More about the NY Slimes’ hit piece (Updated with video to McCain Press Conference)

Posted by Beth on February 21st, 2008 filed in 2008 election, Candidates, General, John McCain, Journalism, Moonbats, Politics, Stupid, WTF

Links below via Patrick Hynes, who has issued an open invitation to any of the writers of that miserable sleazy hit piece.

At 6:51 AM this morning, I e-mailed Jim Rutenberg– whom I know and have interacted with in the past–to invite him onto my radio program “Meet the New Press” on Saturday morning to discuss the sourcing of his New York Times hit piece on my client John McCain.

At 7:24 AM Rutenberg declined my invitation in an e-mail and indicated—without my even asking—that no one else at the Times was likely to come on, either.

Chickenlibel.

Jim Geraghty: “No identified sources? No on-the-record sources? All we get is ‘according to two former McCain associates,’ presumably that reference to one Senate, one campaign.”

Jennifer Rubin: “Remarkably, the Times’ online reader comments suggest a high dose of skepticism about the sourcing and value of the story.”

Marc Ambinder: “ … nothing to suggest that McCain compromised his political principles.”

Power Line: “Tomorrow’s story is just one more reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news source.”

Rich Lowry: “The Times doesn’t have the goods—at least from what’s in the story—and shouldn’t have run it.”

New York Daily News: “It’s all there - except a clear and firm direct allegation, let alone proof.”

Phil Klein: “ … the NYT doesn’t seem to have the goods on anything actually done wrong.”

Race42008: “According to Mark Halperin, the McCain campaign provided the New York Times with significant documentation regarding the context for their story and yet, they chose not to include it in their hit piece.”

Ed Morrissey: “The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing — only innuendo denied by all of the principals.”

Byron York has more at NRO:

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has released other information it says it provided to the Times explaining the various actions McCain took on issues of concern to Iseman’s clients. Here is McCain’s case on those:[...]

Go read.

John McCain is speaking live on teevee right now. He looks as confident as ever, Cindy McCain smiling, looks comfortable as well. He says he’s not happy about the report, but he knows he has nothing to hide. He says the staff on the Commerce Committee was around 100-150 people, and the Times used a couple “anonymous sources” from that large pool of people. That ought to speak for itself. Cindy McCain now saying she’s “very disappointed in the New York Times,” and that she knows he would never do something to disappoint his family or the American people. John McCain says this is a “distraction.” He believes the American people will be fair in their judgment, and knows that there will be other obstacles because Presidential campaigns are tough. He’s confident that anyone who looks through his entire record will see the truth.

(UPDATE: FNC report, Mark Halperin/Time report on the press conference.)

Kathryn Lopez at the Corner:

I’m Getting a Lot of These [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An e-mail:

I’m the typical conservative who has not been happy with the McCain ascendancy, but the NYTimes has accomplished what Tojo did with Pearl Harbor. They have awoken a sleeping giant. We have been reminded who the real enemy is and it is not Senator McCain. I’m ordering my bumper sticker today.

The real enemy, indeed.

I still want to know–how the hell is this not libel? Malice? Check. Unsourced rumors? Check. Unmistakable insinuation of impropriety? Check. I’m no lawyer, but it sure looks like it to me.

Heh. Even The New Republic piling on the Times?