January 17: "McCain Parries a Reprise of '00 Smear Tactics"
January 28: "McCain, Long a GOP Maverick, Is Gaining Mainstream Support"
Next came perhaps the oddest story, a February 28 piece on a trumped-up controversy over whether McCain's birthplace -- the Panama Canal Zone, where his Navy officer father was stationed in 1936 -- disqualified him from higher office. Article II of the Constitution declares that only a "natural-born citizen" can serve as president.
What the Times didn't mention: The abstract question was investigated and dismissed by the Washington Post all the way back in 1998, making it a story even older and less relevant than its "bombshell" on Vicki Iseman.
McCain may be belatedly learning a hard lesson. Being the media's favorite Republican won't get you very far when you're the only person standing between what the Times insists are two "historic candidates" -- the first black or first woman president.
Perhaps figuring that the best offense is a good defense, the Times ran a February 29 front-page story warning Barack Obama about shadowy Republican operatives lurking behind the mild-mannered moderate McCain -- without mentioning that it has been the Hillary Clinton campaign that has been playing the race and drug-use cards against Obama.
"Some of this will almost certainly take the shape of the Internet rumors and whispering campaigns that have popped up against Mr. Obama since he got into the race, like the false reports that he is Muslim. Others will no doubt come from the types of shadowy independent committees that have played a big role in campaigns in recent years."
With all this, is it any surprise that a February 27 Rasmussen poll found just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the Times, compared to 44% unfavorable?
The Media Research Center delivered 60,000 petitions to the Times calling for an end to the paper's slanted coverage of the 2008 election and its unsubstantiated and partisan attacks on John McCain. Then, MRC Action (mrcaction.org) organized a fax and certified letter campaign calling for the resignation of Executive Editor Bill Keller. Bad enough, it will be worse news when the Times Board of Directors come calling, angrily waving the latest shareholder report.