TRS is no major O'Reilly fan but tonight O'Reilly posed the only relevant question about the NY Times obvious smear piece on John McCain: If the Times thought the story had any factual merit why did it endorse McCain?
TRS adds the corrollary: If the Times thought the story lacked merit, a fact that now appears obvious, what good faith rationale supports its publication?
15 comments:
Spotlight explains---
If the editorial page staff is distinct from the news staff (as at WSJ and other leading papers) the editorial staff was unaware of the damning news when they endorsed candidates.
The story's merit is that a man supposedly sensitive to the undue influence of lobbyists was being so cozy with a lobbyist that his own staff could see a problem.
sporie:
Get it together man!
A few posts ago you were lamenting McCain's lack of media coverage.
Be careful what you wish for.
TRS says:
Spotlight, your explanation would have theoretical merit under different circumstances. This particular story was discussed at the highest level of the Times management. Keller has already been interviewed.
Art, hee hee. I assume you'll be OK when some one runs the story, based on 10 year old anonymous sources, about Obama's staff worrying about him selling craqck to grade school students.
TRS/anonymous, whomever:
A cynic could suggest that McCain had little problem with the article. Nothing like an unfair innuendo to rally the troops. Just look at the response from Limbaugh, Hannity and the like.
All of the sudden McCain is no longer anathema, he now is the latest staunchly conservative martyr to be impaled by the MSM. All we conservatives must rally to his defense. We must exalt him above these liberal rags and show them we are wholly behind him.
sporie:
Maybe you should read Isikoff at Newsweek online. It seems there is a small(for now)hole in McCain's protestations yesterday.
We're all familiar with smoke and fire; this would seem merely fumes at this point but fumes can ignite.
One of the biggest difficulties in politics is that politicians make their money by talking and it becomes increasingly complex to remember all of what you might have said on the record. When you couple this with the political axiom of deny, deny, deny, sometimes tits get caught in wringers.
No doubt the saga will continue.
Art, you cannot possibly believe the ridiculous nonsense about McCain wanting the story.
You know, even CBS declined this story. We have had two solid days of big libs, ranging from Lanny Davis to Lou Dobbs, ridiculing the Times over the sleazy journalism. Not even tabloid level.
You might not seem deranged if, just once in a while, you could admit that maybe a liberal fucks up. Not often, I know you drank the kool-aid, but once in while.
Isikoff isn't much of a source for you. Ever since he admitted killing the Monica story at Bubba's request he hasn't had much credibility outside of the kool-aid crowd. That's like saying the DNC believes the story and has evidence to corroborate.
However, later tonight I will read the story and get back on that one.
sporie:
Let me state, not to appease or impress, that I don't find the NYT article worthy of much either. I certainly could care less if McCain had an illicit affair - you might be interested as he could be a potential, high profile client; best to hasten getting a license to practice in Arizona - and my impressions of John McCain are such that I don't believe that he would violate his principles, especially for a little extracurricular sex.
The Isikoff article references directly from a deposition given by John McCain. His is not an op-ed piece based on his musings. I would still accept that it is, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing but chinks in the armor can lead to fatal wounds. McCain does have a history of treading near the line, if in nothing more than appearance.
Isikoff's story (having now read it) is only tenuously related to the Times or the DNCTV (nbc.msnbc).
The accusation was "special favors". McCain (and if you've read the blog, not my first choice) did nothing more than ask for a ruling without specifying the content of direction of the ruling. hardly improper by any standard of evaluation.
Obamaa would be smart to slap the Times on this one, he'd look more like the unifier he purports to be.
I don't care that John Mc cain is screwing around. hell it is a novelty for any GOPer to bea ctually having sex with the female gender!
I am concerned on who he is screwing. New campaighn slogan' John Mc Cain: If he will screw a lobbyist He will screw America"
I like how angry he was because it trying to tarnish his integrity. Well let's see he married his heiress trophy wife less than a month after he divorced his first wife, The one who waited for him while he was a POW and stood by him while he was batshit crazy"
As far as lobbyist integrity have we forgotten the keating 5 scandal/ Also all of his campaign staff are lobbyists/ But they are lobbyist with integrity.
Let's all jump on the McCain Straight Sex Express with fuel stops at crooked lobbyists!
Hey Ted Let's take a look at Rep Renzi's(R, AZ) property to buy so that we can erect a Monument to GOP Values.
" Ghost of Gerald Ford"
sporie:
Not arguing McCain's ultimate actions; would agree they were innocent enough.
Publicly denying you ever talked with the owner of the company when you state emphatically that you did in the deposition does create that minor tear in the fabric we call truth.
Smart politics would suggest that one not stick their toe in the boiling water even if it appears tepid. Obama gains little from his constituency by entering the fray. Best to let those who messed up the bed make it up again.
The smear has backfired on the Times and libs in general.
As for the tear in the fabric of truth, I expect the public, like most judges and jurors, understand that perfect recall, and remember these guys meet with thousands of people a year, is hard to find.
If no wrong doing occurred then no story should run. Smear by innuendo doesn't work. Great article on REal Clear to that effect this morning.
Ghost, we can use some of the concrete from Rosty's cell and paper the walls with some of the cash from China that arrived at teh Clinton White House.
The Ds who supported Clinton, and let's be honest, you are one, have no room to talk about the bipartisam disease of greed.
ted
I was a GOPer in party affiliation until 2004 or for 27 years. I converted when I realized that The Repubs are not the party of gerald ford as they are now not only corrupt but also hypocritical. This is no longer a party of honor or of the people. Renzi, Stevens,Craig and now Lott are all under indictment followed by how many more!
It is a party of cowardice as our tough talking VP hides in a bunker and doesn't even have the courage to face the American public.
The one thing the Times article has done is taken the "infidelity" &"My crook is better than your crook" Rovian smear out as a tactic.
Grasp at those straws that this will backfire on"Libs" The Grand old party can no longer hide it's sins and crimes. Let's all wait until November see who the people will support. McCain is running on 4 more Bush years. it seems to me that real Americans will reject that premise.
As for Rush's support Why would anyone want a convicted drug addicts support? The old GOP would have made sure that he served the same jail time that he advocated for the common folkon his radio show. In the new GOP Rush is the voice of reason!
Just pray that the real Americans don't build guilotines after November.
Ghost of Gerald Ford
sporie:
I am not supporting or blessing the NYT article. With no more than they had it likely was best to leave it alone; for them and for McCain.
Treading, once again, in your lair, I believe the correct response in a deposition is, if you are not sure of something say so or say I don't recall.
Now I understand the political expediency of rushing to a news conference to address the issue but he has access to a fairly large staff and Lexis-Nexis might very well have given his staff a quick rendition of any data floating out there regarding the subject. It may not have had the deposition but it isn't everyday one sits for a deposition in a lawsuit so one might suggest that memory might be more ingrained. Chances are he has a copy of the deposition in his files.
Even if he and staff didn't have time to research he is better off not being so explicit in his news conference and just saying I think it came from staff but maybe it came from direct communication. He would not be the first politician brought down or humbled by trying to bluff his way through a question.
I was being tongue in cheek about him being happy, but you can't argue that the conservative response has been greater than he could have achieved with almost anything else he could have done or said.
Huckabee was funny about it this morning.
Post a Comment