First We Smear You, Then Any Response is War

[Overpaid Slacker]

The story of the New York Times hit piece on John McCain keeps getting stranger and stranger. First the paper puts out a story that uses two disgruntled former "associates" of McCain to allege that they wondered whether he had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. Not that he actually had an inappropriate relationship, but merely that they wondered about it. They also allege that they staged an intervention with McCain about it, one that somehow bypassed the top staffers on his campaign, and for this the newspaper offers no proof and no corroboration whatsoever.

John McCain then holds a very polite and rather subdued press conference to deny all of the Times' unsubstantiated gossip. How does the New York Times report this? With unbelievable hysteria:

Later in the day, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers leveled harsh criticism at The New York Times in what appeared to be a deliberate campaign strategy to wage a war with the newspaper. Mr. McCain is deeply distrusted by conservatives on a number of issues, not least because of his rapport with the news media, but he could find common ground with them in attacking a newspaper that many conservatives revile as a left-wing publication.

“It was something that you would see in the National Enquirer, not in The New York Times,” said Steve Schmidt, a former counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney who is now a top campaign adviser to Mr. McCain.

Oh please! First, the Times published a scurrilous and poorly-sourced story that even gossip rags would have rejected, and they have the nerve to accuse McCain of declaring war? Has Bill Keller lost his mind?

This has to be one of the worst days in New York Times history, and that's saying a hell of a lot. Not only do they lack any editorial wisdom, now they run shrieking at the first sign of pushback. This self-pitying emission from the Times' tailpipe would be worthy of The Onion.

Hey, Bill. John McCain knows how to wage war. When he decides to do that, you'll know it. (via Power Line)

UPDATE: Tom Maguire takes a trip in the Wayback Machine, and discovers that most of this story is recycled from discredited reports in 2000.

Has the NYT forgotten that "War is NEVER the answer" -- so sayeth moron's bumperstickers, anyway. What would the NYT know about war, or waging it, other than to sneer at it, over its shoulder while running for cover?

[URY914]

The NYT really stepped on thier ***** this time.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Paul -
Frankly, yes. But not as much in its treatment of McCain; but that they've revealed their leftoid agenda and cowardice in stark naked ugliness. Which revelations are honestly not a surprise to some people.

However, the Kool-Aid drinkers will continue to insist that the paper is "neutral" and has no political affiliation or tendencies, and defend its integrity.

The benefit to which is that we can identify who those people are, their ability to discern, their intellectual capacity for honesty, and receive their opinions on politics and other topics with appropriate... skepticism.

JP

[URY914]

I agree. The story tells more about the paper itself than about anything JMc did.

[Mule]

So there are people that give credence to the NYT, interesting.

[hytem]

The NYT is hardly liberal.They have or have had conservatives on their editorial board. Safire, for example.
They have never been kind to the Clintons. They resurrected that phoney Whitewater "scandal" after a government investigation had previously found nothing. Pure sport. And they went after Bill Clinton for implying the SC Democratic primary couldn't be won running against a black (he was right, along with a bunch of other southern states). Hillary's main problem against Obama is media spin--positive for him, negative for her. It's hard to overcome that. She has been out-PCed.

I think all this media scandal stuff is crap. Designed to sell newspapers. But those negative TV ads are much worse. The phoney character ones, that is. Especially the ones that dig into somebody's private life. What McCain does in his bedroom is none of anybody's business.
Same as Bill Clinton. Just don't screw the country. That's much worse.

[The Gaijin]

Chuckle. Sure, hardly liberal..

I'll take my NY Sun and Post and Daily News, thank you.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

Chuckle. Sure, hardly liberal..

I'll take my NY Sun and Post and Daily News, thank you.

I guess there is at least one person who sees the NYT as reputable and unbiased, maybe two, lets wait and see.

Hytem, what color is the sky on your home world and what is Xenu really like in person?

[URY914]

hytem-I don't know were to start when replying to you.

"What McCain does in his bedroom is none of anybody's business. Same as Bill Clinton. Just don't screw the country. That's much worse."

Lying and cheating tells a lot about a person. I don't want my wife, my daughter, my boss or my President to lie and cheat to get what they want.

[MRM]

Except no one suggests that McCain was doing anything improper in his bedroom. Even the authors admit there is no evidence of an affair. The whole story is that nine years ago John McCain and the woman were seen together often enough that people were worried that other people would think the two of them were having an affair. That is what the article says. That is what the authors of the article say it says. They try to spin it to say this shows some lack of judgment on McCain's part because he allowed the appearance of possible impropriety. OK. That's fine. Time to move on. Nothing to see here.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

NYT just keeps p!ssing whatever credibility it has left down the toilet.

They're so desperate to have a socialist president and a story they'll do anything. It's pretty obvious what's going on here.

McCain is a guy and a guy with a history of being something of a skirt-chaser and party animal when he was younger, but I doubt he's a cheating man-whore. Certainly not now.

[varmint]

Guess the times ran out of CIA surveillance programs to expose.


There is no proof, no blue dress. Sorry excuse for journalism. Watched Chris "shiver up my leg' Matthews interviewing Frank "Glass and Beauchamps scandals" Foer and Mike "the plagarist" Barnicle. Even they agreed that the times had gone to far.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I was thinking about this some more. . .

If I were the McCain camp, I'd be going out of my way to poke the NYT with a stick just to piss 'em off and (hopefully) get them to write more silly articles like this out of retaliation. It would benefit my people twofold.

First, it'd allow the NYT to continue destroying their own credibility, which is always fun. Secondly, it allows me to go to my party contributors and say "look at the liberal media conspiracy and how they're attacking our boy - pony up and let's beat these ba$tards!"

[red-beard]

Like Fireants. I hate 'em! I kick every mound I find!

[K. Roman]

A republican Bill Clinton! You all deserved it.

[URY914]

Originally Posted by K. Roman

A republican Bill Clinton! You all deserved it.

Nobody said he lied under oath...

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by URY914

Nobody said he lied under oath...

or actually had sex with an intern/lobbyist/underling

[URY914]

Originally Posted by Tobra

or actually had sex with an intern/lobbyist/underling

Or had the intern use a cigar on herself...

[onewhippedpuppy]

I like it. They manage to lie blatantly enough that everyone notices, then they aren't smart enough to back down. Good stuff. I like it when blatant media bias is exposed.

Hymen, are you STILL singing that song? When will you accept the fact that nobody likes your boy Hill? No conspiracy required.

[WI wide body]

This appears to nothing more than biased jerks blowing something out of all logical and reasonable proportions. Basically a non-issue.

Much like all the crap we heard about the "silverware stealing" of the Clinton's when they left the White House. Like this story, it was so damn goofy that only the most biased of fool's put any stock into it.