Letters to the Editor
-
why is the New York Times always holding stories on Republicans?
...but unloading on Democrats with the thinnest crap ever. An example of the latter: that recent NYT story on Obama's pot smoking, which insinuated that he'd exaggerated because his pot smoking did NOT lead to the inevitable downward spiral and the lifetime lived beneath overpasses that drug war propaganda promises. For examples of how the NYT usually carries Republican water, holding stories until after "accountability moments" - read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ny-times-holds-sto_b_87724.html. They were going to sit on this story about McCain too until they feared they were about to be scooped.
-
timing is irrelevant
either it is a legitimate story or it is not.
timing questions are for spin doctors
-
The New York Times doesn't WANT a Democrat to win...
The so-called paper of record doesn't want a Democratic president. Just look at their ridiculous coverage and easy softball coverage of Bush, the war, ad nauseum the last 8 years. Bill Kristol. Allowing Maureen Dowd to continue her menopausal madness. Their crappy investigative reporting in general in the last decade.
If the Times unloaded this story 2 months ago, when they apparently had it ready to go, they'd have tanked McCain totally, leaving one of the chuckleheads who couldn't possibly win to go on to the Repub nomination.
So they endorse McCain. And they wait.
And now, they hit him. And just look at the response. All the wingnuts are falling over each other to condemn the Times, and support McCain. Rush Limbaugh is apopleptic.
The Times knew what they were doing...
-
Times Timing
I certainly hope the Times editors didn't publish an article they didn't feel comfortable with simply to let some of the air out of a story by a competitor about journalistic foot-dragging and editorial cowardice. If this is the case, the NYT will only look worse when the TNR story comes out, as editorial cowardice will be confirmed.
-
Will this change Republicans and McCain?
No. Not a bit. Look at Fox, who has for years hated McCain almost as much as they've hated Clinton, rallying around their new anointed Reaganite. It's an absurd side show that's designed only to put the fear of God into any prospective Republican nominee.
-
I wonder
I am from Illinois. I wonder why candidates who oppose Obama often find themselves a target of wierd sex stories. Remember Ryan and Hull in Illinois?
-
@ feminist123
Didn't Ryan's story come out as a result of divorce proceedings?
-
J'accuse
Sorry, "Feminist123" but I don't buy it (but thank you for just registering on Salon to push the anti-Obama line). Jack Ryan's political implosion was his own doing, deservedly so.
He was a creep (remember him hiring that guy to stalk/videotape/heckle Obama at every event he went to?) and his Senate pretensions were rightfully quashed by his own creepiness and bad judgment.
-
@ AncientAssyrian
I'm not sure (yet) that the motive of defeating the Dem nominee can be ascribed to the Times (sitting on damaging stories...), but the result of the this story does seem to be a circle the wagons around McCain by a lot of people that couldn't stand him not too long ago.
-
Glancing Blow
As others have pointed out, McCain's already locked up the nomination, so no damage there. It's eight months before the general, so it'll be long forgotten, and right now you have Obama and Clinton firing haymakers at each other. This one almost slips right under the radar.
And, yes, it locks up the all-important wingnut base as a way to rally around the conservative being persecuted by "the lefty MSM." I'd say the timing is about as good as it gets for Mr. Maverick.
-
So McCain...
... fucks a female lobbyist in exchange for favors.
Another example of the New York Times coming out with a Dog Bites Man story. I would be much more concerned if he had done her favors in exchange for money.
Now if a lobbyist had paid a politician for SEX, then that would be a story!
As it turns out, according to Mccain, there was no sex anyway. As someone pointed out, this woman looked just like his wife, so what would be the point?
-
NYT Did McCain a Favor
I agree with the above posters. It could have been a lot worse, as in when McCain was struggling or during the general election.
Timing is an issue, but it's one of the NYT picking the least damaging time for McCain in order to diffuse the "bomb."
Unless, of course, someone gets their hands on a video . . .
-
Question on timing / motives
Many seem to have a problem with the Times endorsing McCain while sitting on the story. My question: Aren't most editorial boards separate from the news division? They may not have known what each department was doing.
The Wall Street Journal works that way and were so intent on maintaining the editorial independence from Murdock's influence as new owner (where he could control news content), they had him sign agreements to specifically enforce separation between news and editorial, since they were distrustful of his motives.
One other thing, instead of shooting the messenger, I'm more concerned that out of thousands of news organizations in this country, no one else has investigated McCain's past significantly. Where is the recap of the Keating 5 involvement before this story? The press in general is just lazy and the vast majority of coverage is not about issues, background, or investigation; but the horse race and daily poll numbers. Those numbers are the least important (and least accurate) of any aspect of this campaign. For almost a year, the coverage of the race was based on how Hillary and Rudy would match up. What a waste of time that turned out to be.
-
oh paleeze feminist123
The Highly Conservative Tribune broke the story about Jack Ryan who if you remember and it doesn't seem that you do or just discovered newspapers, was running on a Mr. Clean platform.
-
@StrangelyEnough
Yes, the Ryan story was a result of divorce proceedings-- and particularly nasty ones. Maybe Jeri Ryan was secretly working for Obama all along-- was she in that celebrity-studded "Yes, We Can!" video?
I don't believe any politician is squeaky clean but the 'scandals' created around Barack Obama make me wonder sometimes if he really is as decent as he claims to be.