Featured Post

Click Here for Reviews of "The Tunnels"

Thursday, February 21, 2008

A 'Bunch' of trouble for 'NYT'?

Contrary to what many might have expected, many of the top liberal bloggers are, if not defending John McCain, attacking the validity of The New York Times' bombshell story. One of them, Will Bunch, at the Attytood blog, writes: "If Karl Rove were brought out of retirement to help elect John McCain president, even he in all his evil genius could not have a schemed up a better way to breathe new life into his fellow Republican's campaign than the New York Times' inept effort to tie the Arizona senator to a comely young lobbyist.

"Simply put, as it's playing out right now, the story was -- probably unintentionally, although who knows -- timed perfectly to help out McCain. Its insinuations of an improper relationship between the powerful senator and Vicki Iseman came too late to hurt McCain with the 'values voters' in the GOP primaries, but at exactly the right time to rally right-wing talk radio against the Times, and thus for a candidate they can now support in November while holding their collective nose." Link:


Anonymous said...

Democrats' circular firing squad loses again! We might as well just all kill ourselves now. There's clearly a 'there' there with this story, even if the NYT article is vague.

stearnsybears said...

The good Democrat in me says "This isn't right, it's shameful for a paper like the TIMES to print something like this. It's just more dirty tricks!"
The bad Democrat in me say says "Screw him! It's that darn Constitution screwing things up again. Freedom of the press, indeed. So even if it hurts the Democratic Party it makes me feel good to see a Republican Presidential Candidate on the defensive. It's feels Roveian."
P.S. When I ran spell-check on this it replaced "political" with "polecat " before I noticed. Maybe that was more appropriate.

Anonymous said...

There better not be more to this story or proof that displays a McCain lie. What will all the widdle dittoheads do?

Solange said...

McCain - Huckabee is the best ticket for the GOP.

Unless you want Hillary - Obama to enforce Roe v Wade for another 30 years...

The demographic winter is coming to the US.

Aging workforce.

spooked said...

ermm, it wasn't just the Times that published this story-- didn't the WaPo have a more extensive story???

Anonymous said...

Once again the New York Times shows what a cesspool it is. Hopefully this will have a violent blow back effect upon a newspaper that is struggling to survive. Shame on the greay lady or better the yellow lady!

camorrista said...

Well, what do you know, the sun still rises in the East.

The Times reported that the staff of a U.S. senator warned a female lobbyist to stop coming around because it might tarnish the senator's reputation for probity, both political and personal. The Times did =not= say there was an affair; it did not say there were any quid-pro-quos. It did say the staff feared the looks of things.

My bet is there wouldn't be a peep out of anybody, especially those who are dumping all over The Times if this story were about Hillary Clinton and a male lobbyist.

The press (and most of its so-called scrutinizers) have been fluffing McCain for years and years. Lizza's piece in the The New Yorker is the latest example: he demonstrates that McCain is a liar, a panderer, a lockstep right-wing legislator, an adulterer, and a pretty dangerous hothead. And none of it matters. Because the boys on the bus (and their colleagues all over) love John McCain, love him, love him.

Tarmangani said...

Of course there would be no peep about Hillary and a male lobbyist. Firstly, nobody would suspect anything if it was a male. Secondly, there is nothing unusual about a Hillary/Lobbyist connection since she tops the list in almost every lobby group for money collected. What would be a story is if they ever covered that or any other slamming a liberal.

My question is if this story was a long time in the making why did the NYT endorse McCain less than a month ago? This was a story with less credibility than most supermarket tabloids but gets front page above the fold. A previous President hardly got a mention concerning confirmed serial adulteries and a rape charge with more credibility than this story.