Posted on 02/21/2008 5:12:52 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
File under Law of Unintended Consequences . . .
There has been significant speculation in the MSM that an upshot of the NYT's McCain piece could be to rally support for McCain from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh who heretofore have been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about the Arizona senator.
Typical was this exchange from today's Good Morning America, which followed an appearance by McCain campaign advisor Charlie Black.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Ummmmm. No.
That kissing liberal arse will get you zilch, ZERO, nada.
NYT stock prices Feb 2004 = $48.00
NYT stock price now = $18.00
Layoffs = 1,300
It doesn’t matter to the NYT what the facts are; they gotta sell newspapers or close up shop because they thought a liberal bias to the news would be a big seller and they were wrong.
Staphie (like a staph infection) is not even listed as former Clinton Admin official..which is what I do whenever I see one of them in the media and are never credited as such. Anyone who worked for a Republican is credited as such...
I think that the NYT article will be forgotten in a week.
At the very least, this will qualify as a Rush "I told you so!" story.
We knew the sweet-talk from the MSM would stop once McCain got the nomination.
McCain could be on fire while the New York Times poured gasoline on him and Rush wouldn’t come to his aid.
Apparently Seasoned logic has been replaced by wishful thinking in the journalistic community.
If so, it is all a meaningless charade. I am on record predicing that the talk show criticism for McCain is all for show. It is not to be taken seriously. It is mainly a response to appease their angry listeners. Hannity, Laura, and even Rush will shamelessly rally behind the GOP establishment candidate in a few months, as they always do. This is a little game that takes places periodically.
Wanna bet? Rush will rally to McCain before this is over. That was inevitable long before this happened. This is all a charade to appease listeners.
Didn’t the NYT endorse John McCain?
It might rally them to unite behind the phrase:
We told you so!
Clueless is a better word. The drive-bys just don't get it. They have no idea what it means to follow and stick to one's principles. Obviously, they have no principles or they would see that clearly.....
While I don’t want McCain for President, I certainly hope he can find a way to sue the socks off the Times for publishing this smear. (I know, dream on Miz...)
Just an observation: I notice that there is this McCain smear going on, as well as an even uglier one (whether true or not I don’t know, but badly sourced) aimed at Obama. And yet, nothing about Hillary? Do I need a tinfoil hat, or do I see Clinton fingerprints on these two smears?
(
I’m guessing both stories came from the same source. Think about who DIDN’T get smeared this week.
Bingo! It always seemed like a “set him up so we can take him down” kind of thing.
or hillary and huma
RE :”Didn’t the NYT endorse John McCain?”
HA_HA-HA-HA, Lesson to Republicans basking in liberal praise by opposing your party, your days of praise are limited. It’s so sweet it happened so soon!
I wonder if this strike against McCain is a way to innoculate Obama against the limo deal story. Now, if and when something comes out Obama, it will look like tit for tat.
true but I don’t think Huma is lobbying on behalf of the CCUA (Crack Cocaine Users Of America)...
I have no doubt that Sinclair was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.