The New York Times has launched a full-scale attack campaign against John McCain and in so doing, revealed their liberal agenda for all to see! It’s the clearest example of their bias since they published MoveOn.org’s "General Betray Us" ad...Why wasn’t this story published previously?
If you're infuriated by this failing liberal news organization’s desperate attempt to tar and feather the Republican front-runner by dredging up 8 year-old allegations, take quick action and do something about it
Join our MRC Action Team and help bury the NY Times with thousands of angry emails and phone calls.
Let them know that conservative voices have not--and will not be silenced during this election. Tell them we won’t allow these attacks rooted in innuendo to go unchallenged; and urge the editors to retract the story!
As part of our multiple-pronged-strategy, the MRC wants to deliver 50,000 petitions to the NY Times Monday morning--demanding an end to liberal media bias in election coverage!
Sign up. It might help your blood pressure.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Rein her in there cowboy before you put the spurs in
February 21, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Lame CherryThe above appeal is wrong. To incite ANGRY letters is playing exactly into the liberals hands and it is really not adult or well thought out.
Inform people so inclined to create short, to the point, intelligent and cutting remarks such as,
Dear New York Times,
Publishing stories without factual evidence backing up what is printed is akin to the National Enquirer. I had no idea that the old Grey Lady was auditioning to become the old Grey Tart of the International Slanderer.
Senator McCain and this American nation deserves a fair election process and not one of smears to generate tabloid yellow journalism.
If you do not have the evidence it is not NEWS.
Thank you for your time. From a happy, pleased and well educated Conservative Republican.
God bless you.
LC
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
there is no need to do this
February 21, 2008 - 13:58 ET by TruthMongerthere is no need to do this - the NYT is already a joke - like the enquirer of old
libs know how to bait, the NYT probably wants this angry reaction
I'm Not Signing
February 21, 2008 - 17:24 ET by zeestephenSorry, NewsBusters.
Let McCain pull his own chestnuts out of the fire. Or better yet, ask the "Reach Across The Aisle" blog to help him out. I mean, this guy has courted the NYT's support on a half dozen anti-Conservative issues, and now Conservatives are supposed to help defend McCain when he's jilted by his left wing pals?
Holy Smokes, NewsBusters. Call an editorial meeting. You guys have lost your minds!
TM..Remember the Shut down of the Amnesty Bill ?
February 21, 2008 - 17:30 ET by JayTeeVolume speaks....the more the outrage, the more the NYTimes rethinks it's position....Do you want to wait till 30 days before the Election before any outrage as the NYT once again pulls the trigger on a nominee ?
Now is the time to Fire warning shots at them....and you may be correct...but it just feels good sometimes to take Target practice.
New York Times
February 21, 2008 - 14:35 ET by allanfI think informed and objective people recognize the New York Times for what it is -- an ultra-liberal arm of the Democrat party. A purveyor of political correctness and silly left wing fads. It is little different now from Media Matters.
Readers and subscribers have voted with their pocket books. I grew up in New York Times and read the paper every day for almost 35 years. I stopped subscribing when its rather obvious attempts to use the news pages to influence opinion grew too grating.
The Times is the perfect example of the old adage: "The way to get perfectly satisfied customers is to never address their concerrns". That's because the dissatisfied ones (like me) will leave.
The Times is left now with mostly loyal and left wing readers who inhabit the Upper West Side of New York City and other progressive areas. Those folks will only be encouraged by MRC complaints.
A total financial collapse is more likely for these folks than a return to decent editorial standards.
Considering the cirulation numbers
February 21, 2008 - 14:28 ET by FastEdof the aged, in the red lady, this COULD be an attempt to get new readers. Problem being, as someone said yesterday, libs don't read, they watch tv. Any response to the new yellow tabloid would mean "readership" to them and they will continue supplying us with bird cage liners, instead of going away.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Great Idea - don't write them off
February 21, 2008 - 14:33 ET by Dee BunkThis is a great idea and we all need to make ourselves heard. Lazy conservatives (myself included) are the biggest problem. We don't write and call enough to these left wing rags. Liberals do it on a regular basis.
You can't just say that no one trusts the NYT anymore that isn't true. Conservatives don't but Liberals and Independents still do.
The least everyone can do is send an e-mail. It takes very little effort to do that.
Rumor has it
February 21, 2008 - 14:49 ET by sarcasmoThat The New Republic (which would never publish a politically-timed hit-piece, I'm sure!!!) was about to publish an expose' on the NYT's non-publication of this story way-back-when, and that's what's actually behind the NYT's decision to publish, so maybe TNR should be the targets of the MRC's wrath?
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
McCain repeatedly stabs
February 21, 2008 - 14:56 ET by NBFMcCain repeatedly stabs conservatives in the back and now we are supposed to rush to his aid?
I think I have to go watch my fingernails grow.
How does one defend
February 21, 2008 - 15:04 ET by sarcasmoSomething like this?? Even if I were inclined-to, which I'm obviously-not, the logical leaps required as times go-by & campaign-finance-positions change 180 degrees defy ordinary minds like mine...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc - so one thing is clear - both Obama and McCain
February 21, 2008 - 15:21 ET by Dee Bunkare opportunist politicians who probably won't stick to their words and "principals" when their is nothing in it for them.
Obama is definitely the one more influenced by the far wako wing of his party and will be forever beholden to them. If Obama wins, Hollywood and Trust fund babies decide what's best for all of us.
I hate political welfare
February 21, 2008 - 15:28 ET by sarcasmoAnd I wish my position were a majority position. I'm becoming convinced it's not, though. Political welfare (under a variety of less-honest names, of course) is generally quite popular these days in the USA.
As with things like rape or turds in punchbowls, it's not an area that's conducive to useful compromise. For me, forced speech is the antithesis of free speech. I'll fight it with all I've got, as long as I'm not in a cage.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
NBF - it's not about helping McCain - it's about holding the
February 21, 2008 - 15:05 ET by Dee Bunkmedia accountable.
Then again...
February 21, 2008 - 15:29 ET by sarcasmoShouldn't your target really be TNR rather than the usual NYT? Or at least, both??
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I don't like TNR either but I'm not seeing how they did anything
February 21, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Dee Bunkwrong. If they would have actually printed it then yes, it would be the same thing. A smear job on McCain still even if it was thinly disguised as the smear of a competitor. The Times could have easily and rightfully defended themselves saying that they don't print every rumor.
They don't print every rumor even when it comes to conservatives. They are 100 times more likely to print an unsubstantiated rumor on a Republican then a Dem, but even the NYT can't print every rumor.
This sounds much more like an attempt at the scoop rather than a defense of their past behavior.
Well, the backstory
February 21, 2008 - 15:56 ET by sarcasmoAs I understand it, was that TNR's rumored forthcoming piece about the NYT's non-decision effectively caused the NYT to publish a crappy and largely unsupported sex-story they'd seemingly otherwise killed a while ago for lack of support.
My take on the actual story is this. It's about lobbying, not sex. Even assuming no-sex-at-all (and let's assume that in this comment, please!) it's enough to give me a bit of the willies that he'd be that close as just friends to a telecom-lobbyist, especially during that era, especially since he now runs as an anti-corruption "fiscally responsible" guy. The Keating 5 thing was bad-enough...
The problem is, human beings pay very little attention to fiscal corruption and we pay very much attention to sexual corruption. Media outlets like TNR and the NYT know this all too well.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc - Is Obama Sleeping with Oprah?
February 21, 2008 - 16:11 ET by Dee BunkI want to talk about sex! Darn it all anyway! ; )
So will the NYT and the rest of the media Report on Obama's Resco Scandal and the current Abramoff one if someone starts an unsubstantiated rumor that he had an affair with one of their wives?
I also consider the Rich Billionaire supposed "philanthropists" to be lobbyists as well as the Hollywood Millionaire and Billionaires so maybe someone should start a rumor that Obama is sleeping with Oprah.
Oops! I guess I just did that. Let's see if it gets picked up : )
You got it.
February 21, 2008 - 16:14 ET by sarcasmoIn order to tell ANY fiscal story, there must be at least a rumor of sex, or people will not read to the end. In fact, that might be one of the problems with the corruption-story I mention in my sigfile to annoy the irresponsible TV media. No sex = no coverage. Who cares if someone may have sold US nuke-secrets, cheap, to our enemies?? "If there's no prospect of reading about screwin', then I'm not reading it!" ;)
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc - so what do you think about Obama sleeping with Oprah?
February 21, 2008 - 16:27 ET by Dee BunkIsn't it a little strange coincidence that she just ended a 21 year relationship at a time when she is fawning over Obama?
Regarding your FBI scandal. I can only guess that they haven't reported it because they haven't found a way to blame it on Bush yet. They certainly had no problems reporting everything Richard Clark or Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson said and all of their bogus unsubstantiated claims had nothing to do with sex.
I agree with you for the most part that sex sells but when it comes to republican scandals anything goes. It's not the same for dem ones.
I asked this question in
February 21, 2008 - 16:19 ET by motherbeltI asked this question in another thread, but maybe no one will see it because it's way down on the page now:
It's a lobbyist's job to try to influence legislators, right? And it's legal, right?
So what's the point here? If he acted according to her client's
interest, that's wrong? Or is it only wrong if he acted in her client's
interest because he had a thing for her? Would it be OK to act in her
client's interest if he disliked her? And if he did dislike her, would it be ethical to act against her client's interest because he didn't like the lobbyist?
Am I missing something?
MB - had you heard about how Oprah and Obama's secret
February 21, 2008 - 16:32 ET by Dee Bunkrelationship?
I agree with you that it's legal and shouldn't be anymore of a story than the candidates relationship with Hollywood, rock stars and other Liberal Lobbyists like George Soros and Warren Buffet and the trust fund babies and spouses.
Mother, you obviously missed
February 21, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Hunter12Mother, you obviously missed the "R" for party affiliation following McCain's name on the senate rolls. Don't feel too bad, I think he sometimes misses it himself. McCain (R-Arizona) is totally at fault and 100% guilty. Not only should he concede the presidential race to Obama, he should give Barack all the money he has raised to date, not to the Obama for President campaign, but to Mr. Obama personally. Then he should resign from the Senate, force the governor of Arizona to appoint a democrat to replace him, travel home, go out into the desert, and shoot himself. He isn't required to kill himself, but it should be more than a flesh wound, maybe something in the upper thigh. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) can continue to garner a personal fortune for himself and his family by catering to every developer and lobbyist that crosses his path with a buck. It's a fine distinct, but Reid has a "D" for party affiliation and McCain has an "R". Maybe McCain's is a faded "R", but he's guilty nonetheless.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Ok, this will annoy everyone, but
February 21, 2008 - 17:04 ET by sarcasmoI think this Drew Clark guy who did the research back to 2000 has it right (it takes a few minutes to read it all, though. Warning: there's no sex involved!). ;)
"Bud" Paxson's obvious lobbying effect on John McCain is one of those "practice what you preach" issues, akin to Kennedy hypocrisy on offshore tax havens. John McCain has run as "Mr. Clean" on "campaign reform," and this kind of contrasting behavior makes for a good story, even though it would be better with some sex. (Disclaimer: I once worked on "Bud" Paxson's old yacht with my old boss for a few hours back when I lived in St. Pete, and let's just say she's not exactly a small ship, and his new one's even-bigger!)
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc... It didn't annoy
February 21, 2008 - 17:18 ET by bigtimersarc...
It didn't annoy me, the hypocrisy with McCain regarding this issue is going to be coming out more and more IMHO.
I hope the Drew Clark blog
February 21, 2008 - 17:23 ET by sarcasmoIllustrates why I think these decisions would be better done in open markets. And from the story, I don't think markets could have done a worse job on 9/11 than the present political/regulatory system did.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I see your point. It's not
February 21, 2008 - 17:30 ET by motherbeltI see your point. It's not so much an issue of legality as it is one of hypocrisy, right?
I remember now, McCain railing against all the "special interests" who were "corrupting" the process.
He should have gone with the "lobbying is legal" line. LOL
Another holier-than-thou politician hoist on his own petard.
Sarc, BT and MB - there is no doubt that McCain listens to
February 21, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Dee BunkLobbyists, but so does Obama. There was an article that listed McCain as second to only Hillary in lobbyist money but he had the most lobbyists working in his campaign.
They don't consider Hollywood and many other rich liberals Lobbyists and they should. They are no different. If they included them then Obama would probably be ahead of McCain.
Like MB mentioned before, Lobbying is legal. It's only demonized when it comes from conservatives. All Dems and Reps take money from anyone who will give it to them. The lobbyists give the most money to the people who they think yield the most power.
Dee, I think sarc's point
February 21, 2008 - 19:57 ET by motherbeltDee, I think sarc's point (and he does have one) is that while the others took lobbyists' money, McCain appears to be the only one who was decrying the institution while benefitting from it. That's why I think he should have stuck with the "lobbying is legal" line.
This discussion now has brought back a lot of memories which I haven't thought about in ages. McCain infuriated me for a long time with his "we are all tainted by it" line. My thought at the time was, OK, Senator, if you are corrupted, then resign. If you know that a bunch of others are corrupt, name them. But no, he wanted to put all the blame on the lobbyists. He wanted to talk about "corruption" without saying that anyone was corrupt. They were all "tainted" by the "corrupt" process, but no one was actually guilty of corruption. What a bunch of B as in B, S as in S.
I know McCain is a hypocrite but so is Obama
February 21, 2008 - 22:36 ET by Dee BunkThat's my only point. Obama complains about Lobbyists and earmarks and he's used both and he's only a Jr. Senator. That idealism sure faded quick in his case. It's a joke.
At least McCain hasn't used earmarks.
Email sent, blood pressure
February 21, 2008 - 15:03 ET by RickTaLifeEmail sent, blood pressure slowly coming down. :-)
Hit 'em where it counts...in the pocketbook
February 21, 2008 - 15:56 ET by timotheI was angry at the New York Times earlier this week because of the article I read in the Dallas Morning News, attributed to the NYT, about how Pakistan's election results were a rebuke to the United States because they were voting against Musharraf's party. My contention with that article was the inability of the New York Times to see that the Pakastani's 1.) had an election 2.) voter turnout was 40% despite death threats to voters 3.) new regime may be even more friendly to the US than the old regime.
So my plan was to write the Dallas Morning News, asking them to stop subscribing to the New York Times news service as it is not news, but rather, commentary. And the commentary always has a liberal bent, which takes away from the credibility of a mostly fair newspaper.
So now, I will simply add the McCain story, which was also run in the Dallas Morning News...towards the back of the first section, to my rant. I will also point out their liberal editorial on the Pakastani situation as well.
Not sure I am totally comfortable with the "Action Effort" idea.
February 21, 2008 - 17:18 ET by R D HelmI am certainly no fan of McCain's, and to be bluntly honest here, it would cause me no distress whatsoever if his campaign were to somehow implode between now and September. While I do believe the conduct on the part of the NYT in publishing this sub-tabloid-quality attack was reprehensible and then some, I am not sure that a canned, mass response on the part of conservatives is the proper course of action. Particularly one that contains "talking points."
My fear is that this will be merely reinforcing the false assertion on the part of the left that we conservatives are nothing more than mind-numbed robots who are simply doing someone else's bidding, much like Rush Limbaugh fans are incessantly accused of being. I think individual responses are more than adequate in this situation, and will probably carry a little more pop, as well.
LOL-And, as soon as I create an email address that the NYT hasn't actually blocked, I am going to send them one, too!
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
A friend of mine
February 21, 2008 - 18:17 ET by timotheAnyone who has had their email addresses blocked by the New York Times is a friend of mine. Bravo!!
timothe, I don't think they like me very much.
February 21, 2008 - 19:40 ET by R D HelmHeartbreaking, that is. :-)
Those who hop in bed with Ted should not expect the votes of those who supported Fred.
Defend McCain? Are You Kidding Me?
February 21, 2008 - 20:12 ET by PopularTechDid McCain make any of these promises yet?
McCain needs to sign the following:
1. I will not raise any Taxes
2. I will not implement a Cap and Trade system, Carbon Taxes or any other global warming regulation to cripple the economy
3. I will not sign any Amnesty or Comprehensive Immigration reform legislation
4. I will build the Border Fence and secure the border
5. I will only appoint Strict Constructionist Judges
6. I will not close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp or move any detainees to the United States where they can receive legal representation from groups like the ACLU.
When he does get back to me about defending him.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Dittos Pledge to not
February 21, 2008 - 21:16 ET by Free StinkerDittos
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Alright, I will write the
February 21, 2008 - 23:10 ET by ConservativeRexAlright, I will write the NYT. It's fish wrap anyway, only really read by Manhattenites. Once again, we as Conservatives will come to the aid of our Party. By coming to the aid of Party we also aid our country.
We must do everything to keeps the Obama's out of the White House. Or this country is in for a rough time.
McCain Smear
February 21, 2008 - 23:31 ET by byrneyYou don't have to be angry or vulgar. This is what I sent. What is the alternative, B. Hussein Obama? Enjoy the burkas.
As a member of the MRCAction Team, I am outraged by your obvious political bias, which you demonstrate every day. This time you crossed the line. To use anonymous sources for a story to destroy a presidential candidate is beyond the pale. If he was a Democrat, the sound of crickets would be deafening.
Why would you endorse a man for President if you knew this smear was in the works? Maybe so the story would be so much more important?
You should retract this story and issue an apology to your readers and to John McCain. You should also stop showing your bias so blatantly and try to be more "fair and balanced." I won't hold my breath.