McCain's pain

The "straight talker" didn't too much like this New York Times article about him, which offers some good reporting on John McCain and his (un)ethical history.

The second graph — the one McCain's people are having a conniption over, despite some serious business in the rest of the article — basically says people in McCain's camp thought he was having an affair during his 2000 run for president. It doesn't say he was, likely because the Times couldn't prove it. But it feels like they were being told by these anonymous McCain camp people that he was having an affair. But the Times couldn't go with that, so we get what was printed.

The gist of the rest of the article is that McCain continually seems to court ethical improprieties while maintaining a stance against the influence of lobbyists and corporate interests, though that stance seems not to be a priority in this campaign.

Hey, it's easier to just say you're a "straight shooter" than come up with an actual issue, especially when you can be called on your shit on the issues.

But anyway, why has he courted ethical problems the way he has? He's a dumbass? Probably has a lot to do with it. He'd still rather get things done in Washington instead of being a man alone, fighting the system? Maybe. He just like helping lobbyist buddies too much to really walk the reform walk? Looks like it.

He may be all about governmental reform now that the Republican bid is pretty much assured, and to take some of the sting out of Obama's campaign, but he wasn't making a righteous, indignant spectacle out of himself concerning the Bush administration/Congress in recent years when he could have, when it would have meant something beyond campaign pap.

Back to the article, near the end the Times circles back to this possible affair, and drip the hammer a little harder, writing:

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. 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.

Yeah, great, but the Times didn't have it. The implication’s clear as to how McCain behaved "inappropriately" with this one lobbyist. They attempt to cover themselves by never coming out and saying it, but this feels like an all or nothing situation. You either have it and report it, or you don't, and don't.

The McCain campaign's response to the Times is worthless as expected, especially as it counters facts in the story disputed by no one, which leads to my reaction on the story.

There's plenty of good reporting in there, and they actually could have hit McCain harder I think. How many times did he request the FCC or other bureaucrats to expedite proposals not submitted by his lobbyist buddies? They say reform hasn't been a big deal in his current campaign — point out how (and thus, how hokey and meaningless his campaign has been).

But the inclusion of the "implication" will end up detracting from the rest of the piece. Speculation suggests the Times rushed it to print so they weren't scooped by a The New Republic story on the Times' handling of the investigation, and it feels like that may be the case.

UPDATE: Though the Times denied it, the McCain camp alleged the story came out as is because The New Republic was working on a story on the Times' reporting (delaying?) the McCain story. This was discussed on Charlie Rose Thursday night, with someone from the TNR saying he took the Times' at their word in that the TNR didn't affect their decision on the story. So now I have to go read this TNR piece.

TNR's Noam Scheiber also offered that "The story reads to me like it had originally been much more ambitious, but had its guts ripped out somewhere along the way," to which I'd agree.

UPDATE 2: Go read the TNR piece, it's great stuff. I wonder what it would have looked like before the Times went ahead and ran the McCain story.