John McCain, The New York Times, and The New Republic

Last night, The New York Times ran a story that John McCain had an improper affair with a lobbyist. The story itself does not provide enough evidence to be persuasive, though it does imply that during the 2000 Republican Presidential Campaign, John McCain had a relationship with a lobbyist that got too "close and personal," which may have altered legislation in some way. As MSNBC reported, the lobbyist in question stated that she had "influence with John McCain." Because of these comments and the close relationship between the lobbyist and McCain, the McCain campaign conversed with the lobbyist and told her to but out of the campaign.

The source for the story seems to be insiders to the McCain campaign in 2000. Whether or not they are disgruntled is another question.

It seems that The New York Times had the information and planned on running the story in December, before the primaries and caucuses began, but decided to wait. The New York Times ran the story this week because The New Republic will publish a story on why The New York Times dragged its feet on the story.

During a 9am news conference, McCain denounced the story and denied all aspects (no relationship, no influence, or no conversation between the McCain campaign and the lobbyist) of the report.

This brings up a whole set of questions:
(1) If the story is about an affair, should this be a front page story?
(2) If this is about ethics, with a hint of the affair, should this be a front page story?
(3) If it about ethics, why did The New York Times wait,
(4)Why would The New York Times wait until after McCain "won" the nomination?
(5) Is this a political "hit job"?
(6) Would the Times have waited until after the convention in Minnesota?
(7) Since McCain denounced the story, is it up to The New York Times to defend its story.
(8) Did The New York Times run the story knowing that other papers, such as The New York Daily News (tabloid cover photo, story here and editorial here) and The Washington Post (who has a better story here and here) would run with this?
(9) How will the conservatives respond- attack McCain or rally around him?

Personally, I care little about the content of the affair. The ethics angle may be important, especially since McCain is a "maverick" who isn't influenced by lobbyists. The timing of the piece interests me most since it helped McCain survive the primaries but may hurt him in the general. Of course, the timing of the piece now, especially is this is just a "hit job" means that The New York Times will have helped McCain rally the base.

It is up to The New York Times to provide solid evidence now or we have another CBS/ President Bush story that will help conservatives.