McCain Times Iseman Equals Maverick and Ice Man

Never one to avoid the hottest new trends, I figure I’ll impose my two cents upon the New York Times’ curiously vapid, anonymously-resourced story detailing (or lack thereof) John McCain’s questionable ties to lobbyists, despite his (really) stiff stance as a “maverick” for ethics reform. In an unnecessary display of etiquette reversal, I chose to peruse the reader comments prior to reading the article, not-so-subtly titled “For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk.” After slugging my way through about 100 comments, I suffered a brief, albeit welcome, blackout. Based on the voracity and outright indignation I assumed the article graphically and gratuitously elucidated the intimate details of septuagenarian-on-young-blond intercourse. So, I scanned the comments of some of the more reactionary opinion sites, and simply could not string together a thread of what the column focused on. Naturally, I decided to the read the bastard, which, at a staggering four internets pages, killed the pre-lunch hour handily.

I walked away scratching my head; not only due to the dandruff factory that is my noggin, but primarily by the article’s ambiguity – why was this on the front page? Who approved of this? For one thing, the possibility of a carnal relationship with the lobbyist in question, Vicki Iseman, based on anonymous former McCain campaign advisers is briefly mentioned in passing. They just toss the bait out there and leave it hanging. I’m afraid that kind of sensationalism does not go unnoticed. Rather, media outlets, and, indeed, bloggers and commenters, tackled the shit out of the baby-making bait and ran with it.

What about the rest of the article? For anyone that read beyond page one, the article morphed into a bit more of a legitimate investigation of a man’s word versus his actions. As a neophyte at political history and punditry, I was unaware of the Keating Five scandal involving the Arizona Senator, which, after digesting, I would say, makes him a conspicuous target for heavy scrutiny when it comes down to ethics. For a man hailing lobbyists and special interests as the scourge of the earth, it’s difficult to understand his decision to appoint two lobbyists as his top campaign advisers. OK, that’s direct, objective news to point out his staff acquisitions. Informative.

Unfortunately, the news itself became the news and called into question the Times’ credibility. Instead of rebuking the more relevant charges of hypocrisy raised by the story, McCain judiciously honed in on the more prurient charges of an alleged affair, and hurled a sticky bun of defamation to the paper, meanwhile ignoring the larger issue of cozying up to lobbyists. Ironically enough, the article and the ensuing reactionary-automaton-a-thon actually boosted McCain’s campaign with an immediate influx of donations. All this hubbub…coming from the newspaper that endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination in December.

Overall, the Times boffed this one. The story certainly was not primed for the front page, and it reeked of lazy journalism. Quite a shame, too, there was an unpolished nugget of valid information in the article that will forever be tied to the rest of the piece’s bodaciously bogus love story.

Currently listening to Bonobo – Dial M for Monkey