The New York Times has choosen today to publish on its front page allegations of John McCain and improper relations(to use an old phrase) with a lobbyist more than 30 years his junior
According to the paper
Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship.and it continues
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
So why publish now?
Editor and publisher reports that the Times had the story back in December
The rumors last December had died down after other reports suggested that that McCain and the unnamed woman had hired Washington lawyer/fixer Bob Bennett to strong arm the Times. Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post reported then that Bennett had dealt with specific issues raised in the reporting. Whatever went down, the story never ran. Until tonight.
Interesting back in December of course McCain was far from being the Republican candidate.Enough said?
Anyway Senator McCain has called a press conference this morning in Ohio in which he refutes the claims
"I’m very disappointed in the New York Times piece. It’s not true. "and his campaign team issued the following
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
Incidently 1455 comment next to the original Times piece