McCain aide blasts the NYT, but McCain himself has had cozy relationships with the paper
September 22nd, 2008 at 09:19pm Pat Cunningham
For decades now, it’s been standard Republican strategy for the party’s leaders to criticize The New York Times, if only to fire up the GOP faithful, most of whom regard the Times as the house organ of Hades.
So, it was no big surprise when a campaign spokesman for John McCain LASHED OUT at the Times today for its alleged “advocacy” on behalf of Barack Obama.
The attack, however, was remarkable mainly for its many FACTUAL ERRORS.
And there are two other delicious ironies in all of this. 1) The McCain camp often CITES the Times as a reliable source for its own attacks on Obama; and 2) McCain himself has LONG DEPENDED on the Times and his friends there to get his political message across.
Of course, none of these contradictions will ever be recognized by the rank-and-file McCainiacs who need only know that their hero’s aides have rightly given the demon Times its proper comeuppance.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
11 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Carroll | September 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 am
Pat-please let me know what you are smoking these days as I desperately need to occupy a similar parallel universe. Why accept reality when fantasy is so much more fulfilling.
2. Pat Cunningham | September 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 am
Mike: Please let me know when you come up with a comment that actually has a point to it — y’know something that specifically relates to the post to which it is attached.
3. Mike Carroll | September 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 am
Pat-It must be a bit too early for you, more of a nightowl I assume.I suspect you know precisely my point but I’ll make it a bit more obvious if you like.
If I were to assert that the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal present a balanced point of view in the liberal vs. consevative debate you could correctly question my view of reality.Similarly, anyone who believes that the NYT presents a balanced point of view in either its news coverage or its editorials has at least one foot in lah lah land.
And before you gleefully pounce, I am quite aware of the difference between editorial pages and news coverage.
4. bannernews | September 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
Might want to read what George Will , an intellegent conseravtive, has to say in the Washington Post this morning. “McCain loses his head”
5. Pat Cunningham | September 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 am
I’m way ahead of you, bannernews. I just now put up a post on the Will column.
6. Pat Cunningham | September 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 am
Mike: The point of the post is that the McCain people are hypocritical concerning the Times. They imply that the paper lacks credibility because of its bias, but they frequently cite the paper as a reliable source for certain negative items regarding Obama. Then, too, McCain is pretty chummy with some reporters at the Times and has depended on the paper to burnish his image. This recent bashing of the Times is just a case of the McCain camp playing to the GOP base.
One more thing: You fault the Times for failing to present “a balanced point of view in either its news coverage or its editorials.” But editorials, by definition, aren’t supposed to present balanced points of view. Neither, in certain cases, are news stories (but that’s a subject for another day).
7. Mike Carroll | September 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
Pat-I see you didn’t read my entire comment re editorials vs news reporting. See the final sentence in Comment 3. As far as George Will’s column, as usual, he is right and his final paragraph is the clincher.
“It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed? ”
I am voting for McCain because I fear him less than Obama.
Is this the best we can do?
8. Pat Cunningham | September 23rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Mike: I did, indeed, read your entire comment. The fact remains that you faulted the Times for failing to present “a balanced point of view in either its news coverage or its editorials.” And which paper, pray tell, has balanced points of view in its editorials? You should have limited your criticism to the news coverage. But no, you complained about unbalanced editorials, too.
9. Mike Carroll | September 23rd, 2008 at 8:54 am
Pat-at least one of us is being obtuse. I did not complain about the editorial slant of the NYT and I specifically acknowledged the difference.
You liberals are so uptight when it comes to criticsm of the NYT. It is a shame to see a once great paper in its death throes.
10. bannernews | September 23rd, 2008 at 10:03 am
John McCain’ behavior over the last week is truly something to be feared.
11. Craig Knauss | September 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Here’s a reality check for Mike Carroll and other rightwingers who fail to see what’s obvious to the rest of us. John McCain is likely suffering the onset of dementia. He is 72. Dementia starts in most people in their 50s. It is a gradual process that accelerates with age. I saw it in my father who passed away in a nursing home at age 76. He didn’t even recognize my mother. My wife and I are having to deal with her father’s rapidly progressing dementia. He is 83 and sometimes thinks his daughter is his wife and that he has talked to his long deceased mother. Mr. McCain has always been a gentleman, but his behavior is gradually going downhill. I wish it wasn’t true, but it will happen to nearly everybody eventually. Can we truly expect that he will make the correct decisions in times of stress?
Experience can be gained. Dementia cannot be cured.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed