Our disagreements and battles with John McCain are legion — on matters substantive and important to this country.  We have argued, advertised, organized, lobbied and litigated against his positions — on taxes, on judicial confirmations, on illegal immigration, on his assaults on the First Amendment, including so-called campaign finance reform.  We shall continue to do so, in no uncertain terms.

Still, we would not now nor ever have done to John McCain what The New York Times did to him on February 21, which is publish a story primarily based on implication and innuendo and zero proof beyond statements of anonymous former aides that they believed McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, and equally flimsy evidence that McCain acted improperly on behalf of the lobbyist's clients.  The details of the story, such as they are, are being broadcast throughout the known world, and are thus omitted here.

McCain and the lobbyist have unequivocally denied the affair.  McCain has denied doing anything improper in a press conference remarkable for the uncharacteristic restraint that he showed, marshalling "disappointed" as the strongest sentiment articulated.

John McCain is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for President, which begs many questions.

The New York Times had the story, such as it is, or at least much of the story, such as it is, at least as far back as December, when Matt Drudge reported behind-the-scenes activities to stop the story.  Why did The Times wait until now to publish?

If The Times had published earlier, during the height of Republican presidential primaries, would John McCain be the presumptive nominee?

Recognizing that the news department and the editorial department of The Times are separate entities, it is inconceivable that top editors and the publisher of The Times did not know the details of the news story when The Times endorsed McCain.  How can any responsible newspaper endorse a candidate for president when that newspaper is sitting on allegations that could end that candidate's career?

Is it true that The Times only published the McCain story on March 21 because The New Republic was preparing a story revealing tumultuous infighting at The Times over publication of the McCain story?

Is it true, as McCain's superlawyer Bob Bennett has said, that The Times omitted publication of considerable evidence that would indicate that McCain did nothing improper on behalf of the lobbyist's clients?

We do not know the answers to those questions.  We do not know what else The Times may or may not have to buttress its story.  We do not know who, in a large and growing cast of characters, is telling the truth.

Solely on the basis of The Times story as published, there are not sufficient transparent facts to justify publication, given the tremendous stakes of and implications regarding leadership of this country, both politically and journalistically.  That's just dirty journalism.