McCain Schools Democratic "Bullies" (Yet Again)
The political spectrum has truly transformed. At the end of 2006, Grandma Pelosi and company took the Congress “back” and the media hoopla that followed bordered on insanity. As events preceding this “monumental” (and by “monumental” I mean an entirely typical and commonplace shift in party control that the Democrats paraded as if it were an unexpected achievement) unfolded, it looked as though the Republicans would never redeem themselves (at least in the eyes of leftists). Indeed, from Bush’s low approval ratings and public disdain for the war in Iraq to the Democrats rise in both the Senate and the House, prospects for the Republicans appeared quite grim – but, luckily, things have started to turn around.
At the time, I was more than convinced that the Democrats’ rise in popularity was not due to a literal spike in adoration for the Democrats. Rather, I knew quite confidently that the Democrats had won for two reasons. First (and as I mentioned), it is very common for the opposing party to win the Congress during a president’s second term.
Second, George W. Bush and the Republicans had unintentionally disillusioned a substantial proportion the American public (myself excluded). While this second point stands on its own, a substantial portion of its weight is tied with the implications mentioned in my first point. It was due to this unintentional disillusionment that the secondary cause of the Democratic “rise” to power was seen.
If one trended the popularity of the Democratic Party over the past seven years, he or she would not find a dramatic rise in its popularity among mainstream Americans, as one might expect. In fact, he or she would easily find that the public has remained relatively unmoved in its support for the Democrats:
While these prospects appeared grim (the above quote is taken from a March 2007 study), the climate is quickly evolving; in turn, one might wonder what will happen concerning the 2008 election. While the American people expressed a need for change in 2006, it is quite clear that the decision to shift party control was based more on a rejection of current policies than it was an embracement of Democratic inclinations.
If this is the case, which party will have its prime candidate sitting in the oval office? While there are many factors at play, it appears that the negativity once plaguing the Republicans is beginning to disseminate. Last week, the New York Times played its typical undercover political game, as it infused badly corroborated partisan views into its news coverage. Following this journalistic debacle, Clinton and Obama intensified their “playground” politics, with a public display of child-like banter that has continued into this week.
“He published pamphlets about me and my policies that were unfair and untrue!”
“She disseminated a picture of me wearing Muslim garb! I’m not an Islamist!”
From dirty politics to high school jeers, the candidates on the left are making themselves look like fools. Let’s briefly juxtaposition their jeers (and for those of you who haven’t picked up on the fact that the above quotes are not direct, please take note; as realistic as they appear, they are derived from my own perception of the candidates’ ridiculousness), allow me to provide a brief excerpt from Sen. John McCain (via the “revered” New York Times). He was responding to comments made about Obama and Clinton prior to his arrival at a political event:
So, who’s it going to be? The playground bullies or the man who refuses to play “politics as usual?”
The New York Times at its Best (Indeed)
I’m still dumbfounded by the New York Times’ audacious front-page report about Sen. John McCain and an improper relationship he allegedly had with a female lobbyist. And when I say “dumbfounded” I am not claiming surprise at the clear bias the Times held in what appears to be a very calculated news release; rather, I am referring to the shock I received when I realized that one of the world’s most respected newspapers published a front-page piece that lacks the foundation one would expect to find in a high school research paper.
Did I mention that this allegedly occurred eight years ago? Yes, folks. The New York Times published an eight-year-old story on its front page. And since we’re digging up old news maybe we should speak about the sexual allegations (i.e. rape) that were brought against former President Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick. But, I suppose the Times isn’t interested in such folly, since being allegedly tied to a lobbyist is apparently much worse than being accused of rape. But I digress.
Coincidently, the Times would have had no problem finding former McCain campers who were more than willing to speak about the allegations presented, yet they chose to obstain from interviewing anyone who disagreed with their political inclinations:
At what point did it seem appropriate – ethically or journalistically for that matter – to publish a piece without viable sources? And it’s quite unsettling to note that the paper did not quote the individual in question (especially considering that the McCain camp provided the Times with countless pages of documentation). It’s as though Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi got together for a late-night slumber party in the Times newsroom to pen this ideal-type example of liberal media bias. One wonders what the executive editor of the New York Times have to say about the piece?
“The story speaks for itself.” - Bill Keller
He’s right. The story speaks volumes. Not only does it fit perfectly into a never-ending puzzle of liberal media bias that can be easily assembled with countless examples of New York Times blunders, but, and perhaps more importantly, it takes this bias (which the paper incessantly denies) and expands it to such great proportions that, regardless of party affiliation, one cannot help but admit the unethical actions taken by the Times. But don’t take my word for it; for corroboration please re-read the New York Times vs. General Petraeus conundrum that manifested months ago.
Let’s not forget that this is the paper that proudly claims to publish “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Ironically, a quick read-through typically possesses the same talking points one can expect to hear at this year’s Democratic National Convention – so if the Democrats are the only one’s who spout off news and views that are fit to print, I suppose the Times is accomplishing what it has set out to do. So much for democratic and non-partisan newsrooms.
And the hypocrisy of groups like MoveOn.org and AlterNet is unbelievable, but consistent with past actions. Both organizations have been more than willing to attack FOX News on occasion, but have, ironically, become entirely mute when overt examples of media bias come from their neck of the woods.
Actually, allow me to realign that statement: These organizations have actually stepped forward to corroborate these bogus liberally driven stories, in place of defending democratic action. It’s apparently okay for the Times and other mainstream outlets to unfairly attack the right, but when FOX News does it, all hell breaks lose. Take, for instance, a headline (video) on AlterNet just this morning: “The Real McCain: Senator Gets Millions From Lobbyist ‘Friends’.” And, no, I won’t link to it.
The core of the issue is not whether the New York Times purposefully or unintentionally acted journalistically irresponsible. No, the true issues at hand are the perceptions present amongst reporters and editors at the Times. If the “newspaper of record” believes that it is fair and balanced to publish pieces that err on one side of the political spectrum, then there’s a serious problem we (and the news media) have to confront.
And if the news media don’t realize that they are publishing skewed works, we have an even bigger problem. The New York Times has not only published an abhorrent piece, but it has also steadfastly stood by it. Disgraceful to say the least.
I can’t help but wonder what Dan Rather is thinking right now.