Welch on NYT on McCain

Reason editor Matt Welch is also the author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick and probably knows the details of John McCain's record better than anyone in journalism. Here he is talking about The New York Times's weird attempted takedown:

I think this is about right -- non-reporting of a non-scandalous non-affair aside, the Times story manages to reproduce some not-new information about McCain that most people nonetheless don't know and should.

Comments

Here is what actual, professional reporting of this issue would look like. And did.

Posted by joel hanes | February 22, 2008 9:28 PM

It's too bad that they included the sex angle. There was nothing to back it up, and it's not what's important about it anyway.

Additionally, it seemed strange, and it's a great peg to hang the "librul media out to get republicans" charge, that kinda makes the whole think go away.

Posted by justinb | February 22, 2008 9:43 PM

I haven’t seen anyone mention this act of reformist zeal from 2004.

Mr. McCain cast his stance as a matter of ballot access. "Keeping Nader off the ballot in the hope that his voters will be forced to support another candidate is patently unfair to those Floridians who, for whatever reason, have decided he's their man," he said in a statement from the Reform Institute, which is devoted to increasing ballot access for third-party candidates. He is chairman of the institute.

Posted by antiphone | February 22, 2008 9:48 PM

may be this will blow (no pun intented) over but it has the feel of McCain twisting slowly in the wind.

there is more to come out, and my money is on keller. love to see limbaugh and o'reiley eat what's left of their own livers if it blows (again no pun) up.

the blond skin pealed lobby hottie could decide to cash in for a fat book advance.

romney must now have a hard on that a fist full of vigara could not accomplish. same for huck. imagine the wonder if mccain decides to step down .. i assume the money club would insure romney would get the nomination at this point.

Posted by dubya | February 22, 2008 10:54 PM

I'll take a contrarian view. Without the bogus sex stuff, would anybody - including us - be paying attention to McCain's shady connections to lobbyists again? Matt Welch emphasizes that the McCain myth of uprightness is very strong. But, ironically, this craptastic NYT piece on sex actually opened the floodgates for other reporters to follow up on the real scandal of lobby influence. Another thing is that it forced him into an over-the-top rebuttal which is already turning out to be untrue. And this important not because we can all entrap John McCain but because we can expose what a sham his whole schtick has been all along.

Posted by Elrod | February 22, 2008 10:57 PM

Mr. Welch is very sharp. I've always thought that libertarians were Republicans who smoked pot but this is the second or third interesting thing I've seen from Reason in the past few months.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | February 22, 2008 11:43 PM

So basically McCain is a huge phony! Oh an you know there is probably so much more that is going to be downloaded on McCain. He won't be the nominee.

Posted by eh? | February 22, 2008 11:58 PM

Regarding knows the details of John McCain's record better than anyone in journalism, MattW (not to be confused with MattY) works for Reason, a literally open borders mag. So, while I haven't read the book, there are probably some things (not related to the lobbyist issue) that MattW doesn't want to discuss about McCain's record or has an interesting interpretation of. For example.

Posted by TLB | February 23, 2008 12:11 AM

Marcy Wheeler aka emptywheel has been making the pros look tired and uninformed. Hell, she's making all other persons below heaven look tired and uninformed. The woman's on fire. Gaze in awe, ye lesser beings. And learn.

Posted by joel hanes | February 23, 2008 12:50 AM

The problem for McCain now is that others have jumped on the story, as Josh Marshall points out over at TPM. And they're doing a better job of it than the NYT.

And McCain is not helping his case by making broad and bullshit denials that aren't standing up to scrutiny, as Marshall points out with cited examples.

The sex angle is going to be old news by next week, but the story of McCain lobbying has legs the girl can't match.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 23, 2008 3:49 AM

I second Elrod: "ironically, this craptastic NYT piece on sex actually opened the floodgates for other reporters to follow up on the real scandal of lobby influence".

As I understand, NYT did not really suggest sexual intercourse, but "a relationship so close that it was worrying the staff". So we learn (not for the first time) that to get influence with politicians it takes money, some paid directly, some spend on efforts to massage their egos (if not the more intimate parts). And McCain was susceptible to both.

Posted by piotr | February 23, 2008 7:11 AM

Did anybody else notice that this election has already turned into the a bloody Jerry Springer/Oprah show?

McCain can say the most stupid/insane things and make lighthearted jokes about bombing Iran in front of a cheering audience. Yet, nobody cares but instead it's all about a female lobbyist or if the NYT was unfair. At least half of the support for Clinton seems to be hinging on perceived sexism. Obama illustrates a serious issue (the underfunded disaster in Afghanistan) with an anecdote and it's all about who said what to whom.

This might be expected and somewhat acceptable in less critical times, but in the face of two failed states about to explode, global warming and a looming energy crisis, the curtailing of civil liberties and a president authorizing torture - this is just sad beyond belief.

Posted by novakant | February 23, 2008 7:24 AM

Novakant you got that totally right. It's like we're not allowed to talk about reality. Anything but the truth.

Posted by Lesley | February 23, 2008 8:36 AM

I think there's a very interesting subtext to this whole story: the fact that a couple of "disillusioned" former McCain associates came forward at all about this points to a feeling I have that they really really think McCain would be a horrible President. I get the sense that it's his temperament that's the big problem.

Posted by Altoon | February 23, 2008 8:50 AM

I think there's a very interesting subtext to this whole story: the fact that a couple of "disillusioned" former McCain associates came forward at all about this points to a feeling I have that they really really think McCain would be a horrible President. I get the sense that it's his temperament that's the big problem.

Posted by Altoon | February 23, 2008 8:51 AM

TLB, you better run home. There might be some scary brown people hiding under your bed.

Posted by Brautigan | February 23, 2008 10:07 AM

joel hanes: is Marcy Wheeler the one at FDL that's coherent?

novakant: whining here doesn't do much good. However, if you really care about those issues and you want them to be discussed, put them in question format and then go to public appearances and ask them. Get the response on video and upload it and if you get a good response you'll get lots of hits and make MSM hacks look bad.

Posted by TLB | February 23, 2008 12:38 PM