McCain's defenders a/k/a the right wing noise/PR machine are desperate to make the NYT story about anything other than the allegations involving McCain's extramarital affair with a lobbyist, and favors he may have done for her.
I have a vague memory of a president in the 90s who had an extramarital affair. I also seem to remember that Republicans treated this as the scandal of the century. In fact, the president ended up getting impeached.
sure, Rs will say that it wasn't the sex that got Clinton in trouble, it was the lying about sex. I question that, but even assuming that is a relevant point, I wonder how much louder the Rs would have screamed (if that is possible) if Monica Lewinsky were a lobbyist, and Clinton took action on behalf of her clients.
No matter how loudly Bay Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh and the rest scream about the NYT's dirty tricks, we need to make the point that this story is about John McCain. It is not just about sex -- it is also about allegations that McCain acted improperly to help his lobbyist-lover's client advances its interests before regulators McCain was responsible for overseeing as a Senator.
This is a Hollywood movie script. It is pretty wasy to explain, and people will understand it. McCain may also be lying about his affair, and what he did to help his lobbyist-lover. We will see. There is a lot more to find out, and this is very serious stuff, in some ways more serious than the events that led to a president's impeachment less than 10 years ago.