Michael Gaynor
Times slimes, time to back Mac
By Michael Gaynor
With McCain the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and First Lady hopeful Michelle Obama having publicly spoken the truth about having lived more than half of her 44 years without being really proud of America, it was time for The Times to deflect attention from what the Obamas are really like by raising character questions about McCain.
If Senator John McCain ever thought The New York Times really was with him, or even would treat him fairly, he learned otherwise as a result of the hideous hit piece on him that The Times just pronounced "news fit to print."
Senator, The Times supported McCain-Feingold because it increased the relative power of the major media in general and The Times in particular. It takes all it can get, and then tries to get more.
The Times could have printed the scurrilous story last December, but that would have prejudiced McCain's chance for the Republican nomination and The Times did not want the Republicans to nominate Mitt Romney instead.
With McCain the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and First Lady hopeful Michelle Obama having publicly spoken the truth about having lived more than half of her 44 years without being really proud of America, it was time for The Times to deflect attention from what the Obamas are really like by raising character questions about McCain.
For patriotic Americans, the targeting of McCain by The Times is a huge wake up call.
To be sure, McCain has become more liberal instead of more conservative over time and made some big mistakes in "reaching across the aisle" to craft compromises, but compared to whomever the Democrats will nominate to run against him, he's the conservative.
If America is to maintain its preeminence in the world and prevail over the Islamo-fascists, it's obvious that McCain has to beat the Democrat presidential nominee, especially if it's the unscrutinized rookie United States Senator, Barack Hussein Obama.
Like The Times, Barack is hugely invested in United States intervention in Iraq being perceived as a mistake.
For the United States, however, succeeding surely would be best and failing would be catastrophic.
The Times' despicable determination to MAKE that intervention a failure instead of a success explains both its lack of scrutiny of the Obamas and its sliming of McCain.
Fact: McCain was right about The Surge, not The Times and Barack.
In June 2006, in "Is The New York Times Too Powerful to Prosecute?", I wrote: "The New York Times has behaved irresponsibly before, but did it behave criminally (even treasonously) when it published a front page article with this lead sentence: 'Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials?."
I further asked: "Didn't The Times know before it disclosed that financing is essential to the enemy, monitoring the enemy's financing helps the United States and publicizing the fact that the United States government was monitoring financial transactions outside the United States would give aid and comfort to the enemy by serving as a warning to proceed differently?"
The answer was obvious, of course.
As I put it then:
"The very article in which The Times disclosed reads like a confession of guilt:
"Administration officials...asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.
"Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: 'We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.'"
Now The Times purports to be convinced that unsubstantiated eight-year old rumors that McCain had an improper relationship with a (female) lobbyist needs to be reported.
What blatant bias!
If there was proof, wouldn't The Times have provided it in its front page article?The Times have issued a similar report suggesting that Barack had an improper relationship with one of the students whom he lectured on constitutional law?
Certainly not!
Yet without proof The Times resorted to insidious innuendo, in the hope of discrediting McCain and boosting his eventual Democrat opponent!
Where's the investigative report on Barack's familial ties to Kenyan radicals, complete with photos of unsuccessful Kenyan presidential candidate (and Barack cousin) Raila Odinga together in both the United States and Kenya and the bio of Odinga reporting that his father was a Kenyan Marxist who sent him to EAST Germany to be educated during the Cold War and his adulation of Fidel Castro, for whom he named his first child?
Since The Times was willing to do what former United States Attorney General Ed Meese not only did not shrink from describing what as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," by disclosing the CIA and Treasury Department's tracking of al Qaeda's financial transactions (after disclosing the existence of the National Security Agency's secret program to track al Qaeda communications and the logging of phone records), thereby putting the enemy on notice in wartime, it's not surprising that The Timeschose to slime McCain, lest he win the Presidency and an honorable peace.
It's time to back Mac!
© Michael Gaynor
With McCain the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and First Lady hopeful Michelle Obama having publicly spoken the truth about having lived more than half of her 44 years without being really proud of America, it was time for The Times to deflect attention from what the Obamas are really like by raising character questions about McCain.
If Senator John McCain ever thought The New York Times really was with him, or even would treat him fairly, he learned otherwise as a result of the hideous hit piece on him that The Times just pronounced "news fit to print."
Senator, The Times supported McCain-Feingold because it increased the relative power of the major media in general and The Times in particular. It takes all it can get, and then tries to get more.
The Times could have printed the scurrilous story last December, but that would have prejudiced McCain's chance for the Republican nomination and The Times did not want the Republicans to nominate Mitt Romney instead.
With McCain the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and First Lady hopeful Michelle Obama having publicly spoken the truth about having lived more than half of her 44 years without being really proud of America, it was time for The Times to deflect attention from what the Obamas are really like by raising character questions about McCain.
For patriotic Americans, the targeting of McCain by The Times is a huge wake up call.
To be sure, McCain has become more liberal instead of more conservative over time and made some big mistakes in "reaching across the aisle" to craft compromises, but compared to whomever the Democrats will nominate to run against him, he's the conservative.
If America is to maintain its preeminence in the world and prevail over the Islamo-fascists, it's obvious that McCain has to beat the Democrat presidential nominee, especially if it's the unscrutinized rookie United States Senator, Barack Hussein Obama.
Like The Times, Barack is hugely invested in United States intervention in Iraq being perceived as a mistake.
For the United States, however, succeeding surely would be best and failing would be catastrophic.
The Times' despicable determination to MAKE that intervention a failure instead of a success explains both its lack of scrutiny of the Obamas and its sliming of McCain.
Fact: McCain was right about The Surge, not The Times and Barack.
In June 2006, in "Is The New York Times Too Powerful to Prosecute?", I wrote: "The New York Times has behaved irresponsibly before, but did it behave criminally (even treasonously) when it published a front page article with this lead sentence: 'Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials?."
I further asked: "Didn't The Times know before it disclosed that financing is essential to the enemy, monitoring the enemy's financing helps the United States and publicizing the fact that the United States government was monitoring financial transactions outside the United States would give aid and comfort to the enemy by serving as a warning to proceed differently?"
The answer was obvious, of course.
As I put it then:
"The very article in which The Times disclosed reads like a confession of guilt:
"Administration officials...asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.
"Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: 'We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.'"
Now The Times purports to be convinced that unsubstantiated eight-year old rumors that McCain had an improper relationship with a (female) lobbyist needs to be reported.
What blatant bias!
If there was proof, wouldn't The Times have provided it in its front page article?The Times have issued a similar report suggesting that Barack had an improper relationship with one of the students whom he lectured on constitutional law?
Certainly not!
Yet without proof The Times resorted to insidious innuendo, in the hope of discrediting McCain and boosting his eventual Democrat opponent!
Where's the investigative report on Barack's familial ties to Kenyan radicals, complete with photos of unsuccessful Kenyan presidential candidate (and Barack cousin) Raila Odinga together in both the United States and Kenya and the bio of Odinga reporting that his father was a Kenyan Marxist who sent him to EAST Germany to be educated during the Cold War and his adulation of Fidel Castro, for whom he named his first child?
Since The Times was willing to do what former United States Attorney General Ed Meese not only did not shrink from describing what as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," by disclosing the CIA and Treasury Department's tracking of al Qaeda's financial transactions (after disclosing the existence of the National Security Agency's secret program to track al Qaeda communications and the logging of phone records), thereby putting the enemy on notice in wartime, it's not surprising that The Timeschose to slime McCain, lest he win the Presidency and an honorable peace.
It's time to back Mac!
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
