The McCain loving New London Day prints a Washington Post story that establishes beyond doubt that the McCain campaign lied when it said that McCain had not personally met with Lowell “Bud” Paxson before he wrote a letter to the FCC on Paxson’s behalf. Where? On the obituary page, of course.
The story is not mentioned on the Day’s home page either. Seek and ye can find, but ye surely must seek.
Even before my time. Benny Goodman and Peggy Lee.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6XF4Yf6qNI[/youtube]
The Hartford Courant (A Poorly Sourced Story) joins the journalistic crowd eager to prove that the “Clinton Rules” definitely don’t apply to Republicans. According to the Courant, the Times has “some explaining to do about its story Thursday suggesting that Sen. John McCain of Arizona had a romantic relationship several years ago with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate Commerce Committee”.
It should be noted here that the Times merely reported that its sources stated that they, people working on his 2000 presidential campaign, suspected that McCain was having an affair. The Times never asserted that he was having such an affair. The meat of the story was McCain’s prediliction for lobbyists, and his willingness to do favors for them, in light of his assertions that he has never done so. But, let us go on. According to the Courant, the Times committed the following editorial sins:
The Times used sources it identified obliquely, such as “several people involved in the campaign,” “two former McCain associates” (described as “disillusioned” with the senator), “a former campaign adviser” and “a Senate aide.” Only former “top McCain aide” John Weaver was identified by name, and he said nothing about any romantic relationship.?
The use of unnamed sources can sometimes be justified if the story is significant, is corroborated and can’t be reported any other way — but probably not in this case. The New York Times — whose editorial page endorsed Mr. McCain in January, ahead of the Super Tuesday primary — needs to explain why this story justified using anonymous sources. It should also elaborate on its timing, since the newspaper was working on the story last year. Why did it delay publication? ?
If I had a dollar for every newspaper story, including countless in the Courant, that used similar characterizations for unnamed sources, I would be a rich man. If I had a penny for every anti-Clinton story, more thinly sourced than that in the Times, I’d be even richer. Where was the media outcry, for instance, when Disney released a movie that blamed Clinton for 9/11? But I digress.
Let’s take the objections one by one. The Courant says a story using unnamed sources must be significant. Check. Saint John has continually claimed that he is above reproach, particularly with regard to his relationship with lobbyists. If his claim is untrue, that’s significant. (Why, by the way, is it considered acceptable for politicians to trumpet their own virtues? If I stood up in court and told a judge he could believe what I say because I’m an honest man, he’d have legitimate grounds to laugh me out of court.)
So far as corroboration, the Times reported:
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. (Emphasis added)
So far as John Weaver is concerned, while it appears to be true that he is not quoted alleging a romantic relationship, he confirmed the essentials of the story, particularly the fact that McCain’s people were so concerned about the situation that they told the woman to bug off.
It seems to me that the Courant must explain why the use of unnamed sources is “probably not” justified in this case. Why not? It never really says. Surely the hint that previous adulterer John McCain may have sinned again could not be the reason.
Well, actually, we all know why the Courant, along with most broadcast “journalists” takes this position: because it involves Saint John McCain, about whom no amount of evidence will shake the conviction that he is beyond reproach. The same type of sourcing would go unremarked were the target Bill or Hillary Clinton. See, e.g., the media response to the Times article on the Clinton marriage, an issue that has exactly zero policy implications. That article cited almost 50 unnamed sources. And we Democrats are constantly bedeviled by quotes from unnamed concerned Democrats who express varying degrees of dismay every time we buck the Republican party line.
The major problem with using unnamed sources is the possibility that the media is being manipulated, e.g., the Valerie Plame leak or the Judith Miller stories before the war, other uses of unnamed sources that went largely unremarked by the mainstream. Another problem with using unnamed sources is that their anonymity sometimes confers unwarranted credence, particularly when they merely express opinions. An unnamed “senior Democratic officeholder” expressing dissatisfaction with the party’s position on issue X has more credibility than, for example, an identified Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. There is never a reason to confer anonymity on someone merely stating an opinion, but the Times has not committed that sin in the McCain article, nor does it appear that this is a case of the Times being manipulated. Indeed, the Times is merely reporting a story that has been hiding in plain sight for years.
The Times owes its readers disclosure of the agendas of its sources, which it appears to have done in this case. The thrust of the story is now being proven as John McCain repeatedly lies about things that are easily established (e.g., his claim that he never did favors for Paxson Communications, for whom the woman in question worked). That claim was disproven by his own affidavit. (McCain’s inability to lie convincingly is not related to any discomfort with lying, as Nick Kristof might assert, but with the fact that he simply can’t remember his recent actions well enough to avoid tripping himself up. ) The Democrats should not let this drop, despite most of the media’s insistence that it is not a story. If they keep bringing it up, and adding more of the amply documented facts showing McCain’s tight connections to lobbyists, some reporters with integrity will follow up. The story won’t die if the Democrats don’t let it, despite the best efforts of a McCain smitten establishment.
Postscript: After writing this post I stumbled on this, apropos of the story hiding in plain sight. You can sign the petition here.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEROVh8zK4[/youtube]
Since Cindy McCain has interjected herself into the campaign by hyping her moral superiority to Michelle Obama she has, as the Republicans would say, made herself “fair game”. When Democrats use that term it means telling people the truth about their opponents, because with Republicans you don’t normally have to make anything up. Turns out that Cindy, McCain’s trophy wife, founded a charity to help war victims in undeveloped countries, and then stole painkillers from it in order to feed her own habit. And there’s more. Full story here.
I was a bit suspicious of this somewhat ungrammatical and unsourced piece, but I quickly found confirmation here and here.
My father died when I was quite young, but not before he warned me off of two things: cigarettes and golf. I have followed his advice on both fronts, and firmly believe I’m a better man for it. Now, at least according to the New York Times, fewer people than ever are disregarding his advice. Golf is in decline. Part of the problem appears to be a disinclination on the part of more and more men to abandon their families on weekends. An encouraging development.
There appears to be only one way the Democrats can lose the White House in November: by forming a circular firing squad. The chances of that happening have appeared to be good, particularly with rumours that Hillary is planning to try to have delegates seated from Michigan and Florida. Those states, which Obama did not contest, held early primaries in violation of party rules. The rules themselves may have been stupid, but each candidate promised to abide by them, and it would be hell to pay if Hillary got the nomination by stealing it with Florida delegates. If she gets if fair and square that’s another matter, and you can count me among those who believe that she has the right to use any fair means to try to acquire the votes of the super-delegates.
We must all hope we can avoid a convention meltdown. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but I think there’s hope today that we can. Today, in Texas, Bill Clinton at least hinted that Hillary will be history if she doesn’t win Texas and Ohio:
“If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you,” the former president told the audience at the beginning of his speech.
Is this a signal, however faint, that Hillary won’t go to the mat to get the nomination? The country is in terrible shape; we can’t afford four years of John McCain, and a little stateswomanship would be a great thing to see right about now. If she’s never president she will still retain a place in the hearts of a grateful nation if she withdraws gracefully.
I suppose as a person on the brink of geezerdom I should take umbrage at this, but I think this is just the message that will win the election for Obama: McCain is an artifact of the past.
We learn today that people who allegedly have brains are seriously suggesting that Jodi Rell would make a fine vice-president. Recall, if you will, that the Constitution provides that, should the president die, the vice-president becomes president. Connecting the dots, that means that in the likely event McCain dies in office (and someone notices) Rell would become president.
Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that the party that gave us a president as stunningly incompetent as the current White House occupant, or a vice president as evil as the person who currently bears the title, could give us a potential president so totally and gloriously unworthy of the office. Then again, it’s not the puppet that counts, it’s the person who’s pulling the strings.
The amazing thing, the stunning thing, is that in reality she would be an improvement over what we have now, but being better than the worst ever is hardly a recommendation for high office.
After reading the article to which I link above, it occurred to me that, rather than lusting after tax returns, the press should demand full disclosure of all IQ results for potential presidents.
Imagine. Lisa Moody one heartbeat and an empty head away from the presidency. The mind boggles.
No Connecticut related story would be complete without a stupid statement from a stupid Democrat, and this one is no exception. James Amann, the deluded Lieberman lover who thinks he stands a chance to replace Rell’s empty head with his own, had this to say:
House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, said while he will be supporting the Democratic ticket in November, having Rell on the Republican ticket with McCain would be good for the state. Amann recently announced the formation of an exploratory committee for his potential run for the governor’s office.
“Rell is a very popular governor in Connecticut, and a ticket of diversity certainly wouldn’t hurt the Republicans,” he said. “If chosen, it would be an honor for the state.”
Golly Jim, Connecticut is still trying to live down the last person from our fair state who ran for vice-president. Do we really need to let the whole country know that we have a governor who, with a little training, might be competent to work in a day care center?
This is the sort of thing that is rapidly turning me off to the Clinton campaign:
“William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama’s Willie Horton.”
–Former counterterrorism official Larry C. Johnson, The Huffington Post, Feb. 16, 2008.
Who is William Ayers? He is a former weatherman who is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
For those of you less than fifty years old, the Weathermen were a radical group of anti-war folks in the 60s, some of whom set off bombs.
How old was Obama when Ayers was a member of the group?
Eight.
The Washington Post’s Fact checker asks: Is this guilt by association? It sounds more like guilt without much association.
Who is Larry Johnson, who is raising this issue?
A Clinton supporter, “who is not involved in the campaign”.
This is of the piece with the “Obama is a muslim, etc.” emails that made the rounds of the internet. It reminds me of the first George Bush trying to make hay out of the fact that a young Bill Clinton had the temerity to visit the Soviet Union. Somehow, we were to infer from that fact that Clinton was a dangerous radical. It had a note of desperation about it at the time, and this does too. Effective or not, it’s despicable that Clinton surrogates are engaging in these tactics.
As an aside, if this story proves to have legs it will be a good example of the “Clinton rules” being extended to Obama, as it eventually is to all Democrats. The press has never pursued the far more relevant story of the Bush crime syndicate’s connections to Middle East terrorists, including its connections to the bin Laden family. (Illustrative link only, you can Google it yourself, or read House of Bush, House of Saud.
Sheila Horvitz asked me to appear on Take Back the 2nd (which we have now taken back, but the name remains) on Thursday. So those of you who want to see me pontificate in the flesh, or at least in a pictorial representation of the flesh, can do so at 7:00 PM that night, provided you live in the Norwich cable service area. I guess it’s on Comcast.
In preparation I expect to spend the next couple of days emptying my head of everything I know, and filling it back up with cliches and media tropes, so I can sound just like the professionals.