"...The story examined Ms Iseman's relationship with the senator a decade ago and it was seized on by Mr McCain's supporters as evidence of media bias. Despite denials by both, it was viewed by the public as a story about a romantic affair, the suit alleges.
The New York Times said it stood by the story. "We continue to bel-ieve it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. It was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception he had been engaged in conflicts of interest."
The article was criticised by the newspaper's ombudsman. "If you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed," wrote Clark Hoyt in February...."
The Republicans make a huge issue of morality and the public had a right to know any details, especially coming from aides that would have first hand contact. The anonymous informers aren't really anonymous, now are they. The NYT knows who they are and IF there are falsehoods in any of their reporting they can be held responsible.
There seems to be a lot of disguntled aides within the RNC. This. Palin. A lot. One has to wonder why there exists such problems when they all should be enthusiastically 'pulling' for their nominee.
Perhaps the truth is that the 'grassroots' of the RNC are as oppressed as the rest of the country and sincerely believe their party is lost and floundering. The RNC grassroots did not elect a President. The don't believe in the performance of their elected President and Vice and are sincerely unhappy.
I don't consider Ms. Iseman's interest in her clients effective if she can't speak out to defend herself and hence them. A full vetting of the facts should have been made available from her and she could have insisted the NYT publish same in a front page article. She was ineffective in her capacity.
Now, it seems very opportunist to sue in an attempt to claim damages. How much of the damage was actually done by her for her lack of assertion when the article first appeared?
The RNC is in reckage and the Democrats are along for the ride in fear of political 'fallout' for their next elections.
Basically, the political 'stability' of the USA is questionably intact after a decade of an RNC that prided themselves in winning elections by using 'wedge issues.' The Democrats need to 'resource' the USA Constitution and legislated laws of the country for a stable way forward, otherwise, the Republicans might even look competent.
