In a previous posting I had mentioned I had a conspiracy theory version of the McCain/Vicki Iseman story breaking when it did in the New York Times.
First look at this from the New York Times on January 25th, 2008....
Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.
In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.
That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination. Source
Everyone agrees the extremist right is underwhelmed with John McCain, Republican presidential candidate. Here's an example....
Rush Limbaugh, the most popular right-wing radio host, had been railing against McCain for years, and now declared that if he were nominated, "it's going to destroy the Republican Party." "He's just a lousy senator and a terrible Republican," said Hugh Hewitt, another syndicated talk-show host. "His votes the past seven to 10 years have been on the wrong side of the issues." The revolt went beyond talk radio's political shock jocks. James Dobson, one of the nation's most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, declared he could not "in good conscience" vote for McCain and endorsed Mike Huckabee—the first time Dobson had ever taken sides in a GOP primary. Source
The N.Y. Times, the same N.Y. Times that the extremist right hates, endorsed McCain for the Republican candidacy. This fits in with the extremist right's sputterings. Far right thinking would conclude that sure, the Times endorsed McCain because McCain is not a conservative, in fact he's a liberal in designer sheep's clothing. What else WOULD the N.Y. Times do?
The Times endorsement hurt McCain rather than helped, at least with the wingnut right.
What to do?
How about the Times puts out a hit piece on McCain to rally the far right troops to McCain's side, appealing to that sick "the enemy of your enemy is my friend" kind of stupidity? Fat-ass Rush can dress down McCain for thinking he could deal with the liberal media. The drug addicted comedien and his cohorts can get their authoritarian relief. That would be just the ticket needed for the opportunistic gasbags speaking to the extremist right crowd to say it's okay now to back John McCain.
The N.Y Times knew of all these possibilities before they printed the hit piece on McCain. Why release the story now then? McCain's chances of being totally blown away by Barack Obama are high and are getting higher as we move forward. The media wants a close race. I don't, but the media does. A race where many hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on commercials and ads to place in front of a very engaged and interested audience of Americans.
The Times is taking one for the establishment home team here. A willingness to sacrifice itself to the bleatings of the misguided right( they've done it before, Judith Miller)....so that all can enjoy higher profits from a closer presidential race.
....there’s a reason that the McCain campaign is targeting its ire solely at the Times: There’s no other paper more reviled on the right than the Gray Lady. And the story has earned McCain a level of sympathy from some of his toughest critics, including Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, both of whom have lambasted the paper for publishing its account on McCain today. Link
About This Blog