Republican presidential hopeful John McCain issued a statement Wednesday night saying he "will not allow a smear campaign" to distract from his campaign as published reports questioned his relationship with a lobbyist.
The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with Vicki Iseman and urged her to stay away from McCain. The New York Times suggested an inappropriate relationship between the Arizona senator and Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The New York Times quoted anonymous aides saying they had confronted McCain and Iseman, urging them to stay away from each other, before his failed presidential campaign in 2000.
Eight years later, McCain is close to securing the GOP nomination. Aides said the senator would address the allegations at a news conference Thursday morning.
The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship, and the paper offered no evidence that they had, saying only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served.
The story alleges that McCain wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman's clients.
In a statement issued by his presidential campaign, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: "It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign.
"John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."
McCain's campaign also issued a lengthy statement insisting that his actions did not benefit any one party or favor any particular interest.
Ah...the New York Times...trademark: "All the rumors we feel like printing."
Anyone who believes this is unconnected to one of the individual presidential campaigns would have to be hopelessly naive. The question is which one? McCain's current opponent on paper, Mike Huckabee? It could be the sign of a desperate Huckabee campaign. But it really doesn't fit. One, the rumor that McCain had an affair would likely only sway the segment of voters already voting for Huckabee. Two, the New York Times has hardly carried Huckabee's water in the past. And three, it seems out of character with the Huckabee campaign to this point. Look at all the hemming and hawing we saw when his staff dared to commission a contrast ad.
The Clinton campaign? Well, this sort of thing isn't unheard of in camp Clinton, and I certainly wouldn't put it past them if they thought it would benefit their candidate. Still, I don't see how smearing McCain helps Clinton. (Unless you want to accuse them of the same sort of "deviousness" usually reserved for anti-Semites when they talk about Israel.) And besides, don't they have enough on their plate already?
The Obama campaign? This makes the most sense. McCain did just call camp Obama out, and they just might be getting cocky with all their success. Plus, they may want to prove that they can be as "tough" when it comes to playing politics as any Clinton. I also don't find it hard to believe that the Obama campaign has a direct line into the New York Times offices when needed.
Of course, if it was camp Obama it was truly a despicable act. You might think McCain's point on public financing is overblown, but it is a real issue and one Obama could have avoided by not putting his name to something he didn't intend to follow through on in the first place. This response is nothing but character assasination of the worst kind.
"Change" isn't what it used to be I guess.
Of course the true believers won't even consider the possibility that Obama could be behind it, largely because they get all tingly when he speaks. How can you argue with "logic" like that?
Than again...maybe Obama just wanted to teach McCain about the "Chicago Way."
UPDATE: Turns out that the Obama camp may have had a line into TNR and not the Times directly. That doesn't surprise as TNR has the ethical standing of....hmmm...Sorry, I can't think of anything more unethical than TNR.
No comments:
Post a Comment