New York Times | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

New York Times Endorsements = “We don’t want you to win”

Just as the New York Slimes “endorsed” John McCain and later launched the Most Ridiculous Smear Campaign of the season on him, they’ve done it again–this time with Hillary. Remember they endorsed her? LOL.

The Low Road to Victory

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

Gaze at their confusion.

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

She’s not qualified to be President because she isn’t worshipping at the altar of Teh Obamessiah!

HAHAHAHAHAHA. FAIL! Poor, innocent widdle Prince Barry. Everyone’s picking on him, and he’s playing so nicey-nice! Not. He talks a big story about “unity” and other bullshit platitudes, but in the same speeches he bloviates these things, he’s as divisive and negative as anyone else, and far more gloomy and prone to exaggeration, if not outright lies. Obviously, the NYT editors and others in Obama’s Amen Corner are too blinded by his dazzling halo to comprehend plain English. Hot Air has video of Hillary’s response to the NYT hit.

Make no mistake–Hillary won big last night, but she isn’t going to win the nomination. Period. I think she knows it, too–and has for a while. Rich Lowry points out what should be obvious to anyone by now.

She’s preparing the demographic ground for McCain, by getting white working-class Democrats used to (if you will) not voting for Obama. And she’s softening Obama up for McCain, prodding at and exposing her fellow Democrats’ weaknesses.

If you’ve paid attention at all to Dick Morris over the last several years, regardless of your feelings about him (he’s got Hillary Derangement Syndrome in a bad way), you know why she’d do this. She knows–or should know, unless yesterday Pennsylvania made her overconfident–that her campaign for 2008 is effectively over, and she’s preparing for 2012. She can’t win in 2012 if Obama is President. Not that she will win in 2012, but you can be sure she’ll die trying.

I wonder, will the New York Times be willing to call attacks on John McCain the “Low Road?” What about their own attacks? With all the money being raised by the DNC and the lib 527s, is there any doubt that the Dems are going to throw everything they can imagine at McCain, hoping something will stick? They all talk about wanting a substantive campaign, but what they’re really saying is that they want to be treated with kid gloves, while they fling poo at the Republicans. Hypocrisy is the hallmark of the Left, and the New York Times is the chief propagandist arm of all that hypocrisy.

The New York Times wants to know what you think

I can think of a few things I’d like to say; how about you?

A recent New York Times article examined a number of decisions by Senator John McCain that raised questions about his judgment over potential conflicts of interest. The article included reporting on Mr. McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee led by Mr. McCain. Since publication of the article, The Times has received over 2,000 comments, many of them criticizing the handling of the article. Editors and reporters who worked on the article will be answering questions on Friday. Please send yours to askthetimes@nytimes.com.

My questions, as sent to the NYT:

1. Why did you apparently disregard what Robert Bennett and Lanny Davis have said about the issues raised in the story? Both refute your story quite soundly, and in particular, Lanny Davis has no dog in that hunt. Robert Bennett, of course, has also repeatedly stated for years that he recommended no action against McCain during the Keating Five scandal, yet you chose to decorate the article with that–presumably, to build your case that Senator McCain is somehow corrupt or crooked. Both Bennett and Davis were obviously available prior to the story running; you certainly didn’t have to wait to see what they had to say until after the story was printed.

2. Why did you run the story without including any response in it from the campaign? Isn’t that Journalism 101? Or was this supposed to be an opinion column?

3. If you have irrefutable proof of some impropriety, why aren’t you using it in your report? Are you holding onto it until October? If you don’t have irrefutable proof, how do you even pretend to have a story here?

4. How on earth could you leave the Times open to all of this harsh criticism for such sloppy “journalism?” Has Bill Keller any objectivity as a journalist? Is it really that hard to see the very serious problems in this story?

5. You were working on this story since what, November? December? Yet you still endorsed Senator McCain. Interesting. I wonder why the Times would endorse a man whom they apparently see as a corrupt philanderer?

6. Finally, I see a clear case of malicious intent. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know the standard for libel is very high with regard to the press. Even with these very high standards and the existing legal precedents, common sense tells me that if Senator McCain were to decide to pursue legal action, he’d have little trouble winning the case. I could be wrong about a projected legal outcome, of course, but to anyone with any objectivity, it certainly looks like libel. Is this really the kind of reputation the New York Times wishes to have? Have you simply given up pretending to be objective, professional journalists?

Want to use or paraphrase my questions in your email? Go for it.

Lanny Davis sets the McCain lobbyist record straight

Lanny Davis, former Clinton White House special counsel and devout Hillary Clinton supporter, today at the Huffington Post:

I have direct knowledge of a part of the issue reported in today’s New York Times and Washington Post.

I was a lobbyist for one of the parties, WQED, a Pittsburgh public television station, which sought help from Senator John McCain with the FCC on its matter. The other two parties involved in this matter were Cornerstone Broadcasting and Paxson Broadcasting.

Bottom line: what was omitted from both the Times and the Post stories was that what I wanted Senator McCain to do, he refused to do. And he did so out of a concern of appearances of impropriety. That is a fact.

In the spring of 2000, I was quoted in the Washington Post stating that fact or something close to it when this story was first written - I believe shortly after Senator McCain had defeated then Governor Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire Primary.

I repeated that fact to a Washington Post reporter several weeks ago. I never heard from the New York Times, even though, as just stated, I was on-the-record in 2000 with the Post. Yet neither newspaper, for whatever reason, included that fact in either story.

I have no ax to grind on behalf of Senator McCain. I have a high regard for him and often say so when I do TV appearances to discuss the presidential campaign. I disagree with him on most issues - especially the Iraq War. I am known to be a pretty strong liberal Democrat. I do not plan on voting for Senator McCain for president.

I make this post only to set the record straight. Senator McCain did not include in his letter what we hoped he would.

Read it all. Needless to say, the HuffPo readers didn’t, based on the atrocious comments there. Just ignore that filth.

Okay, so the affair thing…that’s just ridiculous innuendo, and I don’t think anyone really buys that trash. Keating Five? Long ago deemed groundless, despite what the demagogues are saying this year (no doubt they don’t even remember that scandal from 20 years ago or care that McCain was cleared). The new “story” the Dems are trying to push is that he pressured the FCC because of his lobbyist connections. In fact, the DNC is flat-out lying about this non-story. Shocker. Er…not so much. Hilariously, left-wingers are howling about fundraising appeals going out. Please. These are the same tools asking for money because of Michelle Obama! (Good for me, but not for thee!) Even more hilariously, they’re wailing about the “politics of personal destruction,” because of Michelle Obama–as if that’s even close to the libelous trash being said about John McCain.

I guess the word of both Lanny Davis and Bob Bennett are now worthless among Democrats, as long as they aren’t joining in the attacks on Republicans. Funny how that works. These braying jackass (il)liberals have absolutely no shame or brains.

Speaking of fundraising, McCain apparently could use some money. PLEASE help out with what you can. Even if you can’t, don’t let these liars get away with this libelous garbage.

Will this make the New York Times front page?

Somehow, I doubt it. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones–especially when the stones aren’t real stones.

It turns out that the Executive Director of the New York Times, Bill Keller, has a few skeletons in his own closet he might not want out in his own newspaper.

Heh. This one’s juicy.

So, Bill Keller, when did you stop beating your wife?

UPDATE: Another story that most definitely won’t make the New York Times (nor should it):

Yet by that same “token”, the “Slime-bags” should be running the story of a certain “Larry Sinclair”,…..but no, that would be a scandal about their “poster boy, Obama”……

Also, I forgot to include this in my earlier post(s)–James Joyner has more commentary and a huge list of links. Don’t miss it.

The New York Times’ Libel Against McCain

Goddammit, how do those scum keep getting away with this crap? Someone needs to hit back HARD with this latest steaming pile. What’s the matter, PINCH, afraid your team is gonna lose in November? What, the primary voter turnout numbers haven’t made you confident enough yet, that you have to go printing unsourced innuendo? Your girl is getting slammed, so now you have to make sure teh Obamination wins ugly? DROP DEAD.

Bob Bennett, Democratic power-lawyer, was on Fox News (there to hawk his latest book, actually) and said himself that this is completely unfounded, and that John McCain is without question an honest man. He also noted the fact that The New York Slimes saw fit to print the old, tired Keating Five story, and that he himself had investigated it and found that John McCain was not guilty of any offense. That doesn’t matter to Pinch Sulzberger’s New York Times, though–if it was ever a story of an accusation at any time, it MUST be rehashed forever. Video with Bob Bennett:

Link: sevenload.com

Jonathan Martin at The Politico has tried to get a comment from the NYT, but they’re not talking.

The four Times reporters primarily involved with the McCain story, along with top editors, were in lock-down Wednesday night..

Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet, when contacted by Politico, wrote in an e-mail: “I am going to pass for now. The story speaks for itself.”

Reporter David Kirkpatrick echoed a similar line when reached by phone: “I think the story speaks for itself. This one I can’t help you with.”

Executive editor Bill Keller and political editor Dick Stevenson did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.

Reporters Jim Rutenberg, Stephen Labaton, and Marilyn Thompson - who’s leaving the paper - also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Oh, hell no you don’t want to talk, do you? Afraid you’ll dig yourselves a little deeper into that hole?

The McCain campaign released the following statement:

“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign.

“John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

What’s interesting is that the Slimes started looking at this way to trash McCain back in December. Yet only a month later, they endorsed him.

It’s trash. All the libel that’s fit to print…in the National Enquirer.

And see, they know McCain isn’t going to sue; no politician ever does. The worst that’ll happen with this, most likely? Their reputation is further degraded. Big whoop. How many people will actually unsubscribe? How many advertisers would actually stop buying ad space? None? They can basically print whatever the hell they want and fear no repercussions, as usual. The worst thing that’s ever happened is a journalist getting fired, right? No skin off their backs.

Hey Pinch, when did you stop beating your wife?

UPDATE: And another thing! If this lobbyist were a man, nobody would say shit. I guess this is what happens when you’re a woman and you dare to be a lobbyist…same shit, different candidate. Nevermind that lobbyists are always all over the Hill (it IS their jobs!), nevermind the fact that lobbyists actually do speak to elected officials as part of their jobs–if you’re a woman, you must be involved in some inappropriate manner. Right, (il)liberal New York Times? Of course, that only counts when it’s a Republican politician in the story. Female lobbyists for liberal causes are always pure and righteous, but you know those perverted Republicans, right? The wimmen are just around for recreational purposes!

My God, these filthy sleaze-peddling tabloid journalists make me sick. I am mad as hell.

ARGH!