Thursday, February 21, 2008
|
|
Any Way You Slice It, The Times Looks Bad
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
2:48 PM
|
At this point, it seems clear the allegations put forth by the New York Times were bogus. Maybe more will come out tomorrow, but as of now, it looks pretty weak.
But having said that, there are essentially three possible scenarios that could have occurred, and, in my estimation, all three make the New York Times look bad.
1. The story is true (in the sense that the story accurately reported allegations), but the insinuated allegations are false. Remember, the Times didn't say the allegations were true. What they said was that the allegations had been made.
Remember, it's possible that in the wake of the Lewinski scandal, McCain's aides felt it was important to remove even the appearance of impropriety, so a staffer may have asked this attractive lobbyist to quit being seen so frequently with McCain. This staffer may have even "believed" that something was going on between McCain and the lobbyist. This event taking place, of course, does not mean that McCain did anything wrong.
If this scenario is true, the New York Times is guilty of creating a fire-storm for nothing -- which -- because of the high stakes involved -- is tantamount to screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater. When "the paper of record" makes allegations about the man who is essentially the GOP nominee for president on the front page of their newspaper, there should be a reasonable expectation that the story is both accurate and relevant. And the fact that they made these allegations without any evidence, based on sources who remain nameless, there credibility is in jeopardy.
2. The story is false. Obviously, if the story if false (which seems to be the case), it's a huge indictment against the New York Times. The sources making the real allegations aren't named, but we do know the sources are former aides. It's very possible that a disgruntled former employee might have an ax to grind. At the very least, if the Times is reporting false allegations it is a shameful example of yellow journalism. It might also show the Times' liberal bias.
3. The story -- and allegations -- are true. If this is the case, then it means the New York Times spiked the story in December (when knowing about it might have meant the GOP nominated a different candidate), endorsed McCain a month later (having known about the scandal), and then -- once McCain was the presumed nominee -- released the story. If this is the case, it would mean the New York Times knowingly helped the GOP pick a flawed candidate. The obvious extension of that would be that the Times helped the Democrats win the General Election.
|
|
McCain needs to look good this gives his campaign an opportunity show they can play defense. The kernal of GOP resistence is defending conservative principals. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
On the Clinton end she is about out of this and would need all those republican crossovers to vote republican instead of for Barrack. Republicans aren't focused on McCain they want to sink the SS Hildabeast first. Obamas' buzz is about this crossover who won't vote for him in November.
McCain is trying to back itself into this corner to take the focus off his record. He hopes this will gain him enough votes to win Texas. The dirty little secret is he can't afford to loose anymore momentum to Huckabee. |
|
The real story is not what the NYT did in this story to McCain, it's how the MSM and the establishment of both parties managed to get McCain this far in the first place.
The real story is how Conservatives were played throughout this whole process to believe in Romney and then McCain - neither of whom are really conservative no matter what they say, or what other "conservatives" may try to say about them. It's obvious that McCain cannot possibly win against Obama. It wouldn't surprise me, if the Clinton's half expected Obama to be the nominee all along, and have just been taking the heat off him with all the conservative focus towards stopping Hillary. The MSM and the globalists on the left win nearly every which way it plays out McCain, Clinton, or Obama.
Then again there is a glimmer of hope left...
http://thehuckreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/mike-huckabee-vis its-plano-texas.html
|
|
Hah! The TIMES looks bad????? How, pray-tell, does the rightwing come up with this stuff???
Look, whether the NYT or the Washington Times, this story was going to surface. And in fact, it did via Drudge two months ago. Had it come out via the NYT in January - as it should've - the philandering hothead would've been the one packing his trunk and going home instead of Mitt. |
|
Matt - why pretend like you are perusing the facts here. Why the charade? Its the NYT - so even if everything is true you would have said the exact same thing, i.e., the story is bogus, NYT is despicable, etc. etc.. As a partisan, you have no objectivity and might as well admit that.
And the other side is the same as well. Every little thing is a scandal. THats partisan politics. Neither side can get all holier than thou and claim to be objective and care only about the "facts". Yeah right! Be it conservative or liberal, talk radio or dailykos, we have all lost our claim to objectivity. THats partisan politics for you.
|
|
In full effect. Just like Hugh said that McCain lost when he didn't win Michigan and Florida by more than a few percentage points, so to does the NYT lose if McCain turns out to be a cheating hot-lobbyist lover.
Personally, I couldn't care a whit who he diddles. But right wing hypocricy is too delicious to avoid feasting. mmmmm... |
|
|
Whatever you call it.....it's baaaaaack. |
|
|
Matt, are you only finding out now that the New York Times is a low down rag that does the dirty work for the DNC? This type of news is standard fare for the Times. The McCainiacs are only discovering this now that the liberal media have turned from kissing McCains behind to the attack dogs for the DNC. |
|
|
You suppose it actually read a book? Like maybe "Horton Hears a Who"? |
|
Hmmmm. Lemme guess. Could it be the Slimes actually WANTED McCain as the GOP nominee (hence, their "endorsement") because they KNEW they could easily destroy him once the party was left with no viable alternative?
Why else would have the Slimes sat on this until NOW?
I'm giving McCain the benefit of the doubt on this one because of the source. If it true, I will actively campaign against him. If it is false, I'd like to see what kind of fighter he is.
Not surprised to see Matt carrying McCain's water again. Has he no shame? The same folks who slandered Hugh for shamelessly supporting Romney are ironically silent when it comes to Matt's obsession with McCain. Go figure.
|
|
|
My thoughts exactly! McCain is an easy target for the Dems and the NYT knew that! |
|
The Times looks bad when they allow Judith Miller to be a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration's lies about Iraq.
The Times looks bad when Bill Cristal gets a weekly column for his venom.
THAT makes the Times look bad. |
|
... did you write this post with a straight face? Mccain chaeted in his first wife -- leading her to dump him. This is nothing new.
The GOP deserves a cheating candidate after plotting to tank Mike Huckabee.
The only good part about this primary season is that it has made me wash my hands of the GOP. |
|
|
|