NYT Story Uniting Conservatives around McCain

My friends, I don't know what media you're consuming with your morning coffee, but if you're looking at anything even vaguely on the conservative side of the ledger, you'll find that the New York Times story is having the effect of rallying the conservative base around John McCain.

The headline over at RedState is not atypical:

Or, you can take Sean Hannity's reaction on Hannity & Colmes last night -- who "just so happened" to have McCain's lawyer scheduled last night to talk about his upcoming book:

But you said, there's a pack mentality. They pile on like wolves chasing a wounded deer. Bringing down a big name is a blood sport in Washington. You spent time answering very specific questions to the "New York Times." Senator McCain has denied this story. He called the editor, according to their own article on this. The woman has denied the story. They offered no substantiation whatsoever.

Pat Buchanan expressed similar sentiments on MSNBC this morning.

"If this is all they got, it's terribly unfair. If they have more, why isn't it in the story?... It seems to not be worthy of a New York Times story."

Mary Katherine Ham (not to be confused with the Saturday Night Live character) at Townhall.com:

This doesn't reflect badly on anyone but the Times, as far as I'm concerned. The innuendo and full-on craptastic nature of the lede alone is enough to damn any actual facts that follow, which are few and far between.

Jim Garaghty at the National Review:

As far as we can tell, back in December, the article looked like an unfair, thinly-sourced hit piece on a possible Republican nominee; now it looks like an unfair, thinly-sourced hit piece on the likely Republican nominee.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters, who is generally one of the more reasonable and readable conservative bloggers:

Let's give credit where credit is due. JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON all show the kind of journalistic chops that made Us such a must-read in doctor's offices and lavatories around the world. The next time, they need to include more pictures of Britney Spears exiting limousines to capture the essence of this kind of reporting.

Even our old friend Matt Drudge, who surely would have broken the news himself if he had it, makes the New York Times -- not McCain's conduct -- the center of the story:

Now.  But.  However.

All of this could turn on a dime if the New York Times -- or someone else -- reveals more substantive information about the Vicki Iseman connection, or any sort of quid-pro-quo that McCain conducted in his Senate business.  As Josh Marshall sagely reminds us at Talking Points Memo, this story could be just the tip of the iceberg.  The story certainly is getting a lot of play, and the 'feeding frenzy' that DemFromCT describes is really only just beginning.  And you can see a minority of pundits like Michelle Malkin implying that McCain has gotten his comeuppance, and just waiting to jump down McCain's throat:

If you lie down with MSM dogs, you wake up with stories like this.

***

Allah’s got the latest involving the McCain camp’s claim that The New Republic pressured the NYTimes to run the story.

Dogs. Fleas. Karma.

McCain raised the stakes in his press conference this morning, denying not just the more salacious aspects of the story, but virtually everything it contained, implying among other things that former McCain campaign manager John Weaver is a liar.

But you know what?  For the time being, the conservatives have a point.  There isn't a lot of "there" there in the New York Times story, especially given its anonymous sourcing.  If this sort of story had run about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, we'd be up in arms right now.  

If nothing else, we've learned that the conservative base hates the New York Times more than it hates John McCain.

I was happy as a clam when this story broke last night -- but I feel a little bit ashamed about that reaction now.  And I would urge the same caution from others on this blog.  There is, in my view, at least a 50:50 chance that there is more to this story, and every angle, nook and cranny is going to be investigated.  But given what's out there right now, I think this sort of giddy reaction is more likely than not to feed into the conservative backlash.  For many conservatives, there is no more important sort of initiation ritual than being bashed by the New York Times.

UPDATE: Politico.com posted a story ("Right rallies to McCain's side") along these lines just moments ago, including reactions from Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingram.

Conservative media outlets rushed with surprising vehemence to defend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Thursday against a critical article in The New York Times, embracing a maverick they have often attacked.

Rush Limbaugh calls it "the drive-by media ... trying to take him out."

Laura Ingraham, another influential conservative radio host, said the Times waited until McCain was on the brink of the Republican presidential nomination and now is seeking to "contaminate" him with an article that she calls "absurd" and "ridiculous."

But, Limbaugh, like Malkin, also betrays some of the underlying skepticism about McCain that could feed a backlash to the backlash if more details come out:

Limbaugh added: "This is what you get when you walk across the aisle and try to make these people your friends. I'm not surprised in the least that the NYT would try to take out John McCain. Predicted this, in fact, way back in the early 2000s. Sen. McCain courted the media, cultivated them, even bragged that the media was his ‘base.’ I cringed when I heard it because the media turning on McCain was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning."