1. Many observers have noted that the New York Times charges that McCain had an “inappropriate relationship” with lobbyist Vicki Iseman are based entirely on anonymous sources. The more important point is that even these anonymous sources never actually allege a scandalous relationship; they supposedly warned McCain about the appearance of such a relationship. In the article's most telling single sentence, the new York Times writes: “It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.” (Referring to the campaign of 2000, eight years ago). The obvious point is if those concerns were substantive and serious they would have intensified “in the heat of the campaign” rather than receding. This odd sentence is an indication that even the unidentified “associates” who said they were worried about McCain’s relationship dropped those concerns as the campaign advanced—a strong indication that the “concerns” were less dire than they once assumed. In any event, the nature of these charges is so vacuous, insubstantial, vague and unspecific that it’s hard to imagine any such media attack on a prominent Democrat. Please note the far more gingerly media treatment on the much-beter-sourced rumors of a John Edwards affair – not eight years ago, but this year.

2. McCain is hardly the first Republican politician smeared by media reports of creating the appearance  of an inappropriate relationship. Dan Quayle was also attacked for appearing at a charitable golf tournament with “an attractive blonde lobbyist”; the story went nowhere after emphatic denials. Gary Bauer (of all people) suffered similar attacks during his presidential campaign in 2000. President George Herbert Walker Bush faced absurd charges of an affair with a pretty female aide; he and Barbara were forced to indignantly deny it, just as McCain and Cindy did today.

3. The New York Times piece features a photo of media mogul Lowell W. Paxson, identifying him by saying that Ms. Iseman “lobbied Mr. McCain on his behalf.” The paper never identifies Paxson, however, as one of the nation’s most prominent Christian conservatives: an outspoken Evangelical whose PAX TV network attempted to offer a family-and-faith-friendly alternative to mainstream TV. McCain should be proud of any association with Bud Paxson, not ashamed of it. He should also be proud of a detail the article notes in passing, that Mr. McCain “sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed.” This is an important issue for social conservatives: allowing consumers to get packages that exclude the Playboy Channel, MTV and other racy fare.

All in all, this pathetic smear should remind people about McCain’s conservative commitment, over a quarter century in Congress. He’s specifically smeared for his association with a stalwart and outspoken Christian businessman—an association with should reflect credit, not disgrace, on the Arizona Senator.