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.
3 comments:
Normally, I root for the NY Times. But they apparently made a serious mistake in running the gut job on Sen. McCain. I say "apparently" because that newspaper is notorious for knowing more than they write in the first story> Often, they set up a one-two punch.
But their second-day story was weak, weak, weak. Onlya little box on the fold of the front page touting McCain's response inside.
The Senator has certainly taken the smart road. His response has been textbook.
I reserve full judgment for a few days until we see how this story plays out. But my immediate reaction is "shame on the NYTimes."
There may well be people coming out of the woodwork now trying to ride the story. Since I am not running, I would probably be complimented at the allegation I was having an affair with a beautiful woman 31 years younger. LOL
This was a bad piece, but all too typical of the Times these days. Too bad
Sigh. Guilt-by-association smears are slimy. Sarah Palin should be ashamed of herself.
The Pharisees smeared Jesus by pointing out that he was keeping the company of prostitues, sinners, tax-collectors.
Who anybody is friendly with is an irrelevant distraction and is character assasination.
What is important is specific actions, especially actions taken in the context of public service.
John McCain was not censured by the Senate Ethics Committee, true. But he was NOT EXONERATED by that body. He was, in fact, reprimanded. How convenient that this fact gets swept under the rug by McCain supporters.
"Exercising questionable judgement" is the phrase, and it's an exceedingly valid point for discussion, particularly when McCain brags about being "exonerated" in this affair.
I think we need officials who don't "exercise questionable judgement" in their official capacities.
Post a Comment