Redstate

Posted at 12:51pm on May 4, 2008 Gray Lady strikes out with McCain?

Why does the campaign even bother?

By Soren Dayton

We know the stories. First, the New York Times runs an empty story about a lobbyist. They embarass themselves with no substance. Then one of their reporters attacks him on the plane and invokes his temper. Whiff again. Then they try something with some local project, and it demonstrates the cravenness of the environment lobby.

Well, they are at it again. But, as Ed points out, they are, at least, putting it on the editorial page. They are attacking him for not releasing all of his health records. Check out this pathetic hit job:

Senator John McCain is 71 years old, a survivor of an aggressive form of skin cancer. If elected, he would be the oldest man to become president.

These factors are not disqualifying, but they impose on Mr. McCain a larger duty than usual to provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health. So far, he has failed to meet this obligation to voters, even though he is now the presumed Republican nominee. ...

The McCain campaign says it will make his health documents available and arrange for follow-up questioning of the candidate’s doctors on May 23.

Lemme guess how this played out. NYT wanted to write a (hit) piece on this. They asked for more details on his health. The McCain campaign responded with a solid date, something that the campaign is very accountable for, and then they New York Times attacked anyways.

Why does the campaign even bother with the NYT? Their readership is collapsing. Their reporters like Rutenberg and Bumiller are embarrassing the paper and demonstrably lowering its standards. Why even invite them on the bus and plane anymore. The campaign doesn't invite the DNC, why its surrogate?

Posted in 2008 | John McCain | Media Bias | The New York Times — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:39pm on Apr. 21, 2008 Kinda Like That "Parallel Public Financing System"

By Dan McLaughlin

The NY Times on the "Millionaires' Amendment" case:

On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear a legal challenge to the so-called millionaires’ amendment. It should uphold Congress’s modest effort to help candidates who rely on outside contributions to get their messages out to the voters.

Posted in bcra | mccain-feingold | Sigh. I Guess I'm For McCain. | The Courts | The New York Times — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:44pm on Apr. 11, 2008 More fair coverage from the New York Times

By Soren Dayton

Today, the New York Times wrote a whole story about Colin Powell not saying bad things about Barack Obama. The same day, they run another hit piece on John McCain about housing. No wonder, the lefty nutjobs are going to spend $40m because the press has "fallen down on the job." What are they looking for? After all, the New York Times already runs fact-free stories attacking McCain.

Read on for a review of this morning's coverage.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | John McCain | Media Bias | The New York Times — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:34am on Apr. 10, 2008 NYT's Bumiller writes unsourced hit piece on McCain

By Soren Dayton

Remember Elisabeth Bumiller? She's that New York Times reporter who tried to attack John McCain on the plane a couple of months ago. Our Dan McLaughlin characterized the interaction as "a 'gotcha' question about an old story on which there are no new facts and the reporter is just trying to pick a fight."

Well... Bumiller is at it again, doing yeoman's work for Barack Obama. This time it is an unsourced hit piece lacking in facts ... or quotes. What are we talking about?

Read on.

Posted in Elisabeth Bumiller | John McCain | Media Bias | National Security | The New York Times — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:53pm on Feb. 28, 2008 As Long as We're Checking Eligibility...

By Mark I

Jim Geraghty has a nice riposte to the New York Times' laughable piece today on John McCain's "potential problem" meeting the Constitutional requirements to be president.

Campaign Spot reader David writes in, looking closely at the Fourteenth Amendment:

"Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

"Aid and comfort to enemies." Well, I guess it come down to whether or not former Weatherman Bill Ayers was an "enemy of the United States" and did Obama give him "aid and comfort". To be honest, I don't take this seriously, but I'd say it's as legitimate as the NYT's fantasy regarding McCain. If nothing else, I like the contrast:

McCain - possibly ineligible because his family's service in the military took them outside th US at the time of his birth.

Obama - possibly ineligible, depending on whether or not the former terrorists he associates with are technically "enemies of the United States".

Take that Sen. Unbeatable!

Posted at 1:31am on Feb. 22, 2008 To Quote Shakespeare . . .

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Much ado about nothing. This is a pathetically sourced story that--again, quoting Shakespeare--is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Why the New York Times chose to print this nonsense is anyone's guess, but maybe, all of those suppositions about media bias affecting what is supposed to be neutral reporting are, in fact, true. At least in this case, anyway.

Just out of curiosity, are we going to get some juicy tidbits about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama from "disgruntled" former staffers of theirs? Or are these kinds of slime jobs only reserved for John McCain?

Don't bother responding. We all know what the answer is.

Posted in 2008 | John McCain | Smear Tactics | The New York Times — Comments (21)/ Email this page » / Read More »