Friday, February 22, 2008

New York Times Outrage

Miranda_The Tempest_John William Waterhouse



Gosh, maybe it's just me but isn't it pretty easy to see through all this phony outrage with the New York Times by the McCain campaign over the 1999 story of the young female Paxon Communications lobbyist Vicky Iseman. First of all let's establish a basic point before we venture on from here. John McCain is the endorsed candidate of the New York Times, they chose him as the Republican candidate, he's their man. Now, the New York Times has been sitting on the story about Vicky Iseman since December of 2007. They have had plenty of time to do research and investigation about this story that happened back in 1999-2000 during McCain's first run for President. McCain is said to have gone to bat at the Federal Communications Commission for the company Paxon Communications who employed Vicky Iseman as a lobbyist. There was innuendo that their was some kind of quid pro quo with a sexual tryst involved. That's the basics of the story.

Now on to the next step. The New York Times has released this story just as John McCain has been determined to be the Republican nominee, there is no chance of Mike Huckabee winning enough delegates so McCain is the defacto nominee. The timing of the story release is important for the fact that it is almost six months to the general election and the details of this story will never be known exactly and this story has been around since 2000. The New York Times under Executive Editor Bill Keller decided to release this story now so the McCain campaign can get it out of the way, have it's details debunked and move on. This was a slow pitch by the New York Times for the McCain campaign to hit out of the park over the left field fence.

I'm laughing at all the talking heads calling the New York Times a bunch of lunatic liberals running a hit piece on McCain when nothing could be further from the truth. The New York Times may be a bunch of lunatic liberals but this story was meant so McCain can clean up this dirty little story with it's scant details so they could be done with it. It was up to the McCain campaign to deal with it in manner that is credible to the moderates and liberals that are going to turn out and vote for him in November. The New York Times was testing their endorsed candidate with a softball so when the fast pitches start coming in the New York Times will be able to give McCain some cover from time to time and not be credibly accused of being in the bag for him. If more details come out on this story now or as they say "the story gets legs" it's because the McCain campaign will have failed in their attempt to refute the story and bury the witnesses with all the details showing the weakness of his campaign committee.

There will be one or two more stories like this in the near future to test the McCain campaign to see if it can keep a lid on the caldron. If so they will bury the big stories when it gets close to the general election. This is the way things work for media panderers like McCain. There's plenty of dirt under the nails at McCain central and if he tries to stray too far from the moderate dark side the media will stop providing the soap he needs to clean up his dirt.

The thing that really gets me though is when McCain's campaign manager goes on the talk shows he refers to McCain as the conservative Republican candidate after every sentence. It would be at least honorable if not honest if McCain would just run the campaign he wants to run and pander to the people that are going to turn out and vote for him and most probably elect him to be the moderate Republican President.

Well demanded, wench:
My tale provokes that question. Dear, they durst not,
So dear the love my people bore me, nor set
A mark so bloody on the business, but
With colours fairer painted their foul ends.
In few, they hurried us aboard a bark,
Bore us some leagues to sea; where they prepared
A rotten carcass of a boat, not rigg'd,
Nor tackle, sail, nor mast; the very rats
Instinctively had quit it: there they hoist us,
To cry to the sea that roar'd to us, to sigh
To the winds whose pity, sighing back again,
Did us but loving wrong.

21 comments:

BB-Idaho said...

The Tempest; Prospero addressing his daughter?

Gayle said...

Love "The Tempest" picture, Jennifer. I saved it for a wallpaper. Thanks! :)

Regarding the NYT's story on McCain, you certainly have a new twist on it that I haven't heard before. You could be right and time alone will tell. I'll be keeping my eyes open for sure!

J_G said...

BB, Prospero is addressing his daughter Miranda when she questions him in act 1 Scene 2,
Prospero tells Miranda their history as a way to inform the audience of this important information. In addition, the audience needs to know what events motivate Prospero’s decision to stir up the storm and why the men onboard the ship are his enemies

Miranda. Wherefore did they not
That hour destroy us?

Prospero. Well demanded, wench:
My tale provokes that question. Dear, they durst not,
So dear the love my people bore me, nor set 250
A mark so bloody on the business, but
With colours fairer painted their foul ends.
In few, they hurried us aboard a bark,
Bore us some leagues to sea; where they prepared
A rotten carcass of a boat, not rigg'd, 255
Nor tackle, sail, nor mast; the very rats
Instinctively had quit it: there they hoist us,
To cry to the sea that roar'd to us, to sigh
To the winds whose pity, sighing back again,
Did us but loving wrong.

Miranda. Alack, what trouble
Was I then to you!

J_G said...

Gayle, I'm glad you enjoyed the painting by John William Waterhouse. I enjoy artworks so much. I have seen quite a few in my life and I like to share some of that beauty with my friends. I find these works in the websites in my links to Fine Art and if I find something somewhere else I make sure I credit that website for sharing and displaying beautiful art.

As far as my take on the McCain story, it just makes sense to me. I think the Times is serious about supporting McCain but he's got things to answer for to them. There will be more.

Beth said...

Interesting theory, but I tend to think Rush's idea that liberals cannot be trusted seems more plausible. McCain did not seem to appreciate the story coming out by the Times.

J_G said...

Beth, the story coming out now will give him time to put it all behind him. They could have let it out closer to the election when he doesn't have as much time to respond and people remember it going into the election. The regular leftist waifs that get their cues from the NYT will try and beat this story like a dead horse for a few more days but it's all done now and that was precisely the point of letting it out now. Two weeks from now people will be asking Vicky who?

The whole point is for the NYT to signal to McCain that this is their way of bringing conservatives aboard because the NYT can weather the hits this will bring from angry and outraged conservatives. They are laughing about how easy it is to manipulate people to support someone that has no intention of being conservative if he is elected.

You have to keep asking why would the NYT support John McCain? Ask yourself that question over and over again and it comes down to the same answer. He's no conservative and this is how the NYT is going to break the conservatives away from the republican party, not now but later when we're all angry at the way things are going after he gets elected.

Liberals like Obama and Clinton are a dime a dozen and espouse the same old party line but how many times do you get the opportunity to completely destroy the enemy? Namely the republican party by separating the conservatives from it once McCain is in office. John McCain is just the guy that can do it for them.

Beth said...

Good point, and very frustrating if true.

Can I cross-post to my blog?

J_G said...

My theories are just that Beth, theories. I may not be exactly right but part of my musings have to be right because we can't trust either McCain or the NYT.

Feel free to cross post.

DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print%20&oref=slogin

The New York Slimes loves Hillary Clinton why would they want to do anything at all to help McCain. It just don’t make any sense.

patterns of ink said...

This is an interesting theory and it does seem to have helped McCain with the base and like you said, it vets McCain for the general. J_G, you really should get a gig on radio or a column in some conservative newsletter. Good stuff!
Any word from Suzie Q? She always had such good thoughts on this sort of stuff.

J_G said...

dd2, that opinion piece was from January 25th, a lot of things have changed since then. The once popular Clinton now finds herself clinging to two states Ohio and Texas and Texas seems to be out of her grasp at this point. I don't know who specifically wrote this opinion piece but the NYT has a host of writers and it appears this one favored Clinton at that time. The person you have to watch though when the NYT acts is al qaeda Keller (not to be confused with cicada killer; a post I did about Keller being the bellwether of liberal ideology back in 2006) Make no mistake dd2 the NYT would like nothing more than to see the conservatives destroyed and now they have a weapon that can do it from within.

Tom,nope nothing from Susie yet. She checks in from time and my ears are always open to hear her wisdom. I find that I feel the same way as she does right now about blogging taking up too much time. Susie has much more important things to take care of than I do so here I am blogging. Radio show? No one would to listen to me but thanks for your vote of confidence,I take that as huge compliment.

DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

J_G said...
dd2, that opinion piece was from January 25th, a lot of things have changed since then.
---------------------------------

From Jan. 25th to Feb. 15th?

Their opinion of McCain and/or Hillary hasn't changed.

J_G said...

From Jan. 25th to Feb. 15th?... and eleven straight losses for Clinton


Their opinion of McCain and/or Hillary hasn't changed.

Do you believe that?

DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

I was talking about changed as far as endorsments.
To Feb 15th

Marie's Two Cents said...

At this point I am willing to just stop Hillary and Obama by any means necessary!

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

jennifer,

Your take on it smacks too much like a conspiracy theory, for my taste.

John McCain is the endorsed candidate of the New York Times, they chose him as the Republican candidate, he's their man.

In and of itself, endorsing a candidate of both parties is nothing to be alarmed about; and I do believe, knowing full well the bias in the media, that the NYT is simply choosing the candidate who they deem is best suited to represent their party/run the country. It means nothing, as far as their actual support of a candidate, nor are they choosing a candidate out of ulterior motives, to destroy one of the two political parties.

Really, I think sometimes we read too much into things, or think too conspiratorially, that them damn libs are out to get us.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

One of my favorites of Waterhouse, is Lady of Shalott.

Love the poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson.

Love Arthurian romances.

Love the poem sung to the music of Loreena McKennitt.

J_G said...

Well Word, there are such things as conspiracies and the way the NYT conducts itself lends credibility to their actions being conspiratorial. The NYT would like nothing better than to separate conservatives from the political realm as a viable political force and they have essentially done that by not just endorsing McCain but supporting him. Getting this old story out of the way was one way for them to use some cover. Remember Vicky uh, er, um, what's her name? Exactly.

Give it some time Word and you will see how the NYT will shape and condition the story to further alienate conservatives from the republican party because of McCain.I still blame the wishy wash moderates for the mess.

I may have the way some of the methods that were used wrongly stated but the NYT went about a campaign to make sure John McCain was the nominee make no mistake it about it.

I am now preparing posts on what we are to do now that Obama is President in the almost inevitable case that Barack Hussein Obama becomes the President.It is going to be a challenge but as I sit here and type this the MSM is working with all the power they possess to make it happen that way.

We were united behind Bush and we were able to fight off the attempts of the MSM to change the outcome of the election by deceit and outright lies in 2000 and even more so in 2004 but it's just not there this time. Unless something astonishing happens Commander in Chief Obama will be ordering retreat and defeat about this time next year. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but my personality forces me to live in reality.

I'll post some Tennyson later for you. I never heard of Loreena McKennit before but I just checked her out on You Tube. Folk music is a favorite of mine. I will have to seek out more of her music. Thanks Word.

J_G said...

No anonymous commenting

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Loreena McKennitt:

The Lady of Shalott

the cd has the whole poem, minus about two stanzas, sung. The imagery is very evocative. I wish she were around when I was an English major; it would have come in handy at cocktail parties with your professors.

Another favorite: Bonny Portmore.

J_G said...

I left a comment over at your place Word. This music is really nice. I love the harp music.