Jumping?

Patrick Appel writes that "The Iseman scandal coverage has been dizzying. The left jumped at the opportunity to skewer McCain, while the right equally cherished the chance to condemn the Times." This strikes me as a pretty lazy equivalence. In a nation of 300 million people, I'm sure some people on the left have jumped at the opportunity to skewer McCain, but just about every liberal I read has taken the time to note that the Times' sexual innuendos were a pretty inappropriate way to frame a news story.

Have I (and others) "skewered" McCain's interventions in the regulatory process on behalf of Paxson communications and habit of accepting free plane rides from lobbyists? Sure. Meanwhile the right, it seems to me, has basically pointed at the smear and completely ignored these more substantive elements of the case against McCain's self-righteousness. It's a particularly odd trend since conservatives have spent a lot of time over the past ten years complaining precisely about McCain's self-righteousness.

Comments

Well, the right does try to have it both ways as we have seen over, and over and o.....

Posted by shaker o salt | February 22, 2008 4:42 PM

"We have always been at war with eastasia, and have always been allies with eurasia"

Posted by Northern Observer | February 22, 2008 4:44 PM

http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/johnmccain

Posted by Peter K. | February 22, 2008 4:44 PM

unrelated (sorry!)

http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/hillaryclinton

Posted by Peter K. | February 22, 2008 4:46 PM

When I was much younger, my older brother would tend to beat me up from time to time. But whenever I was threatened by people outside the family, he would defend me with a ferocity6.

Not dissimilar here.

As far as the right is concerned, McCain is their whipping boy not the left's.

Posted by john | February 22, 2008 5:10 PM

Well I certainly jumped at the opportunity to skewer McCain!

Posted by Lucy | February 22, 2008 5:13 PM

I'm not voting for McCain, and I collectively despise the United States Senate, but a regulatory body which is still waiting to make a decision on the purchase of some television or radio stations, after 800 days, should have somebody with some funding authority say something to them. I'd have more respect for McCain if he had simply moved to defund the FCC somewhat, and if asked why, had simply said that there was evidently a lot of people in the department who weren't doing anything, so it was time for some layoffs.

Posted by Will Allen | February 22, 2008 5:21 PM

Isn't this the Bush National Guard story all over again? Where the questionable practices of journalists get in the way of the real (truthful) story, thereby innoculating the wrongdoer?

Posted by George | February 22, 2008 5:23 PM

If the sexual innuendos are true then one should respect McCain's gumption in cheating on his rich trophy wife -- not bad for a 73-old man !

Posted by H-Bob | February 22, 2008 5:56 PM

Appel's statement, of course, included no evidence. He doesn't want to have to engage what liberals are actually saying, he just wants to play the "both sides are wrong!" game.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 22, 2008 6:15 PM

" Meanwhile the right, it seems to me, has basically pointed at the smear"

I guess I believe the Times has a substantial amount of evidence of the sexual relationship but does not have the sort of evidence that permits them to say in print that this relationship occurred. Now you might call that a smear, I am not sure that I would. In particular when was the last time a major media outlet like the Times labelled a prominent politician for inappropriate sexual activity as in this case and the labelling was incorrect?

Posted by della Rovere | February 22, 2008 6:44 PM

" Meanwhile the right, it seems to me, has basically pointed at the smear"

I guess I believe the Times has a substantial amount of evidence of the sexual relationship but does not have the sort of evidence that permits them to say in print that this relationship occurred. Now you might call that a smear, I am not sure that I would. In particular when was the last time a major media outlet like the Times labelled a prominent politician for inappropriate sexual activity as in this case and the labelling was incorrect?

Posted by della Rovere | February 22, 2008 6:45 PM

Maybe this is why McCain's fellow conservatives hate him so much. They know he services his lobbyists as well as the next guy, and where does he come off crapping in the pool when they're all still swimming in it?

Posted by Aatos | February 22, 2008 6:58 PM

This is absurd. Everyone is talking like the lobbyist is some kind of highly qualified person who just happened to get a crush on McCain, while he was just trading favors for campaign money, totally unrelated things.

Get real. Every red-blooded American boy knows the pancakes taste just a little better when the waitress is cute and laughs at your joke. The company did what comes natural- hiring a cute blonde instead of the more highly qualified but, regrettably, less photogenic alternate, and McCain turned out to be susceptible to it.

There's your story and you don't need video at 11 to make worse.

Posted by serial catowner | February 22, 2008 7:09 PM

Why does this intern guy have the keys to Sully's blog anyway? And why is he claiming that "this story could be the paper’s biggest mistake since Judith Miller’s faulty reporting on Saddam’s WMDs"? Is this story really going to help drop bombs on a Middle Eastern country?

Posted by Posted by | February 22, 2008 11:26 PM

you wonder why the right is not talking about McCain's self-righteousness? Because we've been talking about it for years and are bored of it. Its not new or interesting to us. He is our John Kerry, we're not really happy with him, but we'll vote for him anyways because he's infinitely better than the alternative.

Posted by Josh | February 24, 2008 2:38 AM