I would think that is the most critical point. I’m not familiar with Cliff Schecter’s writings. Can anyone give an un-biased description of how reliable he is? Have his writings been questioned before?

That depends on where it is found (internet vs. real book), and the level of detail given. It also depends on the credibility of the writer.

I didn’t realize the front pages of so many newspapers will filled with so many opinion pieces…

That hardly qualifies as evidence he insulted his wife.

Try it this way, Strowbridge: Suppose we had a writer with a conservative track record who reports, based on anonymous sources, that Bill Clinton is having another affair.

We have previous evidence of such behavior. We have people in our own party who think Mr. Clinton disgraced the party and the office of the President.

Nevertheless, I would remain skeptical as long as those “sources” remained unnamed, wouldn’t you?

You make a critical error here. I said nothing of the kind.

Shaky evidence?

We have years of evidence that McCain has a temper. We have people in his own party who think he is unfit to be president because of his temper.

And by the way, you are willing to believe Mr. Schecter, or these three reporters are lying, with zero evidence. So what does that make you?

There are two possibilities:
1) The three Arizona reporters were the only members of the news media present when it happened. If so, McCain knows who they are and that they are the ones who told Schecter.

2) The three Arizona reporters were NOT the only members of the news media present. If this is true, Schecter should be able to find others to corroborate the story–and possibly someone willing to do so on the record.

Did Mr. McCain call his wife a vile name? I have no idea and neither does anyone else here. However, some are willing to believe it’s so based on very shaky evidence.

Bcuz I don’t like seeing “our” side take up the same nasty tactics used by the very worst of the “other” side. 1) It’s wrong, and 2) anonymous sources are easy to discount and quite embarrassing when they prove to be unreliable.

See also: Rather, Dan.

See what I’m saying? If one discount Mr. Schecter, you have zero sources. If you get to zero by taking away one, you had only one to start with.

As long as the three reporters remain unnamed, Schecter is the only source for this story.

We have one source who says he has three. Unless you can come up with a reason to doubt his claims, we have three sources. Unless you are willing to claim Mr. Schecter lied, we have three sources.

Plausibility has nothing to do with it. We have one source, not three.

You mean to say, these reporters have withheld relevant news about the subject of their reporting in exchange for continued access?

Reliable sort, aren’t they?

No, but that’s because your claim is extraordinary. This claim is not. Some fellow GOPers think McCain’s temper to too much for him to be president so this incident is hardly out of place.

“Pertinent question not answered: Why did the purported sources seek anonymity? Why did Mr. Schecter grant it?”

Because telling this story could destroy their chances of covering McCain’s future career. Therefore, if could destroy the reporters career.

No, not three sources, one source–Cliff Schecter. We have only Mr. Schecter’s word that he heard it from three people. I could very well tell you that 6,500 people all told me separately and independently that it is raining French fries in the town of Waldo, Florida. That doesn’t mean you have 6,500 sources.

Pertinent question not answered: Why did the purported sources seek anonymity? Why did Mr. Schecter grant it?

Mr. Schecter neglects to tell–that makes his account suspect and easy for McCain defenders to discount. It is for this second reason that I offer my succinct analysis: Feh!

You mean why didn’t the reporters report this story just like Fox News was going on 24/7 about Rev. Wright during Obama’s run for the Senate? Or just like the New York Times was digging into Whitewater when Clinton was still just governor of Arkansas?

McCain’s anger management problem was actually a big story during the 2000 primaries. It is part of what sunk his campaign then. Why didn’t this story emerge as part of the reporting then that Vietnam may have seriously fucked up McCain’s mental state? My guess is that Rove hadn’t actually gotten around to feeding to the press at the time. You know you have to spoon feed those guys a little bit at a time.

I don’t know if this story is true or not but to suggest that it isn’t based solely on the fact that no one had bothered to write a story about it before is a little, well, stupid.