More on McCain

Most of the NYT article was about how McCain was constantly accompanied by this lobbiest who bragged of the access and success with McCain on behalf of clients.  Of how the straight shooter may not be so straight.  And in fact, the NYT article itself shot down the romance angle.

But the pushback is on the romance.  Or at least, it tries to be.  Except McCain wants the whole cake, and keeps focusing on the appearance of impropriety.  And at that point it appeared the push might work – after all, the SEX was unfounded allegation and all this impropriety crap was he said – she said, right?

Appearance, he says.  OK, CNN did a nice pushback with some people from McCain’s then staff saying they were in position to know and nothing like that happened, just like McCain is saying.

Enter the bad news for McCain.   First came Newsweek, which dug up McCain’s deposition from 2002 – and a few of his denials turn out to be a wee bit mistaken.  And then Paxton gets interviewed and says about a bit more – to include Iseman’s presence – “Yep.”  And of course there are the letters that were mentioned in the article – which McCain said was no problem but which the FCC people felt were ‘pressure’ – and somewhat against regulation if not law.

But it got worse.  McCain tried to say what fine folk he has working with him.  At which point his Arizona chair got indicted , and it turns out his top campaign adviser Charlie Black is openly lobbying from the campaign trail.  And Rick Davis is still pulling a paycheck from HIS lobbying firm.

I suspect Senator McCain and his staff are working diligently this weekend on containment and defusing options.  They suffer from a real problem – in addition to he said he said (which becomes minor noise) there’s all that written evidence.  And the evidence supports the NYT article.

Eli of Firedoglake.com posits a plan, and it looks legit to me.  It’s actually a standard political (not just national or GOP) technique of misdirection.  Concentrate on a minor but refutable point, get everyone FOCUSED on that point, and refute it — or at least make it so mind-numbing that everything attached to the point gets the “Oh, God, we’ve been here make it STOP!!!” reaction.

If that’s the plan, expect lots and lots and lots of focus on what the NYT already said probably wasn’t there.  And everyone crosses their fingers and hopes that there isn’t any there, there.  Because now that the thing is under the microscope, if there was it’ll be found.  And that makes the plan backfire nastily.

Oh – and the people against McCain?  They’ll diligently try to unconfuse the misdirection.  That’s… tricky, because the additional news adds to the “Oh, God, Enough already” information overload.

I think the plan would work, except for what I already said – Senator McCain wants the Whole Pie.

We’ll see.

Advertisements

One thought on “More on McCain

  1. I almost didn’t approve this – it’s borderline talking point spam. Still, I’ll grant benefit of the doubt. With something I really, REALLY don’t like doing – in line response. 49erfaithful’s writing is unedited, I’ve just added these comments in italics.

    Good morning New York. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Everything is as it should be in the universe. As if there was ever any doubt about it, The New York Times once again has made it very plain for everyone to see they are a political apparatus of the Democratic Party masquerading as a newspaper.


    No, they haven’t – as I’ll prepare to demonstrate.

    Just a few weeks ago, while still sitting on this weak story for months The Times was trumpeting their endorsement of Senator John McCain to become President of the United States. Of course, as everyone knows, their endorsement was intended only to serve their political agenda to stick it to Rudy Giuliani and side track him from becoming President.

    The NYT did not endorse Sen McCain for president. It endorsed him for the Republican Nomination. It also endorsed Sen Clinton for the Democratic Nomination. As to the “everyone knows” remark – classic innuendo insult. A bit of obvious here – if you endorse someone, you are obviously rejecting the other people. Further, it might help if you actually read the endorsement. The NYT was blunt in why it did not endorse Rudy Guiliani. Side track? Say rather blatant dislike.

    Now the other plank of their forward Republican attack has been put in place. They are not very masterful in their manipulations, but they have still done a suitable enough job to please Democrats and their desires, gin up some negatives to push around Republicans, and, oh yeah, sell a few newspapers too.

    More insult, no meat. This specific paragraph is the one that most made me debate just denying the comment.

    However, the timing of this smear appears very rushed coming as it does just weeks after their endorsement of Senator McCain. Why would The Times invite the obvious questions and criticisms of their objectivity, credibility and sourcing by so quickly publishing this smear piece so soon after anointing him to become President?

    A series of questions implying Evil Conspiracy. Again, the NYT did not annoint McCain for president, but rather for the GOP nomination. Oh by the way? The actual endorsement could be summarized as “best of a bad lot.” Rather takes the wind out of this sail, I think.

    Clearly something has changed in The Times calculations of the Political Landscape vis a vis their Political Agenda to put this piece out now at this point in time. What has changed?

    perhaps merely that the editors didn’t want to be scooped? They’d been working on this since last November. Newsweek (among others) were about to release the same story. The paper that prints first is The Lead. No conspiracy required to answer this one.

    Could it be The Times now really believes the Clinton’s when they vow they will bring their scorched earth political campaign all the way to the floor of the Democratic Party Convention in August?

    See preceding. Except I need to add, “what vow?” Cite, please, because while I’ve seen that said in a LOT of sites strongly opposed to the Clintons I can’t find an actual statement.

    Or could it be The Times believes Senator McCain’s clear and convincing wins of all the Presidential state nomination contests is rapidly unifying the Republican Party behind him for President?

    See ‘no conspiracy needed’.

    Or could it be that The Times believes Mitt Romney’s and President George Bush, Senior’s endorsements of John McCain for President are in fact very meaningful?

    See preceding.

    Or could it be The Times just simply believes Senator McCain when he vows,”As President I will veto any bill that contains earmarks?”

    Possible. Of course, so did then Governor Bush, who proceeded to sign off on record quantities. And there’s this minor issue of how many earmarks the Senator generated. But yes, it could be that contrary to past history and habit this vow would be kept. Of course, since the NYT isn’t the recipient of any of this largesse, the next question would be, “Why should the NYT care?”

    Or could it be The Times simply believes Senator McCain when he channels President Reagan and says, “Here’s my strategy on the Iraq War, we win, they lose?

    Now you’re implying the NYT is a traitorous organization working to defeat the USA. That would be the only interpretation of knowing the USA would win and willfully working to defeat it. That borders on libel, and you should be very certain you can prove it. By the way, opposition to being in Iraq is not supporting the terrorists.

    Or could it be The Times simply believes the electorate is starting to become more and more wise to the idea that as President, John McCain, regardless what they think about his willingness to cooperate and work with Democrats to find compromises, is the only effective person to stand in the way of complete Democratic Party rule and domination of the legislative and executive branches of government?

    Did you read that? And have you really thought about it? Under complete Republican rule, we set record deficits, and we’re six years into an engagement that was supposed to take six months. Let me rephrase – what, exactly, is wrong with the Democrats having all three spots? Is it fear of tit for tat? And if so, do you really believe the Democrats will be that unified and organized?

    One thing is certain, The New York Times will continue to play politics first, sell newspapers second and report the news last. So drink your morning coffee and be at ease. Everything is as it should be in the universe.

    Politics third, I think. Other than that your order is, IMO, correct. Nice noise in a teapot, with little fact and much speculation meant to drum up anger and revulsion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s