Gosh, maybe it's just me but isn't it pretty easy to see through all this phony outrage with the New York Times by the McCain campaign over the 1999 story of the young female Paxon Communications lobbyist Vicky Iseman. First of all let's establish a basic point before we venture on from here. John McCain is the endorsed candidate of the New York Times, they chose him as the Republican candidate, he's their man. Now, the New York Times has been sitting on the story about Vicky Iseman since December of 2007. They have had plenty of time to do research and investigation about this story that happened back in 1999-2000 during McCain's first run for President. McCain is said to have gone to bat at the Federal Communications Commission for the company Paxon Communications who employed Vicky Iseman as a lobbyist. There was innuendo that their was some kind of quid pro quo with a sexual tryst involved. That's the basics of the story.
Now on to the next step. The New York Times has released this story just as John McCain has been determined to be the Republican nominee, there is no chance of Mike Huckabee winning enough delegates so McCain is the defacto nominee. The timing of the story release is important for the fact that it is almost six months to the general election and the details of this story will never be known exactly and this story has been around since 2000. The New York Times under Executive Editor Bill Keller decided to release this story now so the McCain campaign can get it out of the way, have it's details debunked and move on. This was a slow pitch by the New York Times for the McCain campaign to hit out of the park over the left field fence.
I'm laughing at all the talking heads calling the New York Times a bunch of lunatic liberals running a hit piece on McCain when nothing could be further from the truth. The New York Times may be a bunch of lunatic liberals but this story was meant so McCain can clean up this dirty little story with it's scant details so they could be done with it. It was up to the McCain campaign to deal with it in manner that is credible to the moderates and liberals that are going to turn out and vote for him in November. The New York Times was testing their endorsed candidate with a softball so when the fast pitches start coming in the New York Times will be able to give McCain some cover from time to time and not be credibly accused of being in the bag for him. If more details come out on this story now or as they say "the story gets legs" it's because the McCain campaign will have failed in their attempt to refute the story and bury the witnesses with all the details showing the weakness of his campaign committee.
There will be one or two more stories like this in the near future to test the McCain campaign to see if it can keep a lid on the caldron. If so they will bury the big stories when it gets close to the general election. This is the way things work for media panderers like McCain. There's plenty of dirt under the nails at McCain central and if he tries to stray too far from the moderate dark side the media will stop providing the soap he needs to clean up his dirt.
The thing that really gets me though is when McCain's campaign manager goes on the talk shows he refers to McCain as the conservative Republican candidate after every sentence. It would be at least honorable if not honest if McCain would just run the campaign he wants to run and pander to the people that are going to turn out and vote for him and most probably elect him to be the moderate Republican President.
Well demanded, wench:
My tale provokes that question. Dear, they durst not,
So dear the love my people bore me, nor set
A mark so bloody on the business, but
With colours fairer painted their foul ends.
In few, they hurried us aboard a bark,
Bore us some leagues to sea; where they prepared
A rotten carcass of a boat, not rigg'd,
Nor tackle, sail, nor mast; the very rats
Instinctively had quit it: there they hoist us,
To cry to the sea that roar'd to us, to sigh
To the winds whose pity, sighing back again,
Did us but loving wrong.