words, this "newspaper" was publishing something that wasn't news. One wonders if the stuff about McCain is similarly well past its use-by date.

Look, Obama is extremely vulnerable. He HASN'T DONE ANYTHING. What does he stand for...? What is his platform? Where is he on the issues? No one really knows. The only thing he does is say "WE WANT CHANGE..the United States sucks...blah blah blah...WE WANT CHANGE", then some girl passes out and college students cheer. He hasn't been given ANY actual attention. Even a cursory glance at his record shows that he is the most liberal senator, and a glance at his foreign policy shows a confusion between sitting down with Iran or invading Pakistan.

Hillary is also extremely vulnerable because she's, well, Hillary. If she is nominated, the Democrats are gonna be sent to the cleaners because everyone, even liberals, know she has never done anything without Bill and everything she's attempted to do without him (e.g. Hillary-Care) has gone horribly.

Also, Bush is doing better. Iraq is going well. We just hit a freakin satellite out of the sky. And a liberal congress approval ratings are something around 17%. Liberals do well at hating America but do poorly when the people start to love her again. And they're starting to love her again. Bummer to live in such a great country.

The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

That's what passes for evidence in journalism these days? Heck, the "corroborated" "details" could be the color of McCain's office drapes for all we know. What precisely did the two anonymous "associates" say? What details were corroborated? By whom? Where is any supporting documentation? This is not evidence, TJ, and viewing it as such is pure wishful thinking.

Are you kidding me?! This story is the best thing that could have happened to J-Mac.

With one single NY Times headline he went from dottering old grampa to virile Senate stallion who’s putting the wood to babes in DC 31 years his junior.

My guess is his camp planted the story and the same brilliant journalistic minds at the Times who helped sell the country WMD’s in Iraq bit on it!

The public couldn’t care less about the “ethics” aspect of the story, just the sex angle. It made Clinton a darling with his people and will do the same for McCain.

Democrats don't need this story to build a case against McCain. He has more and stronger negatives that would be more effective. If the story is accurate as reported in the NYT, then the part about concern about McCain's judgment would be worth adding to his rap sheet. Leave the sex part to the tabloids.

JOEL,

Neil Goldschmidt ADMITTED to raping a child; John McCain DENIES a consensual affair with an adult.

The O'Sulzberger Rag in Oregon covered up for Neil Goldschmidt (ignoring the rumors of womanizing for YEARS, then reporting the "affair" with a 13 year old babysitter after getting scooped by Willy Week); the Rag in NY trumpeted the McCain allegation as if it just happened, WHEN THE ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES OCCURRED MORE THAN 8 YEARS AGO.

They need to Google "October Surprise" before publishing any more political attacks. This will help McCain's fundraising more than it hurts his reputation.

The online edition of the NYT carries another "hit piece" on McCain's alleged FEC violations in a sub-titled bullett just below the original headline.

Let's just put it all out there and see what sticks? Welcome to the New-New York Times, brought to you by the Democratic Party and TRU-the former Court TV Channel.

On tonight's show, Nancy Grace will interview all the hot 40 year old blonds who had sex with John McCain on corporate jets owned by morally bankrupt telecom companies. And a follow up story on how Sen. Obama saved a litter of beagle puppies from wearing cement shoes with a little help from the Teamsters. It's TRU!

I don't care about McCain's love life. I do care that he cozied up to a lobbyist. It would be the same if that lobbyist was of either sex, or if all he did was spend time with her or him at the raquetball club on a regular basis.

I've really been chuckling about how facets of the media is putting out stories like "no proof" and "might not hurt him" and "might even help his campaign". How does that work again? Let's ask Gary Hart. Or Ted Kennedy. Well I guess you could call Mayor Rudy an exception...but if he'd stayed in the race as a serious contender his past infidelity probably would have come up again.

I don't know about the virile stallion aspect. I get the eewww reaction every time sex gets sucked into politics, not because I'm a prude but because most of the time it is off topic. Except when there are special interest reps giving very special interest to representatives of the People. But as long as we're looking at abstracts of the story, how about the fun fact that McCain goes for icy blonds....those two could be sisters. There must be something we can read into that.

Forget who McCain has been poking. The real issue: John McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign

Rose Wilde, is that ageism I hear from you? Shouldn't we let people [who can legally consent] decide who is attractive to them?

torridjoe,

Those lobbyists are not raising that campaign money for fun. It takes money to make money.

"money doesn't talk, it swears"

<h2>McCain's Teflon and an enamored mainstream media have him placed as the very likely Republican nominee. In the final contest, however, it is unlikely that the Democratic nominee will be as spineless as the Congressional leadership and (most likely) he or (less likely) she will rip that coating off McCain. This will be a replay of Hans Christian Andersen's story about the emperor's new suit. In other words, McCain will be exposed as another naked emperor - or would-be president.</h2>