NY Times Primary Choices: John McCain

New York Times ^ | January 25, 2008 | Editorial

[AlternateEgo]

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

[P-Marlowe]

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.

That's funny!

McCain is a small, angry fringe all by himself.

[Agent Smith]

If the NY Slimes endorsement doesn’t kill off McLame, nothing will.

[devolve]

.

OK

It’s good one to use

Popcorn gone but it helped tonight

[tanknetter]

The Times did it to hurt McCain, they WANT Hillary to win in November.

Funny thing is, I don't recall the NYT ever making an endorsement in a GOP POTUS primary. Did they in 2000, 1996, 1992 and 1988? (2000 being the most likely, since they seem to like McCain).

I believe that the NYT gets its marching orders on things like this from the Hillary! camp, so the endorsement needs to be viewed in the light that Hillary! and the Clintonistas think the NYT endorsing McCain is a benefit to them.

Personally, the NYT isn't going to have any say in my decision on a candidate. Period. One way or another. I'll make my decision based on which candidate I think would make the best President ... not based on some deconstruction of petty little psychology/reverse psychology games being played by the "All the News That Fits, We Print" newspaper.

[pogo101]

I disagree. The Stalinist Times should have picked Huckabee.

[umgud]

So, the NYT agrees with Rush.

Maybe I should have extended my comment to read; So, the NYT agrees with Rush, McCain is the least conservative of the field. Why else would the NYT have endorsed him?

[BillF]

New York Times said McC “promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe”

And yet somehow the same Bush beat the NYT endorsed Algore and John Kerry. Do you think the NYT might be bitter?

[devolve]

.

That I agree with

McCain hates Rush & FreeRepublic as much as the Klintoons do

McCain is about as conservative as Mayor Bloomie

His HS nickname was “McNasty”

Whatta guy!

[GATOR NAVY]

Translation: He’s the most Democrat of the Republicans.

Yep, that's basically what it said:

"Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."

[Norman Bates]

The McCain List.
Endorsements

Sen. McCain receives the New York state primary (Feb. 5) endorsement of the Times. For what it's worth, they make it quite clear they consider him a conservative and disagree with him on a range of issues.

[MeekOneGOP]

The New York Slimes. Always UNfair. Always IMbalancedbecile! :^D

[devere]

“I know people who appear relatively normal and nice, who actually read the NYT. I am confused.”

They have very good obituaries. Hopefully they will publish their own just before ceasing publication.

[Maynerd]

Sen. McCain receives the New York state primary (Feb. 5) endorsement of the Times. For what it's worth, they make it quite clear they consider him a conservative and disagree with him on a range of issues.

Makes you proud doesn't it? Yes sir, your boy is the kind of conservative that the NY Times editorial board loves.

If there is any logic and justice in the world, the NY Times endorsement should be the kiss of death for McCain.

[Norman Bates]

Not really. They were not exactly falling over themselves endorsing him.

[PhilDragoo]

[Maynerd]

They were not exactly falling over themselves endorsing him.

So it's a non-endorsement endorsement ? That's Clintonian spin.

Regardless, the NY Times and all that they stand for endorsed Mr. McCain.

For the record, I was reconsidering my contempt for McCain (arising from his opposition to Bush's tax cuts, McCain Feingold, lawyers for terrorists, etc) until his outrageous amnesty for illegals bill with Uncle Teddy Kennedy came out last spring. This past month I was almost ready to move on and forgive him, but the jackass latched on to the trendy idiocy of global warming. Carbon taxes etc are a perscription for recession, slow growth, and lower living standards.

I have concluded that McCain is beyond redemption and will hurt conservatism far more than help. Therefore Romney is the last man standing and will get my vote.

[potlatch]

I like it Phil. You are making larger ones now!

[Enchante]

WOW, so the DNC’s in-house propaganda rag endorses McCain, I mean WHAT A SURPRISE!!

The set of people worth respecting does not intersect at all with the set of people who could take seriously an endorsement from the leftist hacks of the NY Slimes.

[Norman Bates]

And what if by chance McCain weren’t running this cycle? I bet they would’ve reluctantly endorsed (Rudy, no. Huckabee, no. Thompson, no. Paul, no.) — Mitt Romney. Would that’ve been the end of him for you too?

“I have concluded that McCain is beyond redemption and will hurt conservatism far more than help.”

No, losing to Hillary Clinton will hurt conservatism far more than help. She will put SCOTUS out of reach... probably for all time.

I’m convinced Romney’s chances of winning are too small to roll the dice. McCain can win and gives me 85% of what I want. I’m satisfied with that.

[Maynerd]

I’m convinced Romney’s chances of winning are too small to roll the dice. McCain can win and gives me 85% of what I want. I’m satisfied with that.

McCain comes nowhere close to 85% in my book. Other than the WOT, I don't see much difference between McCain and Hillary.

I agree that Romney's national numbers are dismal. But it's early and I think Romney has a better chance next November, due to his ability to unite the party, outsider, telegenic, etc.; than McCain. A small but significant number of conervatives will not vote for McCain and he does not unite the Reagan coalition or motivate the base to do all the scut work required to win a campaign. McCain's age will be a handicap against Obama and to lesser extent Hillary.

I'd rather take my chances with a lower probability but higher quality candidate than the reverse.