OK, I know that this will sound like a piece from a conspiracy theorist, but I have been thinking about the John McCain story of last week.  You know the one, where he may have had an impure relationship with a female lobbyist.  First, I do not care about his personal life.  I do not care about his kids.  I do not care that he may keep his socks on during sex.  I just do not care, period.  If there was something about the relationship that he help them win a bill or more profits, then that is the story, not some fling that may or may not have happened.

When thinking of this story I asked myself, did the NY Times endorse McCain?  Then why would they want to destroy him?  Good questions, but first a a little background.  McCain is lagging in the polls, funds were trickling in, little support among true conservatives and there was some in-fighting on the radio.  McCain was NOT looking like a serious candidate against the Democrats in November.

Here is my what if.  What if the NY Times deliberately released a story that they could not verify?  Which is what happened.  Now look at what the story without legs has done for McCain.  Money is flying into his campaign, Repubs are closing ranks around him, he looks like a victim of smear tactics, he gains sympathy which sometimes can be translated into votes.

The story has done more to energize McCain’s campaign than anything the candidate has said up to this point.  So was there a plan here?  Only the NY Times knows for sure, but to me it smells like do-do.  The paper has had its pee-pee spanked by its ombudsman for running a story with no legs.  So now the paper has been chastised and McCain is flying pretty high.  You decide if this was a ploy to help McCain in the upcoming election.