We all know that John McCain will be running against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the Fall; and, whoever wins, expect their campaigns to hit John hard in speeches and in campaign advertising. You can also assume that the pro-Democratic "527" groups (special interest groups not directly affiliated with the Democratic Party) will be running ads to discredit McCain and benefit the Democrats and the Democratic Nominee. Not to be outdone, you can count on DNC (Democratic National Committee) to take their shots with negative ads against McCain and the Republicans. However, there is another pro-Democratic campaign nemesis that John McCain must contend with: The New York Times.
It appears that the New York Times is dead set on single-handedly defeating John McCain. Early on, they ran a piece about a possible affair with a female lobbyist; taking care to print the "hottest" picture of the woman that they could find. That story turned out to be both stale and without merit. As a result, the "Times" was publicly embarrassed by critics from all avenues of the news business. Even their own editor and their own ombudsman nailed them on this one (See Full Story). Undaunted, the Times has continued to pelt John McCain almost every week and sometimes twice a week on every questionable, two-bit topic and issue that they could "scrape" up.
Earlier this month, they wanted to make sure that you knew that John McCain had some prominent lobbyists as fund-raisers and implying (while never proving) that there "might" be an appearance of impropriety or, at the very least, an inconsistency with his hard stands on ethics (See Full Story). Back in February, they went after him on his age and stressed the importance of a younger running mate. Of course the true intent of that article was to "seed" a concern in the voter's minds about the fact that he would be, if elected, the oldest President ever. (See Full Story). In March, the Times thought it was important to remind you that John McCain had a bout with skin cancer. They seemed to be very concerned that people had forgotten this fact and weren't aware of the possibility that it could come back on him in the future (See Full Story). Again, in February, they went after him because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and they attempted to imply he wasn't actually a United States citizen and, subsequently, not eligible to run for President. Of course, this was another bogus story because he was born to the family of a U.S. Naval Officer who was stationed on United States property in the Panama Canal Zone; thus, making him a U.S. citizen (See Full Story). In another story in April, they found an obscure connection to an Arizona land developer. This "developer", who received an introductory letter from John McCain, was able to gain access to the U.S. Army and was ultimately able to buy and develop some unused government land. In the tradition of the "Times" versus McCain, this story, as usual, was strong on implications and weak on facts! (See Full Story) In addition, they ran an article about John McCain's supposed temper by referencing year's old accounts. (See Full Story). And, the list goes on and on. I am sure that these "attack articles" won't stop until the polls are closed in November and, hopefully for the Times, a Democrat is elected President.
In the latest attack, they have hit John McCain on the use of his wife's company's corporate jet. By the current Federal Election Committee rules, McCain can fly on his wife's jet all day long as if it were his own. But, if you listen to the Times, the ability to do so was stopped in December when the Federal Election Committee received the "recommendation" to rule against that activity. Unfortunately for the Times and fortunately for McCain, this is still just a recommendation and has never yet been adopted as an actual rule. But the Times wants you to believe that McCain is violating an election law. A law that doesn't even exist, yet. Isn't that just "so" like the New York Times! (See Full Story).
Investigative journalism is a good thing when done fairly and accurately. However, you might ask yourself why none of the above articles by the Times have reached a point of being a "legitimate" national concern about the electability of John McCain. That's because all of these stories are either "old news" or "no news" or "petty news" or, obviously, "biased news". The New York Times is not being even-handed with John McCain. Besides going after him on a regular weekly basis, they typically do it on the front page. His competitors, by contrast, get their "licks" somewhere within the bowels of that paper. This to me clearly shows a bias towards one political party over the other. They are not just trying to report the news but they are actively trying to slant the news. I guess that's why they have lost so many readers and have been hit so hard financially (See Full Story). Maybe, just maybe, some day, the old "Grey Lady" will actually abide by the words "fit to print" that appears their motto: "All the news that is fit to print!"