It is common knowledge that papers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. are in the bag for the Democratic Party, especially the Progressive wing. That they have so successfully covered their own tracks with the help of the rest of the main stream media is not surprising when one acknowledges that a failure would place the media below whores and drug dealers on the scale of believability. Come to think about it, if a whore yelled fire in a crowded theatre people would run for the doors while simply pooh-poohing a reporter for interrupting the show. Such are the bastard children of Randolph Hearst.
I have always loved politics, especially campaigning or fighting in the trenches as many call it. Politics can be brutal and those that wish for a more civil political discourse are those that don't know history. Maybe they are the ones who do know history which causes them to believe pigs can fly and politicians won't act like humans do when on the edge or backed into a corner. A cornered rat has nothing over a cornered politician.
Having guided many candidates through the ridiculously contorted and disingenuousness of editorial boards I laugh when the media whines of back room deals and conspiracies of politicians though most of the whining is about evil Republicans and laudatory of "change" Democrats and the candor of their leadership. I believe they are just attributing their likeability of Democrats to speaking the same code. Such open Democrat presidents, such as FDR, JFK and William Jefferson Clinton were about as open as an after hours club during prohibition and just as sordid.
Enter the NYT's poorly written and poorly researched piece on John McCain. Was it a preemptive strike to diffuse the accusations of a rumor spreading through the blogs, gay publications and starting to percolate in smaller news outlets across the country? Nothing speaks headline when dealing with a politician involved in limos, drugs and homosexual trysts, but only if that politician is Republican. McCain, a lobbyist who is 31 years younger, trips to Florida and payola in the form of regulatory protection for her client is big tuna for the trolling media. True, the same media went after Gary Hart and his Monkey Shine business in Florida, but Hart was acceptable collateral damage because Hart was no real threat, but McCain could actually topple the Democrat dream team in 2008 thus he is the biggest tuna of this political deep sea hunt.
Is the story about Obama true? That isn't important. What is important is whether the press implies that it is true.
So, is the hit piece on McCain a preemptive strike on McCain because they are trying to protect Obama or is it a preemptive strike on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton? I don't know because I am not part of the campaign arm of the elite media.
I really wouldn't be surprised by either scenario. The only thing that would surprise me is if the media stopped being a bagman for the Democrat de jour running for office. So much for idealism in the hard cruel process of making the world a better place. Improving those that do not understand the need is an ugly business, but the New York Times believes themselves up to the task.
