The New York Times spotlighted McCain's friendship a decade ago with a female lobbyist. The newspaper says some staffers on McCain's presidential campaign in 2000 were so worried about a possible scandal, they took steps to keep the two apart.
The Times story appeared after McCain had the Republican presidential nomination effectively sewn up, despite some lingering doubts in the party's right wing. Some activists say it may actually rally reluctant conservatives to McCain's side.
"He deserves the benefit of the doubt, because there's no evidence against him," said conservative activist Bay Buchanan. "We take the side of John McCain. He's denied it. He says it's not true. The New York Times should never have run this story, period."
Buchanan, who was an adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign, asked if the Times really stands behind the story, which was in the works for months, why didn't it run earlier, when it might have made a difference in the Republican contest.
source: NPR
What do YOU think? If the New York Times ran this story about McCain earlier, do you think it would have made a difference in the GOP primary race? Do you think this story helps rally the conservatives behind McCain?
1 comment:
The tragedy of this Presidential race is that fact that there were so many places where Romney could have won this. Any one of these would have done it. Iowa's stupidity, New Hampshire's fear of something new (5% loss) McCain's lies before Florida, Florida's Cris and Martinez endorsement (also 5% loss) California's Schwartzenegger endorsement and the backroom deal in West Virginia that slowed the momentum. I get sick just thinking of all of these.
Hard to say if this story would have swung it based on the shameful behavior of primary voters. They already knew McCain is an adulterer before this story but allowed the word to be buried (and against a great family man nonetheless) I think we may be getting what we deserve and I feel terrible that any satisfaction might come from that fact.
Post a Comment