Senator McCain should repudiate the New York Times' Endorsement [updated and bumped.]
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I think the New York Times Editorial Board is too stupid to give Senator McCain an endorsement hoping to sabotage his presidential ambitions. That would take some level of strategery and the grand triumvirate of Jill Abramson, Maureen Dowd, and Pinch is too stupid to rise to that level.
No, I think they really endorsed the guy because he was the best Republican in their minds. It was a half-hearted endorsement, but an endorsement nonetheless.
Long since abandoning their reputation as the paper of record, they have become the paper of the left -- Pravda on the Hudson. And if Pravda on the Hudson likes Senator John McCain it is reasonable to conclude that the general American public would not. The values of the Upper West Side are not the values of fly over country.
For the past three years, the New York Times has worked relentlessly to undermine the efforts of our troops and undermine the war in general. On every occasion, the New York Times has done its best to aid and abet our terrorist enemies. They have attempted to disrupt the terrorist surveillance program. They have attempted to disrupt a host of other national security programs designed to keep us safe. They have played up bad news in Iraq and downplayed good news. They have portrayed our troops as bloodthirsty killers and war criminals. They have been given every opportunity to be an objective voice and they have thumbed their nose at each of these opportunities, instead favoring a concerted effort to hinder our war effort and undermine our security at home.
Senator McCain sees himself as the soliders' best friend in Congress. He tells us he worked tirelessly to repudiate the Rumsfeld legacy and win the war. He tells us he can lead us and keep us safe. The major national newspaper that has done more than any other to undermine all of that then endorses him.
Senator McCain should publicly repudiate the endorsement of the New York Times, lest one think he actually appreciates the endorsement of the jihadists' best American friend.
[UPDATE:] I will stop holding my breath. McCain was the only GOP Presidential candidate who gave Pravda the New York Times any attention. Blech.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Make Mine McCain. — Comments (29) »
Senator McCain should repudiate the New York Times' Endorsement [updated and bumped.] 39 Comments (0 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"BTW, the NYT isn't really a liberal rag anymore, in case you haven't noticed."
I would like you to give an example beyond Kristol...lets don't even talk about Broder where the Socialist paper of record is not "liberal" anymore.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Except that it is the editorial board, not the columnists, who make the endorsement.
...is at the Washington Post. (You may be thinking of David Brooks.) Either way, it's true that the NYT editorial board leans consistently liberal.
a liberal would be too far to the right to work at the NYT.
And that was back in the ancient times when I was in college. It's gotten worse since then.
Sen. McCain loved the endorsement.
And that is all I need to know.
McCain does love it. He loves that liberals love him. Do you all know he even has open-borders zealot Juan Hernandez working for his campaign?
attacked Rudy Giuliani with the NYT's blast of him seemingly unaware that most of us on the right view such an attack as a badge of honor. Giuliani deflected the meaningless tripe well. He was actually the one to benefit from their endorsement of John McCain.
I think John McCain could also benefit by repudiating their endorsement, as you say.
I'll let the New York Time’s own endorsement make my point.
"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."
Mr. McCain has made it quite clear where he stands, on just about anything other than the war his stance is clearly to the left.
Do we really want someone leading the party whose claim to fame is the ability to champion liberal causes with, as the NY Times put it, the most liberal of Democrats?
Do they always endorse for the primaries? If not, why now? If so, who did they endorse for the republican nomination in years past? Did they ever endorse Bob Dole or Bush Sr. or Ronald Reagan?
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
I'm amazed the MSNBC moderators and most analysts (Scarborough and Buchanan excepted) were oblivious to what this meant. Tim Russert seemed shocked when Mayor Giuliani justifiably ridiculed the endorsement from a paper that demonized him from start to finish. The more MSM "helps" McCain, the worse it is for him. Yes, he worked hard for the NYT endorsement and earned it. And that will be hard to overcome.
My policy is generally to read the editorial opinions of the Times and run in the opposite direction. If they hate Rudy that much, then he must have been doing something right. Certainly the New Yorkers who elected him twice found something to admire.
As for McCain, well, you know what they say about birds of a feather.
In fact, the NYT may have given the Giuliani campaign new life even if he loses Florida. I don't know where you live and/or if you are a regular NYT reader, but during my exile in NYC (just kidding, I love the city)during the Giuliani administration, he could have healed the blind and the Times would have attacked him.
Specifically, it praises John McCain for being "bipartisan" (which is basically GOP capitulation to the Democrats). It also goes on to state that John McCain represents a change from Bush in that McCain presumably "won't pander to a small angry fringe". Let's be honest, folks, that "small angry fringe" is us - conservatives.
It also lauds McCain for his advocacy of doing something about climate change and global warming. They were impressed by his advocacy of the amnesty bill, they hailed the fact that he worked with uber-liberal Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, and they also liked his stance on torture and closing Gitmo.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Strong words for such a tepid review.
It's only stunning if they don't usually pick a Republican in the primaries. They've endorsed Rudy before too, btw.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
I believe they also though quite highly of George H.W. Bush...
to which the NYT refers turned out to be about 80% of Americans during the last attempt to foist amnesty for illegal immigrants upon us. That 80% opposition obviously included more than Republicans and conservatives.
"I got my job through the New York Times"
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Rudy used it for his Mayoral campaign.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
The NY Times has attacked Rudy more than anyone but W, pretty much. When's the last time they attacked McCain?
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
If their endorsements don't reflect on the endorsee then what matter? So they've attacked him? So what? The day they endorsed him should have been a black day for his conservative credentials, if consistency matters.
If the Times endorsement is such a negative for McCain, how come the anti-McCain's don't give two figs about the numerous conservative stars who have endorsed him?
If the Times endorsement is so telling, why isn't Coburns? Why have so many Fredheads preemptively dismissed any endorsement of McCain he may or may not make in the future?
Using this NYTimes endorsement as some type of bludgeon smacks of selective reasoning and memory. I'm not impressed.
Not to mention, no one seems to know whether they always endorse a Republican nominee or not. I can't find any information online. If they do then this whole thing is a bogus controversy from the start.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
beyond raised eyebrows.
Two endorsements in this campaign have mattered: Oprah's endorsement of Barak Obama and the NYT's endorsement of John McCain. One has the potential to actually add votes. The other has the potential to lose votes. Other than those two, endorsements help to make you feel good about your candidate, but do not sway votes.
I disagree with you about endorsements generally, but wouldn't you at least concede that endorsements by radio show hosts, such as Hewitt's support of Romney, make a difference?
"Do the day's work."
I don't think radio show endorsements rise to the level of changing votes. The discussions on those radio shows definitely change votes. The endorsements of those radio shows' hosts do not.
You mention Hugh Hewitt in your comment. Hugh Hewitt's barrage of pro-Romney dialogue has likely changed many people's votes (some for but mostly against Romney). However, I don't think his endorsement changed a single vote.
The NYT felt they had to stick it to Giuliani in NY and make McCain less likely to receive the nomination (yes, they are that smart in a devious sense).
Everyone on the left is afraid of McCain. Radio Republicans are doing the left a favor. I'm beginning to see an unholy alliance. Hillary or Obama would be better for ratings than McCain.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
ZERO repudiation. This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the military types that back McCain because the NYTs has been so strongly anti-military.
Link to McCain's site highlighting the endorsement:
http://johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/Read.aspx?guid=9487560...
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
It's not mentioned. Nor is the NYT listed on the page that highlights his endorsements. I have to give you credit for even finding the link, I couldn't.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
A press release with his name in it is on their site, and this what you refer to as highlighting? Just getting the terms right.
Here is Rudy highlighting the New York Times also: link
Here is Mitt highlighting the New York Times: link
Here is Huckabee highlighting the New York Times: link
Quick google search of each of their sites shows a number of additional cites.
Highlighting. Right.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
has yet to fail to pick the eventual Presidential winner and so many Republicans will take this as a sign he is the anti-Republican.
I guess we're going to get Obama for the next 4 years.
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan by default
1988: Bush
1992: Bush
1996: Dole
2000: Bush
2004: Bush by default
South Carolina picks winners and Presidents.
stephenm said
[quote]His name is John, not Fred.[/quote]
Here stephem let me fix this for you.
His name is Juan not John not Fred.
McCain Conservative? NOT! McCain Sell-Out more like it!
McCain’s “Hispanic Outreach Director”, Juan Hernandez, is the same guy who was a close advisor to Mexico’s President Vicente Fox! Hernandez headed up a Mexican bureaucracy called the “Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad.” It was designed to allow Hernandez to travel across the country, meddling with local, state, and federal immigration enforcement on behalf of millions of illegal aliens in America. U.S.-born dual citizen Juan Hernandez is notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think Mexico first.”
Does John McCain agree that they should always “think Mexico first?” With Hernandez as his “Hispanic Outreach Director”, who began serving last year, I don’t think there is any question. Is there any reason that anyone should think open borders fanatic Dr. Hernandez wants President McCain to secure the border? Is there any reason that anyone should trust a man to secure the border if he is getting his “Hispanic Outreach” advice from Dr. Juan Hernandez? Is there any reason why anyone should not think that John McCain is committed to giving amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens in America?
Two poignant quotes below are from his 2007 (propaganda) book, “The New American Pioneers”:
“There are twenty million people, like myself, who have one foot in Mexico and one foot in the United States, and we're very proud of it.”
“We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people."
Be aware John McCain supporters. One of his closest advisors is a globalist, open borders, illegal alien supporting, amnesty demanding dual citizen with his allegiance given to Mexico.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/john-mccains-open-borders-outreach-...
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/25/dr-juan-hernandez-has-joined-the-m...
Well Surprise, Surprise… It’s none other than open borders and amnesty for all Mel Martinez. Now all McShamnesty needs to complete the hat trick is Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy’s nod.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MCCAIN_MARTINEZ?SITE=TXSAE&SECTIO...
To call him anything other than John McCain, or better Senator McCain, discredits everything you write.
I was very surprised that New York Times chose to endorse John McCain. After he totally caved on the torture thing, I quit believing in the whole Straight Talk Express thing.
But the real reason that McCain should not have been endorsed by the Times is the fact he was tortured by the enemy for years in Vietnam. Torture is supposed to cause mental damage. Our government wants to use it regularly, so it must work.
Thats why L'étandard Sanglant says McCain deserves Our Gratitude, but Not our Endorsement.
Robert Lee Hotchkiss, Jr.
L'étandard Sanglant
That Kristol and Broder actually like him?
BTW, the NYT isn't really a liberal rag anymore, in case you haven't noticed.