Mac vs. Meatpackers.

Much ink has been spilled about this morning's New York Times article suggesting that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist and that his decisions were influenced as chairman of a Senate committee on telecommunications. We can offer no comments that have not been said before. It's an article that is long on innuendo and short on evidence, and uses old and discredited history to indicate a pattern of behavioron the part of the senator. The authors appeared to leave out a great deal of evidence that contradicts their thesis, and failed to acknowledge that McCain did respond to many written questions submitted by the reporters during the prepartion of this article. Is it time for hard-hitting investigative reporting on investigative reporting?

Update: is the story a retread?