2 of 18

Write now Article Tools

Page 5 of 5

have the opponent they expected in Sen. Clinton, and as polls indicate, their non-candidate is likely to lose in November against Sen. Obama. If the goal is the not only the White House, but the conservative policies dictated from the White House, why not then try and ruin the moderate that is likely to both misrepresent and embarrass them?

Multiple Objectives, Keeping Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer:

If the allegations are false, then the only plausible explanation is that this opening salvo has been fired by the far right in attempt to surreptitiously discredit and destroy Sen. McCain's candidacy. As a ploy, it is brilliant, for it achieves multiple objectives, lays blame far from their footstools, produces an alibi and the beckons the conspiratorial call of the left that has long been countered as being nothing short of liberal paranoia. In considering these effects it is far more plausible that a disgruntled conservative wing would sabotage Sen. McCain than the improbable and absurd theory that the Times wanted to prevent a moderate from garnering the Republican nomination.

As the Bush Presidency has proven, it is not difficult to disseminate misinformation to legitimate news sources. It is wholly possible, even probable, that the "unnamed sources" in the McCain article were in fact acting on behalf of the conservative right, feeding the rumors and perhaps, even "verifying" them, while dispensing the same spurious stories to other news organizations in an effort to get movement on the accusations. If the Times ran the article, aware that it would be met with grave denial but had credible sources who had worked closely with Sen. McCain in the past, they could rationalize going to print with a modest version of the story, intent on subsequently building on the accusations and eventually vindicating themselves.

In manipulating the Times in this way, operatives of the right wing would achieve three main objectives: testing the political waters to gauge the public's response to these incendiary accusations; giving Republican pundits the chance to rush to Sen. McCain's defense; and, if buttressed with a willingness to further discredit the senator with lies, give him the opportunity to flatly deny the accusations which would later expose him and damage his credibility. In rushing to Sen. McCain's defense now, Republicans could also later legitimize the need to unite the party under a different (i.e. more reliable) candidate without wholly disenfranchising McCain's supporters. At the same time, the "unnamed sources" in the Times article could easily distance themselves from the allegations and leave the liberal newspaper to take the fall for battering a "genuine American hero" and the candidate they would most have liked to get the Republican nomination in the first place. And, here is the real beauty of this orchestration: the Times could not publicly attest that they had been hoodwinked or else they would further lose credibility and could not, in any event prove it; and, if anyone else figured out that the only beneficiary of the allegations was the far right, conservatives would decry the call as being yet another example of that liberal obsession with phantom right-wing conspiracies. To their credit, conservatives would have an even more formidable argument in that, by default, Democrats would be accusing them of attacking their own candidate at a time when his most vocal opponents have publicly joined in support behind him.

If Sen. McCain has any sense, and is he truly without guilt, he would best serve himself by keeping a close eye on that Boy-Genius, Karl Rove, who is certainly capable of orchestrating such intrigues, and the conservatives closing in on him.

Learn more about this author, H. Aslan Aslani-Far.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Add your voice

Know something about Commentary: The New York Times and the McCain lobbyist scandal?
We want to hear your view. Write now!