Stuff About McCain that Could Hardly Interest Anybody

I’m about as far from the epicenter of McCain versus NY Times as it is possible to be but hey, perhaps that just gives me some constructive detachment. In any event—

One, I’m as impressed as others at how effective the Times has been at accomplishing in one news cycle what McCain himself could not do in 33 years—i.e., solidify the support of the wingnuts. I guess I am impressed with the Olympic-grade delicacy and finesse with which they have executed the 180-degree turnaround, from implacable hostility to unwavering support, but I think I can suggest a reason. Namely, it's a version of IOKIYAR: convinced right-wingers think that sexual misbehavior (strike that, manly sexual misbehavior (link, link)) is forgivable unless you are a Democrat. Think Newt Gingrich, think Dave Vitter, think Henry Hyde. Okay, I grant you Bob Livingston, except that his resignation itself may have been no more than a ploy in the anti-Clinton campaign. What Clinton does is a felony. When a Republican does it, why boys will be boys.

Couple this with the fact that the Times never actually had the goods on McCain—never, as Grandpa Simpson said, put honest Abe in the oval office. This led the wingnuts to believe that they’d caught the Times in a trick-taking squeeze, like they did when CBS found that Dan Rather couldn’t verify his story about George W. Bush and the National Guard (query, is there anybody alive who honestly, truly believes that Bush really did his National Guard service?).

Yet here is the irony: the Times never said they had the goods on McCain. They rattled on about appearances, and staff nervousness and suchlike. The most damaging thing you could infer from the story is that Mr. Clean is a lot more cozy with lobbyists than the mass of the public might think.

Political junkies have known this all along, which is why I thought even the lobbying angle would wind up as a big yawn. But I might be wrong on this one. Just as the righties are doing their best to associate “McCain” with “Sunday School,” so also the lefties are making whatever hay they can with McCain’s lobbying connections and his (supposed) veracity (see, e.g., link, link, link, and (best of all) link, all drawing on link). So far, they seem to have caught him in at least one fib which ought to be enough to embarrass him for a few minutes but I doubt it is the sort of thing that will take the wind out of his sails.

So at the moment, each side has the other in a headlock. This is rational: he who controls the agenda, controls the answer. But I suspect in the end this one will go just where it has gone so far—exactly nowhere. Afterthought: I said “headlock;” maybe a better image is the Western Front in 1914.