by Frank James
Bill Bennett, the conservative talk show host and CNN commentator, made an interesting point on CNN this morning, a point you'll likely be hearing a lot more of for some time.
In reacting to the New York Times's story on Sen. John McCain and the lobbyist Vicki Iseman, Bennett said: "The New York Times has done something for John McCain he couldn't do for himself," by rallying the conservative base behind the senator from Arizona.
The same thought likely occurred to a lot of people.
The Times is viewed as the bastion of the nation's liberal elite by conservatives. As such, it is disliked and downright hated by many people and is seen as the epitome of what is wrong, by conservative lights, with the mainstream media.
Thus, when the Times endorsed McCain before the New York primary on Super Tuesday, that embrace just raised conservative suspicions about McCain.
But now a negative story that many conservatives, and not just conservatives, view as unfair to McCain may change that entire dynamic. It may prove to be the gift thadt keeps on giving.
Ed Morrissey who writes the Captain's Quarters blog, says this:
Will this hurt McCain? Not at all. First, this is even older than the smear job the Times did on Rudy Giuliani last year. Second, they don't have a single named source for this story. Third, the Times left out numerous examples where McCain acted against the interests of Iseman and her clients. The effect is likely going to produce more support for McCain among the GOP base, especially given the egregious and salacious nature of the controversy.
The headline on a Townhall.com posting pretty much captures the point:
What's the Quickest Way to Rally Conservatives 'Round McCain?
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Wait just a minute here... whats this relatively positive story about McCain doing here on the Swamp? Did it get past their non-Obama filter?
Posted by: Steve S | February 21, 2008 10:27 AM
Ah...nothing like great mileage from all angles. It's early, lets see what plays out here. To start saying this will be good for McCain seems a bit premature, don't you think?
Posted by: bill r. | February 21, 2008 10:30 AM
Hint: the juice in the story is not the sex.
It's the corporate whoring, first for Keating, then for Paxson.
Posted by: Hawkeye | February 21, 2008 10:43 AM
What's the big deal if he had an affair? It doesn't mean he's not qualified to be President. Just give a video taped, sworn deposition and America will move on.
Posted by: jethro | February 21, 2008 10:49 AM
Actually, this is very, very good news for Rudy Giuliani.
Posted by: George Smiley | February 21, 2008 11:30 AM
Actually, this story wasn't intended to hurt McCain - who is beyond reproach according to legend (nevermind the Keating 5).
This story is intended to hurt Clinton. In fact, any stories about sex hurt Clinton. Look for Obama to wrap up nomination with win in TX.
The real story this Sexgate is shielding the public's gaze from is McCain's decision to drop out of public financing for his primary fight.
McCain has criticized Obama for not "keeping his word to the American people," and yet here he is taking a loophole through his commitment to public financing for his primary fight.
It's laughable if it weren't so hypocritical and typically Republican.
John, Barack may be "black" but we're not stupid. Keep your word and stop whining that "others have done it."
We know that the only reason you changed your mind on public financing for your primary fight is that 1. you actually won the nomination and 2. you realized you can now raise real money as your party's nominee.
And now you have the gall to complain that Obama is violating the public's trust. If you were a Democrat, I would say "shame" on you. But I know you, as a Republican, have no "shame."
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | February 21, 2008 11:31 AM
Of course the Ny TIMes is going to smear McCain with a really poorly written story. He is the GOP nominee. It will not jsut be the Ny TImes either. Once Hillary is gone all the pro Obama media will then turn their attacks onto McCain. Just look at the Chicago papers over the last 2 days. No criticism ever sticks to Obama because whenever someoen says anything somewhat negative about him his press allies come to his defense immediately. Yesterday alone there were 3 articles defending Obama from any kind of negative info. Today Mary Mitchell does the same. The press simply will not let Obama stand on his own merits because they know that he cant. Also Richard Roeper even comes to Obamas defense today. WHY DOES THE MEDIA FEEL IT HAS TO BE THE DEFENDER OF THE OBAMA BRAND? Come Frank James or someone at the swamp please giev me some kind of answer. I really want to understand and not just throw out accusations of bias and pushing their own agenda. Just givev me a reason why this keeps going on. Is Obama not able to fend for himself. What happens if he is attacked by another countries rep. Is the press goiing to flood that country with positive articles about Obama? LET THE MAN DEFEND HIMSELF AND STAND ON HIS OWN MERITS!!!!
Posted by: Vinny | February 21, 2008 11:33 AM
And the media wonders why they are losing readership and viewership. It's just not the Internet, it's the fact that polls consistently show that most Americans (like 75 to 80 percent) have little regard for the liars, distorters and biased reporters that pretend to be journalists, when in fact most are nothing but propagandists for the far left and operatives for the DNC.
Posted by: John D | February 21, 2008 11:34 AM
If you REALLY want to over-think it, nothing will crumble McCain's "Independent Maverick" title quite like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingrahm circling their wagons around him and defending their new victim/hero.
Posted by: Jeff V, | February 21, 2008 11:54 AM
Isn't that a sad commentary on the supposed "Conservative" party that influence peddling for SEX would unite them behind that Senator!!!!
Posted by: Raving Loon | February 21, 2008 11:59 AM
I should add to my previous comment that I think the NYT story was silly and poorly researched.
Posted by: Jeff V, | February 21, 2008 12:00 PM
I don't think Conservatives who disliked him before are going to find the NYT's story on him to be good motivation for supporting him. They might just see it as the inevitable result of not going with the "proven conservative"
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty | February 21, 2008 12:03 PM
As long as Beltway McCain has all his powerful Washington insider friends, nothing like this will hurt him.
And Bill Bennett? Isn't he an admitted gambling addict? Man, put him with Cindy "I steal drugs" McCain and you've got some real family values.
Posted by: Paul | February 21, 2008 12:10 PM
"Here we go again" and he isn't even in the white house yet.
Posted by: RuthieM | February 21, 2008 12:33 PM
I never did believe the "straight-talker" when he called himself a "reformer" right after he was implicated in the Keating scandel.
I'm going to wait to comment further on this BREAKING NEWS until there is more research done on it than there has been so far but from what I understand the second shoe is going to fall on this one in the next couple of weeks.
If this is true, you can start calling McCain, "McToast", because he not only won't win the general election he may be stripped of the Republican nomination.
From here on out, Obama should be tying McCain to the phrase "poor judgment."
As one of the Keating Five, McCain was officially reprimanded for having "poor judgment."
He showed poor judgment in supporting the decision to invade Iraq and continues to show poor judgment in wanting to stay there.
And the very most charitable characterization of the NYT revelations is that McCain has consistently exercised poor judgment in his association with lobbyists.
Posted by: John E | February 21, 2008 12:40 PM
"NO. 99-1531 SPEAKS"
MCCAIN CONTENDS THAT ORDER IS CONTRARY TO 1905 OF THE TRADE SECRETS ACT, 18 U.S.C. - 1905 (1994), BECAUSE NOTHING IN - 220(F) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 47 U.S.C. - 220(F) (1994), AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO RELEASE OTHERWISE PROTECTED INFORMATION.
SO DOWN WITH QWEST, SO WITH IF THEY ARE FROM MY HOME STATE.
SO DOWN WITH QWEST, THEY WON'T PLAY BALL, IT'S ELECTION TIME.
SO DOWN WITH "FAIR AND BALANCE"
I'M NOT I SCOOTER LIBBY!
I'M JOHN MCCAIN, MR. CONSERVATIVE, AND I HAVE DONE A HECKUVA JOB. AMERICA'S COMMERCE IS THE LEADING EDGE IN BUSH ECONOMICS 101, THE RICH HAS GOTTEN RICHER, AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS GOT THEIR WAY, AS LONG AS YOU PLAYED JOHN JOHN BALL!
"GOD WANTS WORLD CUP NOT FALSE PROPHETS"
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 21, 2008 12:43 PM
John D.,
Close, but no cigar.
The 75%-80% you refer to is actually Americans who disapprove of Dubya & Darth.
Posted by: Doug Zook | February 21, 2008 12:47 PM
I think that there is a bit more to this story, I bet as it unfolds we will hear more about ethical John McCain. Plus, its kind of hard to trust a person who is married to his former mistress and was involved in the Keating scandal.
Posted by: Michael | February 21, 2008 1:50 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Dan Rather's head rolls for this. LOL.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | February 21, 2008 3:06 PM
LOL. Frank James must think getting a kick in the behind is fun. "This is going to be good for me."
I can't wait for his new book, "Down Is The New Up."
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | February 21, 2008 4:43 PM
Calm down, Vinny. Fortunately, conservatives have their own media outlets to provide at least some counterbalance to the Obamaniac liberal media which project only goodness in their deity and evil in all heretics who dare blasphem him. Hillary unfortunately did not have that counterbalance, but I am so happy it's appearing that McCain might.
So I expect -- hope if you will -- I will see both sides of the issues, the pluses and minuses of each candidate.
I never would have thought I would lean toward McCain, or any Republican for that matter, at the beginning this process. But... Wow...
Posted by: Biggdawg | February 21, 2008 6:20 PM
Assuming this is true, if dems think of playing this hard, they might want to think again because Boy Wonder has a rumor floating on the internet.
Posted by: Terry | February 21, 2008 10:43 PM
John D,
You are funny! hahahaha. . .for blaming this on the liberal media. How about McCain taking responsbility for his actions? Have we lost the concept of responsbility as adults? hahahaha. . .
"Youthful indescretion."
Posted by: Lou | February 22, 2008 12:11 AM
Conservatives all along predicted that the Liberal media would dump on their one-time Republican buddy McCain once McCain cinched the Republican nomination and faced a Liberal Democrat. One commenter notes:
"I don’t think conservatives will rally around McCain. I know I won’t. Sure, we’ll rally against the New York Times, but that’s beating a dead horse. Their partisanship is laughably transparent. They endorsed McCain in the primary, and waited to dump their dirt on him as soon as he had the nomination locked up.
True, nobody deserves to have unsubstantiated allegations like this thrown around. But if anyone deserves to be betrayed by an alleged ally, it’s McCain. He repeatedly stabbed conservatives in the back to kiss up to the left-wing press, and now the left-wing press has stabbed him in the back. Poetic justice.
And sure, this story will blow over. But McCain’s ex-buddies in the press are just getting warmed up."
from W. C. Varones
Posted by: Peter Zenger | February 22, 2008 8:50 AM
Latest polls show McCain ahead of both Obama and Hillary in the general. Thanks, NYT!
Posted by: Jeff | February 22, 2008 11:42 AM