The NY Times Lectures the McCain campaign about taking the "low-road" Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, July 30, 2008
At least they didn't include a discounted MoveOn ad on the same page as the editorial.
But it is a rather interesting editorial because it left me with the impression that there was a little fear bubbling up within the NYT editorial board.
And naturally, the problem is all the fault of the guy the left loves to hate:
On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House. Less than a month later, the results are on full display. The candidate who started out talking about high-minded, civil debate has wholeheartedly adopted Mr. Rove’s low-minded and uncivil playbook.
The purpose of scolding McCain in such a way? "High-minded" as understood by the NY Times, translates into "loser" in political terms - and they know it.
If you remain above the political fray, the fray will move right past you without noticing you're there. This is bare-knuckle territory. And who has won the last two bare-knuckle contests?
Karl Rove. And this isn't Karl Rove, but instead "son's of Karl Rove" ("it's alive!").
But he clearly tossed his inhibitions aside earlier this month when he put day-to-day management of his campaign in the hands of one acolyte of Mr. Rove and gave top positions to two others. The résumés of the new team’s members included stints in Mr. Bush’s White House and in his 2004 re-election campaign, one of the most negative and divisive in memory.
Almost immediately, the McCain campaign was using Mr. Rove’s well-honed tactics, starting with an attempt to widen this nation’s damaging ideological divide by painting Mr. Obama as a far-left kook.
But the Obama campaign isn't at all trying to paint McCain as an ancient and unhinged war monger, are they? No "I don't think getting shot down makes you qualified to be president" surrogates playing down McCain's military experience are there?
And speaking of deeply rutted low-roads, to the Obama campaign's credit, they, unlike the NY Times, never ran with an unsubstantiated story about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist.
Move along citizen, nothing to see here. It's the Rove Jrs which are the problem when it comes to low-roads, not the Times.
The editorial then springs to the defense of Obama which is, quite frankly, hilarious. The editors point out that Obama isn't as far left as Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist from Vermont, despite McCain's apparent claim. Hard hitting stuff.
Nor is Obama a socialist as anyone who has ever been in a real socialist country would know, claims the Times. Never mind the proposals Obama puts forward that smack of socialist principles. He's just not socialist enough to be labeled that by the Times.
And the Times further scolds McCain about something he said last week:
Mr. McCain repeatedly said Mr. Obama “would rather lose a war to win a political campaign” and that he “does not understand” what is at stake in Iraq.
What becomes plainly obvious as you read further in the editorial is the Times doesn't realize what is at stake in Iraq either:
Like Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain confuses opposition to an unnecessary war with a lack of spine and an unwillingness to use force when the nation is truly in danger.
Of course it has nothing to do with a "lack of spine" or an "unwillingness to use force when necessary" when it comes to Iraq.
Instead it is all about facing the reality of our presence in Iraq, realizing that a loss there, however you feel about what got us into the war, would be very detrimental to our prestige, reputation and national security.
The argument about whether or not we should be there is over. We're there. The best outcome for the US should be the goal for which any candidate from either party should be striving.
Iraqis were most surprised by Obama's apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he'd been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States," a senior Iraqi official told me. "As far as he is concerned, this is Bush's war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat."
Yes, they're unnamed sources, and they're apparently impressions, but let's not forget that Obama was supposedly on a fact finding tour to Iraq and Afghanistan when he left, but had announced ahead of his trip, or before finding the first fact, that his strategy remained and would remain unchanged. In that context, these impressions seem perfectly plausible and McCain's comments spot on.
So despite the irony of the paper that gave us "General Betray-us" ad and ran with the McCain affair story lecturing anyone about "low-roads", it is apparent that something has stirred up the Times fear-factor enough to have it attempt to change the McCain campaign's tactics. Maybe it is the recent polls which show McCain closing the race up again. Whatever it is, the McCain camp ought to adopt an operating principle for the rest of the election cycle which says, "whatever the New York Times suggests we do, we will do the opposite".
Who knows, it might be the difference in the race.
... I don’t agree with McCain on a number of topics, but I do believe he has principals and a backbone. He is not willing to say anything to get elected.
I can’t say the same for Obama who is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center ...
So despite the irony of the paper that gave us "General Betray-us" lecturing anyone about "low-roads", it is apparent that something has stirred up the Times fear enough to have it attempt to change the McCain campaigns tactics.
Could it be that this has less to do with McCain’s progress and more to do with Obama’s hubris? The "Paper of Record" is watching McCain keep the contest a close one where there is no reason why Obama couldn’t be running away with the contest.
Obama finally defeats Hillary and the expected bounce in the polls did not happen. He goes on his tour of the war zones and Europe expecting the polls to bounce in his favor. They do for a day or two and then settle back into "within the margin" country.
We on the right look at the McCain campaign and see a disjointed approach to the battle. But even with all of this, the economy and the war, Obama can’t get himself out of "within the margin" territory. And that has to infuriate the Times and their Soros masters. So it must have something to do with the low road McCain has taken. It has to be something - it can’t be that thier chosen Savior has any faults of his own, could it?
Well I have to agree with NYT on one thing. 2004 certainly was one of the most negative elections in history. Some of the things the democrats said about Bush were hateful, negative, and untrue. But I don’t think that is what they meant.
The Times have some of the best comedy writers in the country...of course, a bigger joke is their declining stock share value ;) Way to run a family business into the ground Pinch! Guess you’re not even as smart as ChimpyBushhitlerHalliburtonRovetron2000GaiakillerGlobalWarmer!
The best way to unite the Right is to have the Times keep opening their mouth...
Maybe I’m a little green here, but what exactly does victory in Iraq entail? If I had to decide, victory would be celebrated with a big banner strung up on an aircraft carrier that says "Mission Accomplished." Oops... It’s not a war, it’s an OCCUPATION. And for those of you who have much to say about the NYT, is it their liberal ed board, or their detailed, 2000+ word articles that contain words larger than "sanctity" and offer real news that bothers you?
Maybe I’m a little green here, but what exactly does victory in Iraq entail?
If someone actually has to spell that out for you, then you’re right, you are a little green.
And for those of you who have much to say about the NYT, is it their liberal ed board, or their detailed, 2000+ word articles that contain words larger than "sanctity" and offer real news that bothers you?
Well as I indicated in the post, and apparently it was too nuanced for you to grasp, perhaps it is the hypocrisy of lecturing a campaign about ’low-roads’ after having run an unsubstantiated story about a supposed affair that, apparently, isn’t true.
If you missed that part, you might try reading the post again. This time I suggest doing it for comprehension.
Here’s the question I have: Why is it a problem that a small percentage of whites won’t vote for a black man over a white, but not a problem that 90+ percent of blacks won’t vote for a white man over a black? Why is nobody calling the black vote on their inability to look beyond race?
NY Times lecturing on integrity McCain? This is probably a Monty Python or SNL outtake, since NYT, like the entire liberal media has been for long regaling in Glibama-caused, legs and other body parts tingling.
NY Times never failed to fawn about Glibama’s foreign junket, making no effort to analyze and properly describe that narcissistic enterprise. Yeah, a narcissistic, Lyondon LaRouche-like American presidential candidate rallying anti-American, left-wing foreign politicians and crowds to bolster his electoral chances in America - hurrah! we reached this point! The job of a US president is to protect and advance America’s legitime interest, not to serve internationalist coteries or to pander to the devious Europeans’ - unredeemable appeasers, enablers and profiteers - opportunism and cowardice. Didn’t NYT see what a shameless stunt that trip was, coming from an deeply unpatriotic Democrat Party which is pimping a singularly unAmerican candidate? Why bother to enlist voters in US penitentiaries (a Democrat idea) when you can get all those whorish Euros to press their interests from there? Ask the Euros: instead of ranting about human rights and swooning about Glibama, why don’t you send a few more soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq - why America is to pick up the tab for that collection of duplicitous European appeasers time and again? We did it thrice last century with enormous price and the response was always backstabbing. The notion that America has special ties with Europe is a fantasy, and a very costly one for that matter - out of this racket, we have different necessities to address and keeping the Euros afloat at any price is/should not be one of them. As far as Glibama, his narcissism and naivity has crossed well into the realm of pathological (cynically exploited by the Democrat crew), and it looks like that simply there is no limit as to how low & destructive Glibama would go to fulfill the dream from his father - limelight, limelight, more limelight and never enough limelight. Gross stunt that was, idiotically crowned by NY Times as "We’re liked again!" - also revealing that the anti-Americanism is the chief mobilizing drive of the Democrat Party elite (NYT included). Fraudulent NYT is - and since here, a realistic anticipation: the Dems will break any record of electoral fraud in this fall’s election, deed which will be mightily praised by NY Times.