Posted on 02/27/2008 1:59:16 PM PST by murron
I have come under some criticism for my criticism of the New York Times for its criticism of Sen. John McCain. Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that Sen. McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist.
L.O.L. Oh sure!....The bird cage times does a two step.
It’s a riot to now watch these apologists for the Slimes squirm around like bait dirtworms when you open the lid.
They opened the lid themselves!
Actually a readable Kinsley article. Whoda thunk it.
Yes, isn’t it funny that it’s not an article about an affair with a lobbyist, but that fact is mentioned too many times to count. That’s all the media has been focused on. Just like the Hillary camp repeatedly saying that they weren’t making an issue of Obama’s past drug use, even though they couldn’t stop talking about it.
"The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. . . . To be absolutely clear: the Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair, or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair . . .
"Similarly, I am not accusing the New York Times of screwing up again by publishing an insufficiently sourced article then defending itself with a preposterous assertion that it wasn't trying to imply what it obviously was trying to imply. I am merely reporting that some people worry that other people might be concerned that the New York Times has created the appearance of screwing up once again." LOL.
Michael Kinsley, funny? It is simply not possible. There must be some deep subtle point here that I missed. Liberals don’t laugh.
Priceless. And it manages to kill two birds with one stone.
1. Pinch Sulzberger and his flunkies are prevaricating liars.
2. McCain is corrupt.
Sorry Michael,
I saw your hate-filled column in the current Time Magazine.
methinks thou doth protest too much.
LOL. Kinsley is a lefty for sure, but he’s on the money on this one.
Another funny editorial here too.
After reading the Times report, I am sure that it was worded in a way to mislead the reader into assuming that John McCain was involved in some personal way with that female lobbyist.
I recommend this one for laughs too: The ecstasy of Barack Obama
I’d like a story from the NYTimes about how Obama’s campaign is advising him to avoid any scandal about the gay Larry Sinclair/crack story. At least it would be current — to find out if Obama is on the “down low” or not.
And, in related story, about how the Clinton campaign got Chinese lobbyists illegally for their 1996 bid. Or how Hillary’s advisors are handling her own gay Huma situation.
That’s the real “news that’s fit to print”.
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.