Eh, sort of. The sex angle is of course the first in the piece. But the fact that McCain, on behalf of this lobbyist's clients sent letters to a Commission that resulted in him being rebuked is rather notable.

So too his his intervention in regulatory decisions on behalf of big campaign donors.

So too is his travel on corporate jets owned by the lobbyist's clients, including at least once with the lobbyist in question.

So too is her apparent willingness to tout her connections to McCain (which of course drove his staffers nuts).

So, the story isn't all it could be, but at the same time, there is a fair amount of "there," there with regards to a straight-shooting, no-lobbyist influenced, Keating-5 recovering maverick such as Mr. McCain.

In short, this story is not just about the affair (that leads, that is, uh, just the way things are...sigh), but is also about McCain's BS with regard to lobbyists in particular and his straight-shooting BS in general.

So, I think the story makes it clear that he advocated for the clients improperly. As for the affair, well, no answer to that. But it seems a bit unfair to require the NYT to tell us these things happened definitively. The sex angle bothers me (I don't care if he had an affair or not), but I'd be one pissed off consumer of NYT content if they knew about questionable lobbyist dealings by McCain but refused to print them because they "didn't have iron-clad proof" which seems to be what you are asking for.

They have reported the facts as currently known(and innuendo). That's what they do, when they can be bothered to report the facts at all.

And just to add a bit, I think that news stories such as TPM's "Did the DOJ fire attorneys who failed to prosecute GOP voter fraud cases?" is a totally appropriate model of journalism. It asks the question, gets it out there, and follow-up in the media and sometimes even in Congress can result.

In this case, given the evidence (which has been on the back burner since at least December) seems to justify asking "Did McCain have an affair with a lobbyist, and did he improperly try to advocate for her clients?"

The second question is the one that matters, but the first question will most likely get more attention.

That said, given the reality of politics, both questions are not out of bounds in my opinion.

abject funk:
Doesn't it tell you something when McCain's people chose to go all wing nut over the NY Times instead of denying that McCain had the affair. According to the article, he McCain was bringing the lobbyist along on trips or whatnot as like a date(something his wife should have been doing).

I think the legal issues that held up the article's publication for over a month are likely responsible for the cautious ambiguity on the affair angle.

JK's conscience:

Oh yes, but while the sex angle is the, er, sexy angle from the reporting point of view, the lobbyist angle is what I find more newsworthy. I'm old fashioned (that is, have sex, lots of it, and even more of it if it involves me), and if McCain who voted for impeachment of Clinton is strung up due to sexual indiscretions, I won't shed a tear. I do find it a shame that the NYT basically used sex as the hook on this story, which is important aside from that, and is why I think Ezra is right to be annoyed with the article, as it basically starts with its weakest point and shifts focus from the more serious problems of McCain's apparent behavior.

Darryl, I assume, but do not know, that you have read TPM's analysis, which I think is very plausible. With that in mind, if this is what the NYT has on the first go-around, I expect more on this topic, as they most likely have some information in reserve that will be deployed if needed (or clamored for, depending on your point of view).

to be a fly in the wall in the huckabee household this evening.

Wouldn't you like to have this little hottie flitting around Washington and flying around on a plane with you if you were a 60-something Senator who's nearly destroyed his career through bad judgement? Was his wife out of rehab at the time or what? Hell, a man's got to have some joy in life, doesn't he?

All in all, the lobbyist angle is the problem, and it shows McCain just doesn't have good judgement. If he's led around like a puppydog by this kind of pseudo-Barbie, just think of what the Chinese and Russians, and Republicans who want to get him, would think up. She does look uncannily like Cindy McCain.

If the New York Times has evidence that John McCain conducted an affair with a lobbyist, then they should come out and say so.

And if McCain didn't have sex with the lobbyist, he should come out and say so. Otherwise his statement amounts to, how shall I put it, Clintonian parsing of the truth.

Full disclosure: I voted for Romney in the CA primaries.

Josh Marshall points out that this article has the feel of something that had much of the meat lawyered out of it. Having been -- as a writer -- through overlawyering once or twice, I'm kind of inclined to agree. The NYT was clearly trying to get out in front of somebody. I suspect we'll know more, one way or another, in a few days.

OT: My post didn't publish again.

Now, on topic-- I think Funk is right above. I also think the left/progressives have the wrong priorities. Rather than worrying about whether the sex part is true (clearly some need to rush to seemly not look like hypocrites), you should be focused on the lobbist issue. I could careless about the NY Times or its journalistic ethics. Journalism died for me years ago while the GOP was willing to do what the Democrats are clearly incapable of doing.

I am pissed that I am now hearing all the heads on Teevee implying that McCain isn't the sort of guy that has affairs.
Meanwhile I am sitting there yelling at my Teevee because his current wife is his current wife only because he cheated on his former wife, divorced her for the richer younger woman, and remarried a month later.

Lol, putting everything out there at once isn't good business, and it isn't good politics.

soullite- how old are you?

Laying professional journalistic ethics to the side for a minute (after all, we're blog commenters, not AP reporters), what odds would you put on this?

Would anyone place an even money wager that McCain did not have a sexual relationship of some kind with this woman?

APS

I suspect a paper like the NY Times has some back-up information waiting in the background to flesh out this story...

Watching McCain this morning deny any relationship I felt I was watching a nervous man who is covering up an affair rather then an angry man who was unjustly accused of it.

Normally I would say it's his business if he, a hot-headed senator in his 60's, got his knob shined by a 30ish Barbie doll lobbyist. But then I remember that McCain voted to impeach, so I say "shame on you dirty old man!"
But yeah, as noted above, the real big story is that Saint McCain seems to have incredibly poor judgement, especially for a man that has been in public most of his adult life.

Certainly a Hatchet-Job.

The reason it is a hatchet job is because no one will stand up to make these charges. It's all crap.

II'm sure somewhere, someone has 'evidence' from 'unnamed sources' that Ezra is a gay pedophile. That's crap, too.

The reason why it's a hatchet job is because it's against the most likely GOP nominee for the WH. It would, of course, not be a hatchet job if it were accusing the Clintons of having killed someone, swiftboated Kerry, called Gore a fibber or question the patriotism of a candidate's wife. Those are all just fair and balanced reporting. You live by the media's sword, you sure as hell don't get to whine now.

It would, of course, not be a hatchet job if it were accusing the Clintons of having killed someone, swiftboated Kerry, called Gore a fibber or question the patriotism of a candidate's wife.

In each of these issues, SOMEONE came forward to make these charges. So, where are those making the charges against McCain?

Oh...THAT'S RIGHT! There isn't anyone!

Swiftboaters were honest because they were willing to go public. Indeed, saying the Clintons murdered someone is okay because it was done without annonimity. And whistleblowers have never had a reason to protect their identity other than lying. Love the moral relativism of the conservative thinker, hate the bj McCain got from the lobbist. Oh, right. that's a lie- sorry I swear not to repeat it ad nauseum. I hope the media doesn't either. That would be totally unethical.

So, where are those making the charges against McCain?
Oh...THAT'S RIGHT! There isn't anyone!
Posted by: El Viajero | February 21, 2008 2:01 PM

Oh, don't worry Fred, you right wingers will have lots of more pressing worries in the coming months than a plain old vanilla heterosexual (for once) sex-for-favors affair involving a craggy old Republican.