The response to the John McCain story in today’s New York Times on the right has been one of shock, of high moral outrage that unnamed sources would be used to sully the reputation of a war hero, to insinuate that he’d had an affair.
Forget for a minute the whispering campaigns regularly waged by what Hillary Clinton has rightly called the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” innuendo that not only has targeted the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore and most of the Democratic Party, but John McCain himself.
Forget the expected attack on the Times as a bastion of liberal bias.
What is important about the response is its focus on the sex scandal angle and the way in which it sidetracks the real debate. The Times, in focusing on what unnamed sources say was more than a friendly relationship with a female lobbyist, has taken the focus off the real issues in the story — a somewhat muddled presentation that rehashes a lot of what we already knew about McCain.
The basic question the Times story raises is legitimate and must be addressed: Has John McCain, who has staked his reputation on being a clean-government reformer, engaged in the kind of influence peddling he has regularly decried?
The story offers an interesting and believable narrative in this regard, but leaves this issue up in the air, with questions raised about the nonprofit he had formed and his connections to a variety of lobbyists with business before his Senate committee.
These are issues that need to be explored. McCain attempted to answer them during his press conference today — defending his honor and credibility, but also taking a cheap shot at the Times designed to play to the GOP base.
Should his responses be taken at face value? No more than the comments from unnamed sources in the Times story.
My opinion on unnamed sources remains the same: that they should only be used sparingly in special circumstances to get information of vital importance that can be gotten in no other way or to protect the safety or privacy of sources — a whistleblower, for instance, or someone getting help from the local food pantry. I’m not sure that the use of unnamed sources here rises to this standard, though I will say they were not used frivilously.
So, what should we take from this? There remain a lot of questions that need to be asked about a candidate who has made honor, integrity and straight talk his calling cards, but has shown a disturbing willingness to pander, pander and pander again.
Let’s hope the media continues to probe deeply into McCain’s background, to press him on his flip-flops and conflicts, real or apparent, and that the eventual Democratic nominee also is held to this standard.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 