Already! McCain Raising Money Off Times Story On Lobbyist Connection
Well, that was pretty predictable. The McCain campaign is already raising money off the uproar over the Times piece, depicting it as nothing more than the work of a left wing cabal -- including the paper, the Democratic Party and of course MoveOn -- that is bent on destroying the GOP nominee.
From a new McCain fundraising email:
Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand.
To be clear, we think there's much in the story that's legit, particularly the stuff focused on the questions around McCain's professional relationship with the lobbyist and the broader pattern of influence peddling that's alluded to. The anonymous suggestions of a romantic affair, however, have only made it easier for the McCain camp to respond as they did above.
Interestingly, the fundraising email makes no mention of the fact that the paper endorsed McCain.
More on this story right here at The Horse's Mouth.
Late Update: Now the Republican National Committee has a fundraising email out, too, saying: "The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House."
They forgot Soros!
February 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of which:
Just got the latest email from the Obama team (it looks like they've gotten 40,000 new donors in the last DAY at 940,000 now!:
"A hundred versus a million"
News broke yesterday that a few wealthy Clinton supporters are gearing up for a massive spending campaign to boost her chances in the big upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio on March 4th.
The so-called "American Leadership Project" will take unlimited contributions from individuals and is organized the same way as the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
ABC News reports that this group is seeking 100 Clinton supporters to each give $100,000 to fund its $10 million effort to promote Senator Clinton and "contrast" her positions with Barack Obama's.
That's the opposite of how politics should work, and the opposite of how Barack Obama has run this campaign.
The same day this group's activity was revealed, we announced that nearly 1 million individual people have donated to this campaign.
Stand up against politics-as-usual. Help reach the goal of 1 million donors calling out for change by encouraging a first-time donor to own a piece of this campaign.
February 21, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Of course, it's not clear that McCain's going to be allowed to spend any of the money he's raising - not, at any rate, if the FEC is capable of stopping him.
Also, although this certainly plays well to the base (and how many irritating "Right-wing Rallies to McCain's Defense" stories are we going to have to contend with now?) I don't think the general public is likely to react in the same way. The New York Times is actually incredibly well respected by most Americans. Those who hate the paper and consider it part-and-parcel of the liberal media establishment were going to vote for McCain anyway. The challenge facing McCain is how he's going to win over swing voters, more and more of whom seem drawn to Obama. This is the point in the cycle when he ought to be tacking to the center. Spouting the slightly-paranoid theories of liberal media control that are popular among right-wing zealots isn't a great way to do that.
February 21, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for McCain. If I were in his shoes, I'd do exactly the same thing.
Personally, this NYT story is very confusing to me. Hints of possible allegations, yes, but no concrete evidence. Is there anything more to this story or not?
The Times is a pretty smart organization, which suggests to me that there will be more meat following up this story. It also reminds me of, possibly, how lucky Obama may actually be.
I saw a conservative talk about it somewhere else, but seriously, if there is any meat or veracity to these "allegations" posted in the NYT last night and today, would we have to add "John McCain" to the list of Obama defeats due to immorality:
Blair Hull, Jack Ryan....
Huckabee may be right. I sense an invisible hand here... ;)
February 21, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for McCain. If I were in his shoes, I'd do exactly the same thing.
Personally, this NYT story is very confusing to me. Hints of possible allegations, yes, but no concrete evidence. Is there anything more to this story or not?
The Times is a pretty smart organization, which suggests to me that there will be more meat following up this story. It also reminds me of, possibly, how lucky Obama may actually be.
I saw a conservative talk about it somewhere else, but seriously, if there is any meat or veracity to these "allegations" posted in the NYT last night and today, would we have to add "John McCain" to the list of Obama defeats due to immorality:
Blair Hull, Jack Ryan....
Huckabee may be right. I sense an invisible hand here... ;)
February 21, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The damaging thing about this article is that it shores up the Keating scandal and McCain's reputation as a serial playboy/adulterer in the 70's. It can't be good to remind or inform the conservative base of his past infidelities and his connections to lobbyists. So, give them one or two days to lash out at NYT, maybe even give McCain some money, then give it a few days to settle in their minds, then watch the slow backlash against McCain start to ramp up. All it takes is one or two big wigs to come out and say that McCain isn't morally fit to be the Republican nominee before the others start to fall in line. Most of them already don't like the guy, and once they see a few of their own throwing him overboard and his poll numbers drop, they'll all be pushing Romney to get back in the race.
February 21, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That dirty liberal media, they drugged John McCain, forced him into bed with a lobbyist, faked a letter from him for her, deposited her money into his campaign account, and bribed his advisers to snitch him out.
www.greenpieceblog.com
February 21, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just the NYTimes working to sink Obama and get McCain elected (they endorsed him and HRC, remember?) by ginning up the WingNut base.
Even Rush has come out to defend and support Mac now.
And it is already working for his fundraising. Not to mention the MSM who are all flocking to poor poor McCain and condemning the Times saying unless they have hotel receipts then Keller must resign or be fired.
As to the FEC, they are missing so many commissioners that they have no quorum and won't be able to do anything about McCain's fundraising until well after November. Bush and Bill (they appointed all the board members, every one, over the last 16 years) will see to that.
Anybody who can't see that this is part of the Times strategary to defeat Obama and the people's will just aren't looking at the bigger picture.
And HRC has to be behind it all.
Notice she hasn't come out to attack the Times for going after McCain for the same stuff they went after Bill for.
If she can't steal the presidency then she will do anything to stop Obama from getting it. Its just like all her voter fraud in Harlem!
February 21, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question about the Times story.
First, I don't really care if John McCain had an affair. Schadenfreude is tough to ignore, but I didn't care when Clinton was accused, so I can't really care now.
My question is this, I tend to agree with TPM's original post on this topic. The sexual allegations make it salacious, but I cannot believe the NYTimes would go this far out on a limb if they didn't have something in their proverbial back pocket.
I'm of the opinion that the Times held back because they didn't want to influence the outcome of the election. We already know that John McCain and his lawyer spoke with the Times editors about this in December, and then lied about it on TV today.
The right wing attack machine may be crazy, but they aren't stupid (well, not at playing dirty politics anyway). Can they really believe that all there is to this story is what the Times put out today? And isn't it dangerous to call the newspaper out that way, especially if there is more to come?
And on McCain's part, why is he letting his spokesperson go out and say he's always been an upstanding member of congress who has never acted unethically...I was six at the time and even I remember the Keating 5.
(And in terms of Obama's luck, doesn't really help Clinton that the prominent Ohio politician who recently endorsed her also happens to be a member of McCain's savings and loan boy band...).
February 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the NYT has more, what could possibly be the justification for withholding it? And if they don't, the best that you can say about this story is that it's been unduly sensationalized (that's only partially the NYT's fault, of course). I just don't get it. There's something not right about this whole thing.
February 21, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a liberal, a Democrat, an Obama supporter and someone who hopes that he is the nominee so that we won't have a Republican in the White House for 4 more years. That said, however .... the NY Times article is very disquieting and troubling. Either there is more, in which case they should have said what it is, or there is nothing more, in which case it seems they are little better than the National Enquirer or whatever.
If you weed out the old (and acknowledged) stuff about the Keating Five and the statement by a named source that he once talked to lobbyist about HER behavior (which reflects in no way on McCain), all that is left is an uncorroborated account of long-ago suspicions and certain actions based on those suspicions that were told to the paper by anonymous and now-disgruntled former staff members. THAT sort of thing could be manufactured in about 10 minutes about *any* candidate and, if run with by some media outlet, could become an official, and permanent, rumor hanging over the candidate's head.
Until/unless there is more, I hope that we will all respond to this story as we would want others to respond if the target were Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama or any other candidate. That is, before believing that there is any truth to i, insist on proof ...... and if none is forthcoming, then find out who was behind the story's being pushed.
February 21, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has to be restrained by his own staff from committing the same improprieties which he stated he learned during the Keating 5 affair were wrong, and never would be repeated at the behest of a young beauty who bragged about her influence.
Yep, I see what you mean, no story here, nothin' to see folks, let's keep the sidewalk clear...
February 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote my thoughts on my blog: "I don't get why so many people are infatuated with John McCain".
But one more thing occurs to me. If the extramarital affair angle gets stronger, so to speak, and this becomes another Lewinski-type story, makes me wonder what poor Joseph Lieberman is going to do! Can he endorse an adulterer? Just wondering.
February 21, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually I'd say Obama is the big winner here. HRC won't be able to get any traction for whatever negative campaigning she may wish to do. And McCain will hardly welcome the Adulterer, Lobbyist Lothario angle to coming stories.
Also, in a general sense, any story that highlights DC same old, same old is a lift for the big O.
February 21, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless the NYTimes produces solid evidence of an affair, McCain's own lil blue dress, then this is good news for McCain.
Being under attack by the NYTimes, Queen of the Liberal Press, is always a good thing for a Right Wing candidate.
This is exactly what McCain needs to consolidate his base.
Anything that strengthens McCain and puts money in his coffers is bad for Obama.
The only people to gain here are McCain and HRC.
February 21, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just another vast left wing conspiracy. Or is it? This is strangely reminiscent of Dan Rather's rush to judgement on George Bush's service record. W's record never changed, but the issue was nonexistent after everything got blamed on Rather.
February 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they protest too much.
clearly, this is bad news for McCain. A lot of religious people won't like this one bit.
And those values voters dont' care what the RNC says.
Never mind the spin: The reaction shows that this one stings.
February 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if we are to believe these reports, McCain is a heterosexual. For a republican, that has got to be worth something.
February 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's Fox saying about it? They weren't too enamored with Johnnie Mac when he became the front runner but now he's all they have.
They sure talked themselves breathless about Michelle Obama's comments on Monday.
February 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course they have to use it for fund raising - they gotta get their hands on as much cash as possible while there is still doubt and frustration on their side. Truth be told, I don't understand why the DNC isn't using this to raise money.
People give money to campaigns for various reasons, but I'd be willing to bet the biggest reason small donors give is because they are pissed and want to do something about it. The DNC should be building a "defeat the hypocritical liars" fund and be pounding the constituency with things like this asking for money. Something like this could go a long way to building the coffers for congressional and senate races too.
February 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a funny part from the e-mail:
Washington attorney Bob Bennett, who was the Democrat counsel during the Keating investigation, said, "This is a real hit job."
He quotes his own lawyer without mentioning it is his lawyer!
February 21, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink