Update on New York Times Story

The Times, after all the backlash from their virtually unsourced story, now has an editorial up explaining what they meant to say (bold emphasis mine):

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

So says Bill Keller, Editor of the Times. Mr. Keller, if that was the intent, why didn't the article just say so? Instead, as Clark Hoyte, the Public Editor of the Times says:

"I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."

In spite of what Keller says, the piece was designed as a "hit" piece to harm McCain, without any real evidence. As Mr. Hoyte concludes:

"But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."

My view is that Mr. Hoyte does not go far enough. They knew the evidence was not there, and they didn't care. They wanted to embarrass McCain, and ended up embarrassing themselves far more.

The New York Times Shows It's Spots (Again)

Yesterday afternoon before I went to watch basketball, I noted that the NYT was putting up a smear of John McCain on their Internet site. After reading it, I just blew it off as more typical left wing ranting by a paper that has long lost it's credibility, and watched the game.

Today, after some thought about it, it occurred to me that there are still people out there that believe what the Times prints, so I am just going to write a brief response. First, of course, one must read the article. It is posted Here.

Upon reading the article, please note that the latest event that they are reporting occurred more than eight (8) years ago. It was brought up during the South Carolina Primary in 2000. So it's not news.

Next note that there are no sources quoted or identified. Did they make it up? It would not be the first time a major news organization did that (see Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, CBS News, and others, ad nauseum).

All the persons mentioned denied the allegations made. So where is the evidence? The real "news" here is that the Times ran with a story they could not substantiate with any evidence.

One of the things the article discussed was the Keating 5 scandal. McCain, of course, was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee. Why bring that old story up now? The only answer to that is they are trying to discredit McCain.

None other than Bob Bennett, the big time Democratic lawyer in Washington had this to say regarding the Keating 5 investigation:

".... If your listeners want to know about the Keating Five case, I have a whole chapter on it. And what happened was that I had recommended that John McCain be cut out of it and not go forward. And, you know, I call it the way I see it. As I said, I'm a Democrat. And I recommended they go forward against Senators DeConcini, Senator Cranston and Senator Riegle.

"But if you cut out John McCain, you would have had 28 days of public hearings with just Democrats in the dock. So, it's probably the first time in the history of the Senate that they rejected the advice of their counsel to exonerate a senator."( Read the whole thing HERE)

So the truth is, the real story was really about corrupt Democrats, and the Democratic majority kept McCain in it, over the advice of their counsel, just so they could have a Republican to beat up on during the hearings. Funny that didn't make the Times....but not surprising.

So what about the Times? They are losing advertisers, readers, and profits. Apparently they have decided going even further left will help them, or perhaps they want to adopt the business plan of the National Enquirer. At the least, they have become the propaganda mouthpiece of the far left in this country.

My view is that the paper is probably not even fit to use for lining a cat litter box.

Turn out the lights?

Is it time to sing the old Willie song for Hillary? Hard to say for sure, but it's getting close to closing time. Maybe she is hoping that it's true that "all the girls get prettier at closing time."

Seriously, she is near the end of the primaries without having knocked out that upstart from Illinois, and will have to decide whether to have a convention fight. My view is that that is a lose-lose proposition, but it is probably her only chance.

Her campaign has gone much the same way as Rudy and Fred's. It appears she thought Obama would be easy to knock out, and she did not gear up for the long haul. Now she is short of money, short of delegates, and short of much hope.

Will she win Texas and Ohio and then Pennsylvania? The Wisconsin results don't seem to give her a lot of hope in Ohio, and my thought is that Obama is rising rapidly in Texas. If I were to bet, it would be on Obama here.

It is apparent that the Clintons never expected Obama to do so well, and that he would surely be out of it by now. Surprise, surprise. Now the Clintons don't have much of a plan for Texas, and their prospects are declining rapidly.

Just last week they had Bill in Texas, and he spent a day out in West Texas, where there are very few Democratic votes. He ended up that day in Austin, but his time would have been much better spent in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or the Valley. It was a waste out here.

That is just an example of how mistakes have dogged the Clinton campaign. I suspect we will see more. The whole campaign has lacked the professionalism one would have expected from Bill and Hillary.

Now, it is almost certain to come down to a floor fight at the National Convention. No candidate will have the votes to win before then. There is going to be a lot of horse trading between now and convention time.

This is going to be fun to watch.