The headline in Sunday's New York Times says it all: "Vocal on War, McCain is Silent on Son's Service." With that, reporter Jodi Kantor plunges into another strange examination of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, detailing something that Mr. McCain never mentions on the campaign trail--that his son, Jimmy, is a member of the Marine Corps, and recently completed a combat tour in Iraq.
According to the Times, the Senator, his wife Cindy and Lance Corporal McCain declined to be interviewed for the piece. And the McCain campaign asked the paper not to run the article, citing Jimmy McCain's right-to-privacy. Not surprisingly, the NYT declined, decided that its readers need to know about Lance Corporal McCain, a combat vet who has accompanied his father on campaign swings (in civilian clothes), but is never mentioned by the candidate.
Readers of this blog know that we've had--and still have--serious disagreements with the Arizona Senator on policy issues. But in the matter of Jimmy McCain's service to his country (and his right to privacy), we'd say the Senator and his family got it right. Reading the Times account, readers discover that Jimmy McCain has a bit of his old man's maverick streak. He enlisted in the Marine Corps at the age of 17, and never asked for special favors--only a chance to prove himself. But that ignores the salient question: doesn't the younger McCain still have a right to privacy?
And, by all accounts he has. The Times interviewed one of Lance Corporal McCain's commanding officers, and a number of his fellow Marines. To a man, they describe him as hard-working and humble, eager to do his duty. During his deployment to Anbar Provinence, McCain's unit performed "soft knock" operations, visits to Iraqi homes designed to provide surveillance and reassurance. They also searched for weapons caches and IEDs. While the security situation had dramatically improved by the time McCain's unit arrive, three Marines from his battalion were killed in action during his deployment.
From a news standpoint, what does this have to do with John McCain's bid for the White House? Absolutely nothing--the same point his campaign tried to make with the Times in an effort to quash the story. Like any other soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine, Lance Corporal McCain deserves the right to serve outside the media spotlight. As the scion of a legendary Navy family, McCain already carries an extra burden. There was simply no need for the Times to pile on with Sunday's story about Jimmy McCain and his military career.
But, when it comes to Senator McCain and his presidential bid, nothing is apparently off limits for the NYT. Just a few weeks ago, the paper ran with that infamous "expose" detailing Mr. McCain's supposedly relationship with a female lobbyist. Never mind that both the Senator and the lobbyist denied the accusation. And never mind that the Times' own editor didn't think his reporters had the story nailed down. The "story's" salacious allegations were enough for the paper to launch its opening salvo against McCain.
Sunday's article on Jimmy McCain doesn't fall in the same category, but it's timing is curious, to say the least. With Sunday's splash, McCain is now the most famous Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps--a title he clearly loathes. And, it raises concerns for the Corps. Jimmy McCain's fellow Marines joked with him about "patrolling with the Secret Service," if his father wins the fall election.
That's obviously a stretch, but the Corps would have to go to added lengths to protect future deployments by the younger McCain and his unit. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the Marine Corps might impose similar rules to those that accompanied Prince Harry's recent deployment to Afghanistan--a tour that was cut short after the Drudge Report (and other media outlets) broke the media embargo.
Clearly, that's not the way that Lance Corporal McCain wants to serve out his enlistment. He has the same right (he would use the word "obligation") to face the same hazards as other Marines, without regard for his family's history, or his father's bid for the White House. Like the rest of his family, Jimmy McCain understands that you don't join the military for personal glory or for political expediency. The desire to serve is rooted in a thousand different motivations--love of country, a desire to improve one's self, an opportunity to make your own way in life--concepts clearly beyond the grasp of The New York Times.
We wish Lance Corporal McCain all the best during the rest of his tour. According to the paper, the younger McCain has aspirations of eventually earning his commission and becoming a naval aviator, like his father. We hope he has the opportunity to pursue that dream with the privacy that all service members deserve.
***
ADDENDUM: While the Times finds it a bit strange that Senator McCain doesn't mention his Marine son on the campaign trail, the paper had no problem with a Democratic politician using his son as a campaign prop. During his successful run for the Senate in 2006, Virginia's Jim Webb made a point of wearing his son's boots on the campaign trail, to emphasize his opposition to the Iraq War. Shortly before taking office, the Senator-elect used his son to score more political points, chastising President Bush when he asked about the younger Webb's tour in Iraq. Apparently, the NYT saw nothing wrong with Webb's behavior, though many in the military shuddered at his feckless--and opportunistic--display.
Showing posts with label NYT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NYT. Show all posts
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
As Desperate as Hillary?
Last year, we mourned the passing of the Weekly World News, the late, great supermarket tabloid that amused readers with repeated “discoveries” of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and space aliens masquerading as world leaders. As we observed at the time, the WWN could hold its head high as it faded into history; at least they were honest about their journalistic fraud.
Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of The New York Times. Last week, the Grey Lady published a story on GOP presidential candidate John McCain, suggesting that he had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. The article was so inconclusive—and poorly sourced—that the Times would have better luck in claiming that McCain fathered an alien love child, cheekily citing the same “experts” and “leading scientists” that were stock-in-trade for exclusives in the Weekly World News.
Never mind that the Times was roundly criticized for the McCain/lobbyist “investigation.” Even the paper’s Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, admitted the article failed to substantiate its salacious claims. Reader reaction to the story was overwhelmingly negative, and the anti-Times backlash actually produced a spike in donations to the McCain campaign.
Undeterred by that little setback, the NYT is at it again, reviving the “musty” debate over Senator McCain’s eligibility for the presidency, based on his birth in the Panama Canal Zone 71 years ago. The Constitution, of course, states that only “natural-born” citizens can hold the nation’s highest office.
But, as Times reporter Carl Hulse suggests ominously, the meaning of the term “natural born” is subject to legal interpretation:
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”
The “growing interest” in this matter appears limited to “internet buzz” and conjecture by immigration professors, attorneys and law students. At one point in his article, Mr. Hulse even acknowledges that Senator McCain’s citizenship “was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods.”
Case closed, right? Well, not according to the Times. One of McCain’s supporters, former Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, says he “wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to make an issue out of it. But Nickles quickly added: “If it goes to court, I think he will win.” We might also add that (so far) there’s no real suggestion that anyone plans to legally challenge Mr. McCain’s status as a natural-born citizen, given the rather inconvenient facts of the case. We rather doubt that Mr. Olson's research into the issue is one of his--or Senator McCain's--top priorities.
Let’s see. Both of his parents were natural-born; Mr. McCain’s father was a naval officer, stationed in the Canal Zone (then American territory) at the time of his son’s birth. His assignment there was based on official government orders, and he was born in a U.S. military hospital. And, according to at least one poster on another blog, children born to military parents in the Canal Zone--and other overseas locations--receive papers from the government, identifying them as “natural-born” U.S. citizens.” Contrary to the assertions of Professor Duggin, it sounds like a slam-dunk case to us.
But then again, we’re not lawyers—or reporters for The New York Times. Patterico
summed up the non-story rather well, asking if the Times has become “as desperate as Hillary.” We’d say the answer to that one is as clear as John McCain’s status as a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.
***
ADDENDUM: Patterico also has a link to a detailed discussion of key laws and legal precedents on this issue, courtesy of Simon Dodd at Stubborn Facts.
Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of The New York Times. Last week, the Grey Lady published a story on GOP presidential candidate John McCain, suggesting that he had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. The article was so inconclusive—and poorly sourced—that the Times would have better luck in claiming that McCain fathered an alien love child, cheekily citing the same “experts” and “leading scientists” that were stock-in-trade for exclusives in the Weekly World News.
Never mind that the Times was roundly criticized for the McCain/lobbyist “investigation.” Even the paper’s Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, admitted the article failed to substantiate its salacious claims. Reader reaction to the story was overwhelmingly negative, and the anti-Times backlash actually produced a spike in donations to the McCain campaign.
Undeterred by that little setback, the NYT is at it again, reviving the “musty” debate over Senator McCain’s eligibility for the presidency, based on his birth in the Panama Canal Zone 71 years ago. The Constitution, of course, states that only “natural-born” citizens can hold the nation’s highest office.
But, as Times reporter Carl Hulse suggests ominously, the meaning of the term “natural born” is subject to legal interpretation:
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”
The “growing interest” in this matter appears limited to “internet buzz” and conjecture by immigration professors, attorneys and law students. At one point in his article, Mr. Hulse even acknowledges that Senator McCain’s citizenship “was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods.”
Case closed, right? Well, not according to the Times. One of McCain’s supporters, former Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, says he “wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to make an issue out of it. But Nickles quickly added: “If it goes to court, I think he will win.” We might also add that (so far) there’s no real suggestion that anyone plans to legally challenge Mr. McCain’s status as a natural-born citizen, given the rather inconvenient facts of the case. We rather doubt that Mr. Olson's research into the issue is one of his--or Senator McCain's--top priorities.
Let’s see. Both of his parents were natural-born; Mr. McCain’s father was a naval officer, stationed in the Canal Zone (then American territory) at the time of his son’s birth. His assignment there was based on official government orders, and he was born in a U.S. military hospital. And, according to at least one poster on another blog, children born to military parents in the Canal Zone--and other overseas locations--receive papers from the government, identifying them as “natural-born” U.S. citizens.” Contrary to the assertions of Professor Duggin, it sounds like a slam-dunk case to us.
But then again, we’re not lawyers—or reporters for The New York Times. Patterico
summed up the non-story rather well, asking if the Times has become “as desperate as Hillary.” We’d say the answer to that one is as clear as John McCain’s status as a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.
***
ADDENDUM: Patterico also has a link to a detailed discussion of key laws and legal precedents on this issue, courtesy of Simon Dodd at Stubborn Facts.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Friends of John McCain
On the evening of August 1, 2000, Arizona Senator John McCain was in New York for the Republican National Convention. After delivering a televised speech endorsing the presidential nomination of his former rival, George W. Bush, Mr. McCain adjourned to the city’s landmark Tavern-on-the-Green restaurant, for an early birthday party.
While Senator McCain was actually born on 29 August, the New York event gave him a chance to celebrate with some of his closest friends—from the MSM. The list of attendees reportedly included a number of luminaries from the broadcast and cable networks, as well as various print outlets. By some accounts, the media types outnumbered Republican politicians and party officials at the McCain bash.
But the heavy media presence was hardly a surprise. McCain had always actively courted the press, making him something of a rarity among senior Republican pols. And the media largely returned the favor. McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” was a hit with political reporters; the Senator spent hours in the back of his campaign bus, offering doughnuts and swapping stories with correspondents, producers and technicians who covered his presidential bid.
Flash forward eight years and McCain remained a media darling. As recently as a few weeks ago, some pundits believed that press coverage of this year’s campaign “would be a wash,” because the Arizona Senator was just as popular with the media as his Democratic rivals.
But most of us knew better.
In a press corps that votes for Democrats by overwhelming margins, it was just a matter of time before they turned their sights on this year’s presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain. And sure enough, today’s New York Times print is leading the attack, with claims that the Senator might have had a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist during his first run for the White House. There are also charges that McCain did legislative favors for the lobbyist’s clients. But, as Allahpundit observes, this so-called “scandal” seems awfully thin:
A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record.
The media halo’s gone, Maverick. Nothing personal. Just business.
According to Matt Drudge, this “story” has been under development for quite a while. Originally, the NYT was trying to prove that the lobbyist had actually written parts of a telecom bill sponsored by McCain. But that accusation didn’t make the final cut, another indicator of how weak the reporting actually is.
Still, the article’s substance doesn’t really matter. Today’s NYT piece signals the start of the media war against John McCain, a campaign that was inevitable, given his party affiliation. In fact, the only folks that seem surprised by the media offensive are with the McCain campaign, which released this angry statement:
“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”
That may be true, but the Times little expose provides an opening for the media to examine every aspect of McCain’s public career, a period that covers more than 40 years. Lest we forget, McCain's public life began well before he entered politics. He became a national hero for his conduct as a POW in North Vietnam, and was (arguably) one of the nation's best-know naval aviators after his return from Hanoi.
And, as we've noted in previous posts, McCain's conduct during that period was sometimes less-than-sterling. By his own admission, McCain was an unfaithful husband during the late 1970s, and his first marriage fell apart. Long-standing rumors suggest that some of McCain's paramours were women under his command--a claim that the Senator has steadfastly denied.
But, if Senator McCain's "relationship" with a lobbyist eight years ago is fair game, what about his conduct as a senior naval officer? We can only wonder if the NYT (and other MSM outlets) have been poking around the Navy's aviation community, looking for anyone who can detail McCain's romantic exploits from three decades ago.
Afterall, adultery was--and is--a punishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and romantic relationships between subordinates and superiors are also prohibited. Besides, accounts of McCain's behavior during that period would fit the template established by the NYT article, suggesting a man given to personal and ethical lapses.
Perhaps the biggest surprise in this episode has been the reaction of the McCain camp. In a press conference in Ohio this morning, the Senator again expressed "disappointment" in the Times. As if he actually expected the mother church of liberal media orthodoxy to treat him fairly. If that accurately summarizes the candidates' perception, both Senator McCain (and the GOP) have a serious problem.
Michelle Malkin said it best: "lie down with MSM dogs, get up with stories like this." And, here's another point-worth-pondering for the McCain campaign. Imagine if all the time and effort devoted to courting the media had been spent with a more important group, the Republican base. The Senator would still get his share of hit pieces in the NYT, but he might find more Republicans voting for him in the primaries, and more conservatives leaping to his defense.
While Senator McCain was actually born on 29 August, the New York event gave him a chance to celebrate with some of his closest friends—from the MSM. The list of attendees reportedly included a number of luminaries from the broadcast and cable networks, as well as various print outlets. By some accounts, the media types outnumbered Republican politicians and party officials at the McCain bash.
But the heavy media presence was hardly a surprise. McCain had always actively courted the press, making him something of a rarity among senior Republican pols. And the media largely returned the favor. McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” was a hit with political reporters; the Senator spent hours in the back of his campaign bus, offering doughnuts and swapping stories with correspondents, producers and technicians who covered his presidential bid.
Flash forward eight years and McCain remained a media darling. As recently as a few weeks ago, some pundits believed that press coverage of this year’s campaign “would be a wash,” because the Arizona Senator was just as popular with the media as his Democratic rivals.
But most of us knew better.
In a press corps that votes for Democrats by overwhelming margins, it was just a matter of time before they turned their sights on this year’s presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain. And sure enough, today’s New York Times print is leading the attack, with claims that the Senator might have had a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist during his first run for the White House. There are also charges that McCain did legislative favors for the lobbyist’s clients. But, as Allahpundit observes, this so-called “scandal” seems awfully thin:
A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record.
The media halo’s gone, Maverick. Nothing personal. Just business.
According to Matt Drudge, this “story” has been under development for quite a while. Originally, the NYT was trying to prove that the lobbyist had actually written parts of a telecom bill sponsored by McCain. But that accusation didn’t make the final cut, another indicator of how weak the reporting actually is.
Still, the article’s substance doesn’t really matter. Today’s NYT piece signals the start of the media war against John McCain, a campaign that was inevitable, given his party affiliation. In fact, the only folks that seem surprised by the media offensive are with the McCain campaign, which released this angry statement:
“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”
That may be true, but the Times little expose provides an opening for the media to examine every aspect of McCain’s public career, a period that covers more than 40 years. Lest we forget, McCain's public life began well before he entered politics. He became a national hero for his conduct as a POW in North Vietnam, and was (arguably) one of the nation's best-know naval aviators after his return from Hanoi.
And, as we've noted in previous posts, McCain's conduct during that period was sometimes less-than-sterling. By his own admission, McCain was an unfaithful husband during the late 1970s, and his first marriage fell apart. Long-standing rumors suggest that some of McCain's paramours were women under his command--a claim that the Senator has steadfastly denied.
But, if Senator McCain's "relationship" with a lobbyist eight years ago is fair game, what about his conduct as a senior naval officer? We can only wonder if the NYT (and other MSM outlets) have been poking around the Navy's aviation community, looking for anyone who can detail McCain's romantic exploits from three decades ago.
Afterall, adultery was--and is--a punishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and romantic relationships between subordinates and superiors are also prohibited. Besides, accounts of McCain's behavior during that period would fit the template established by the NYT article, suggesting a man given to personal and ethical lapses.
Perhaps the biggest surprise in this episode has been the reaction of the McCain camp. In a press conference in Ohio this morning, the Senator again expressed "disappointment" in the Times. As if he actually expected the mother church of liberal media orthodoxy to treat him fairly. If that accurately summarizes the candidates' perception, both Senator McCain (and the GOP) have a serious problem.
Michelle Malkin said it best: "lie down with MSM dogs, get up with stories like this." And, here's another point-worth-pondering for the McCain campaign. Imagine if all the time and effort devoted to courting the media had been spent with a more important group, the Republican base. The Senator would still get his share of hit pieces in the NYT, but he might find more Republicans voting for him in the primaries, and more conservatives leaping to his defense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)