This was predictable; Vicki Iseman; John McCain; What is coming next?

The Cassandra Page ^ | 8/21/08

[1curiousmind]

It looks like we have been suckered again. The New York Times delays a lobbyist-scandal story until after McCain takes the lead (all the while endorsing McCain) and then slams McCain now that it is too late to nominate someone else.

I write this out of bitterness and sadness over this disaster that need not have happened. We had the opportunity to support people that the NY Times was not spoonfeeding to us - even after Thompson dropped out. But we took the bait and now the Times has dropped the hammer, just like the polls that suddenly did a 180 last week.

I don't blame the NY Times. We know what the NY Times is and what it does. We should be used to it. [We don't get mad at crocodiles when we swim in the swamp.] I also don't blame the Republicans that have abandoned McCain. That was predictable, having happened many times in Republican primaries over the past 60 years after moderates were foisted on the party by the establishment. I blame those of us who jumped on the McCain bandwagon when Thompson dropped out, thinking McCain was "electable" based on polls or on the fact that the NY Times hadn't torn him a new one yet. You have all but handed the White House to Obama and gift-wrapped Iraq to either (1) Iran or (2) Al Qaeda [or both].

As bloggers, we have become good at remembering what happened yesterday. Let's try to apply that same technique to primary voting in the future (if there is one).

[1curiousmind]

Many on FR saw this coming. Not a surprise at all. I'm reluctantly voting for McCain...very reluctantly.

[alecqss]

I’m voting McCain, too, and don’t be overly upset - the NYT (and left in general) would dispatch dirt to any Republican candidate no matter how lame and/or thin dirt is.

And this particular portion was very lame and very thin.

[1curiousmind]

agreed, very lame attempt. we’ll see if its only the first of many more to come.

[loreldan]

The NY Times endorsed McCain and Hillary. My question is, now that Obama is likely to be the nominee, who is the Times going to endorse in the general election? Of course, they will endorse Obama. So how will they explain that they are endorsing Obama (who they originally didn’t endorse) over McCain (who they originally did)? Basically they’ll be saying that they’ll take their worst Democrat choice over their best Republican choice, while proclaiming their objectivity with a straight face.