( I cannot stand the New York Times )
Posted on 03/08/2008 6:32:12 AM PST by jdm
Well, I know that people have waited for John McCain to blow his top on the campaign trail, but if this is what they wanted, I think those folks are in for some disappointment. The New York Times and other news agencies have passed this around the blogosphere as some sort of eruption, but I’ve seen priests with less equanimity during Mass than this:
VIDEO: McCain, Why Are You So Angry?
I agree with Michelle about learning a lesson in dealing with the mainstream media. Obviously Elizabeth Bumiller wanted to trip his circuits; she pulls out a story in 2004 about the invitation from John Kerry to join his ticket, hoping to get a reaction. She’s not looking out for his best interests, quite obviously, but trying to be deliberately provocative. After all, wouldn’t that be a question to ask before he had sewn up the nomination?
But his reaction seems rather mild, under the circumstances. He’s annoyed, sure, but hardly spitting and cursing. By the time she asks “Why are you so angry?”, the question is so inappropriate that he asks her to repeat it — and she declines, hopefully out of embarrassment.
Interestingly, the Times now has tried twice to get his goat, and for the second time, they’ve wound up with egg on their face.
The staff at the Slimes are a bunch of feckless idiots.
( I cannot stand the New York Times )
Note: for the more volatile and reactionary freepers, this is not proof that I am a McCain devotee. I hardly know anything about him.
A couple of things are becoming clear, as I posted elsewhere: the glandular enthusiasm of the clinton generation for obama is doomed to flaccidity.
That leaves the ice queen and John McCain.
Reckoncile yourselves to that.
The reporter was asking about things I want to know more about. If McCain is a traitor to the Republicans, the RNC needs to disqualify his candidacy and if that doesn’t happen, the delegates need to do the right thing.
I saw the video. No, he did not “blow up”, a better description would be to say he was “seething”. I heard somewhere that he had earlier said that there was no such discussion between himself and Kerry. Am I correct about that? I really don’t know, but do remember hearing that on television.
It does seem that the reporter had expected the conversation to unfold differently. With that in mind, she had the “Why are you so angry?” question all cocked and loaded. But things didn’t work out (he didn’t get angry) and as the conversation dribbled into nothing, she misfired and asked the question anyway. What a dud. What an obvious agenda.
If there is a candidate capable of blowing her top it is Hillary. She is a seething volcano and her snide and smarmy demeanor is a sign of what's beneath. She is perfectly capable of cursing out staff and throwing ashtrays and lamps at Bill.
>> But his reaction seems rather mild, under the circumstances. He’s annoyed, sure, but hardly spitting and cursing.
I’m no big McCain fan, but I have to agree. Nothing but a cheap attempt to trap him. It’s like the reporter decided this was going to make him lose his temper and she wasn’t going to have it any other way.
You want to know more about it? Look at the NYT story from 2004 where Kerry's campaign approached McCain as a possible VP running mate. McCain told them no way.
So now you know.
“If McCain is a traitor to the Republicans, the RNC needs to disqualify his candidacy and if that doesn’t happen, the delegates need to do the right thing.”
___________________________________________________________
Because Kerry asked him to be his VP, and McCain said “categorically no” you feel that makes him a traitor to the Republicans? You’ve just exibited one of the symptoms of MDS (McCain Derangement Syndrome).
The media will continue to try and antagonize McPain ... they know he has a reputation for having a nasty temper.
They will succeed ... it's a given.
If I was a reporter covering McCain, I'd be asking him the same questions regarding his flirtation with Kerry that the NYT reporter was asking. Would you be proud of McCain if he didn't give me a straight answer also?
I'd also ask McCain to prove that John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Vets For Truth are dishonest and dishonorable as he claims. Republicans should be demanding answers from McCain, not cheering him when he obfuscates.
I meant to ping you to the above McCain transcript.Post # 15
It will be better if they don't.
But I agree, that's what the whole "affair" story was about.
I'm really tired of the media literally being devil's advocate. really tired of it.
I don’t know. I looked at the video twice, and he didn’t look angry to me. Forceful, in charge, determined, dare I say it? - presidential.
While I may have just missed it in previous reporting, yesterday was the first time that I heard that Kerry and McCain had a one-on-one conversation regarding the VP slot. Up until now, I was under the impression that the offer and its rejection were only discussed through surrogates.
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.