GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[Rex Kickass]

Does the bias charge work so well here? Word on the street is that the NY Times held the story off throughout the early primary season and it didn't see the light of day until this week, when he had secured the nomination. The story is breaking 9 months before the next moment that matters for McCain, so it would hardly have a legitimate effect on the general election either, if the story amounts to nothing.

[EvilMonkey]

This was less about the sex, more about the favors for her company in question.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23271556/

Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, told NBC's "Today" show that McCain's staff provided the Times with "approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist's clients and her public relations firm's clients," but none of the examples were included in the paper's story.

 

And in the one instance the paper did decide to print,

McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain's request "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" and "could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.

 

This was more about drive-by journalism that actual news reporting.

[kapkomet]

Does the bias charge work so well here? Word on the street is that the NY Times held the story off throughout the early primary season and it didn't see the light of day until this week, when he had secured the nomination. The story is breaking 9 months before the next moment that matters for McCain, so it would hardly have a legitimate effect on the general election either, if the story amounts to nothing.

Probably Clinton staffers who wanted to get how bad they suck off of the front pages before the debate with Obama last night.

[Texsox]

This is the clearest example of a bias. There is almost no reason to talk about the GOP primaries, except to watch McCain march to victory. This keeps him in the news and getting some coverage. The media can't stand covering a REP

[mr_genius]

Does the bias charge work so well here? Word on the street is that the NY Times held the story off throughout the early primary season and it didn't see the light of day until this week, when he had secured the nomination. The story is breaking 9 months before the next moment that matters for McCain, so it would hardly have a legitimate effect on the general election either, if the story amounts to nothing.

 

Yes the bias charge works here. They rarely, if ever, run stories like this on Democrats. GOP hit jobs are a mainstay of the paper.

 

They decided to run this article when they did because the New Republic was going to run the story. They weren't doing McCain any favors. They were probably going to wait until October to run it, when it would really 'hit' their political opponent.

 

The article shouldn't have been printed at all, it's journalism at it's worst. It was a political attack ad masquerading as a story.

 

But hey, keep defending it, even though it's obvious what this story was.

Edited February 23, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

This was more about drive-by journalism that actual news reporting.

 

But some Dems will defend it, because it's their political paper. It can do no wrong in their eyes.

 

The big story isn't even the McCain scandal. It's the New Yorks times and how they are basically becoming the National Enquirer.

Edited February 23, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23271556/

And in the one instance the paper did decide to print,

This was more about drive-by journalism that actual news reporting.

 

yeah, not at odds with my post at the top of my page. I've read a lot on this. My point is the scandal wouldn't be over that he x'd her, rather that the "straight shootin express" is another patronage patty

[Rex Kickass]

Yes the bias charge works here. They rarely, if ever, run stories like this on Democrats. GOP hit jobs are a mainstay of the paper.

 

They decided to run this article when they did because the New Republic was going to run the story. They weren't doing McCain any favors. They were probably going to wait until October to run it, when it would really 'hit' their political opponent.

 

The article shouldn't have been printed at all, it's journalism at it's worst. It was a political attack ad masquerading as a story.

 

But hey, keep defending it, even though it's obvious what this story was.

 

I'm not defending the story at all. I'm just asking how valid a bias claim is when the article is allegedly withheld throughout the political process until it won't affect the nomination process. Wouldn't it make sense, if this was a bias hit piece to print it when it might actually have an effect on the process - say at convention time or a couple weeks before the general?

 

And wasn't this the same New York Times that allowed Jon Corzine's ex-wife pen an Op-Ed piece the weekend before the election that basically said because he was a horrible husband, that he'd be a horrible governor?

 

The truth is that there are plenty of hit pieces that run on Page 1 about the Dems in the NY Times too. It's just Democrats don't cry bias every time a bit of negative news hits their side.

[southsider2k5]

The NYT public editor basically slammed his own paper today for the McCain chop job...

[mr_genius]

I'm not defending the story at all. I'm just asking how valid a bias claim is when the article is allegedly withheld throughout the political process until it won't affect the nomination process. Wouldn't it make sense, if this was a bias hit piece to print it when it might actually have an effect on the process - say at convention time or a couple weeks before the general?

 

And wasn't this the same New York Times that allowed Jon Corzine's ex-wife pen an Op-Ed piece the weekend before the election that basically said because he was a horrible husband, that he'd be a horrible governor?

 

The truth is that there are plenty of hit pieces that run on Page 1 about the Dems in the NY Times too. It's just Democrats don't cry bias every time a bit of negative news hits their side.

 

No way, like I said before, they run way more GOP hit jobs in their news pages and editorials. Just because you can name one time they ran a negative story on a Dem is in no way proof they do not have a political bias. By your theory, if Bill O'reilly says one bad thing about a republican then 100 about democrats he is totally non biased because of the one, discounting the 100.

 

I would suggest that no matter who won the GOP nomination, a political hit job was going to be on page one about that candidate. I'm sure they had Huckabee, Thompson, Guiliani, and Romney hit pieces ready to roll.

[WilliamTell]

I can't remember who said this on the radio, I'm really trying to remember but this was before Super Tuesday happened. According to him the media was being really positive towards McCain at this time, and he said something about watching the media turn on McCain after he locks up the nominee, seems to be true.

[Rex Kickass]

No way, like I said before, they run way more GOP hit jobs in their news pages and editorials. Just because you can name one time they ran a negative story on a Dem is in no way proof they do not have a political bias. By your theory, if Bill O'reilly says one bad thing about a republican then 100 about democrats he is totally non biased because of the one, discounting the 100.

 

I would suggest that no matter who won the GOP nomination, a political hit job was going to be on page one about that candidate. I'm sure they had Huckabee, Thompson, Guiliani, and Romney hit pieces ready to roll.

 

Here's what I'm asking that you fail to mention - if they have such a huge liberal bias, why wouldn't they have ran this story at a time that would have made a difference? Do you think anybody is going to remember what the New York Times said about John McCain in February?

 

And what the public editor (ombudsman) of the New York Times said, was that the problem of the story had more to do with the fact that it insinuated an affair that the Times had no proof of. Its hides the point of the story, which was that Senator John "Take on the Special Interests" McCain had a special relationship with lobbyists who were working on behalf of John Paxson - who was trying to clear regulatory hurdles to buy a TV station. This is something that the Senator now denies but did admit to during a 2002 deposition. So he's either lying now about some or all of the article, or committed perjury. Either or.

 

The New York Times story was pretty poorly written, however there are other reports which have come out recently that back parts of the story up. Notably from Newsweek as well as the conservative leaning UK paper, The Times and the liberal leaning UK paper, The Guardian.

[mr_genius]

They can run negative stories form now until Nov (which I'm sure they will) for all I care, the NY Times isn't exactly a trusted news source for GOP voters. Why did they run the McCain story now? because they didn't want the New Republic story to scoop them. Let me guess, the New Republic is unbiased too. Also, I'm sure they plan on running pro-Obmam, anti-McCain stuff during the entire election. Why not start with this piece of crap story?

 

Doesn't matter, nothing will ever convince you that NY Times has a bias. Honestly, thats fine with me.

 

And I read that Newsweek article, if this is your guys big scandal on McCain I say lol

Edited February 24, 2008 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

Here's what I'm asking that you fail to mention - if they have such a huge liberal bias, why wouldn't they have ran this story at a time that would have made a difference? Do you think anybody is going to remember what the New York Times said about John McCain in February?

 

And what the public editor (ombudsman) of the New York Times said, was that the problem of the story had more to do with the fact that it insinuated an affair that the Times had no proof of. Its hides the point of the story, which was that Senator John "Take on the Special Interests" McCain had a special relationship with lobbyists who were working on behalf of John Paxson - who was trying to clear regulatory hurdles to buy a TV station. This is something that the Senator now denies but did admit to during a 2002 deposition. So he's either lying now about some or all of the article, or committed perjury. Either or.

 

The New York Times story was pretty poorly written, however there are other reports which have come out recently that back parts of the story up. Notably from Newsweek as well as the conservative leaning UK paper, The Times and the liberal leaning UK paper, The Guardian.

 

Not if they thought a Democrat would have an easier time beating McCain than anyone else. You yourself said the only reason they ran the story was because another paper was about to run it. Have you asked yourself exactly what they were waiting for to run the story? Could it be later in the election cycle when the candidates have already been picked, and it would have a maximum damage effect on McCain for the general election?

 

[Rex Kickass]

Not if they thought a Democrat would have an easier time beating McCain than anyone else. You yourself said the only reason they ran the story was because another paper was about to run it. Have you asked yourself exactly what they were waiting for to run the story? Could it be later in the election cycle when the candidates have already been picked, and it would have a maximum damage effect on McCain for the general election?

 

I never said that. I said that since the story's publication, other news organizations have produced evidence to back up a good chunk of what the Times story alleges. My bet is had McCain not countered by attacking the media instead of the story itself, these other news organizations would not have sought to back up this story.

 

If this was to have maximum damage effect on McCain for the general election, the story would not have blown up in February. It would blow up in October. If they are so left leaning, why wouldn't they blow up McCain, easily the most electable candidate, just before South Carolina or Florida? This way a much weaker Romney or Huckabee could have gotten the GOP nod.

[southsider2k5]

I never said that. I said that since the story's publication, other news organizations have produced evidence to back up a good chunk of what the Times story alleges. My bet is had McCain not countered by attacking the media instead of the story itself, these other news organizations would not have sought to back up this story.

 

If this was to have maximum damage effect on McCain for the general election, the story would not have blown up in February. It would blow up in October. If they are so left leaning, why wouldn't they blow up McCain, easily the most electable candidate, just before South Carolina or Florida? This way a much weaker Romney or Huckabee could have gotten the GOP nod.

 

That's just it, is the most electable if the NYT has a hand grenade to throw in his lap?

[Rex Kickass]

Why would the hand grenade be thrown 8 months too early? A newspaper article in February isn't remembered in November.

[kapkomet]

Why would the hand grenade be thrown 8 months too early? A newspaper article in February isn't remembered in November.

Because someone else scooped them and they had to break it. There's no other reason. And, BTW, I think there's more out there that the press is holding on to. It happens every cycle.

[southsider2k5]

Because someone else scooped them and they had to break it. There's no other reason. And, BTW, I think there's more out there that the press is holding on to. It happens every cycle.

 

Exactly. The only reason they ran the article now, is because someone else was going to beat them to it. Otherwise they were self-admittedly going to sit on it.

[Rex Kickass]

Exactly. The only reason they ran the article now, is because someone else was going to beat them to it. Otherwise they were self-admittedly going to sit on it.

 

Perhaps you could tell me where the "rush to publication" happened? It certainly wasn't mentioned in the Public Editor/Ombudsman's piece. So I'm just curious as to how you know all about the inner workings of the New York Times editorial board.

[southsider2k5]

Perhaps you could tell me where the "rush to publication" happened? It certainly wasn't mentioned in the Public Editor/Ombudsman's piece. So I'm just curious as to how you know all about the inner workings of the New York Times editorial board.

 

Post 1564 in this thread, Balta posted a link to a story about just that.

[Cknolls]

I'm not defending the story at all. I'm just asking how valid a bias claim is when the article is allegedly withheld throughout the political process until it won't affect the nomination process. Wouldn't it make sense, if this was a bias hit piece to print it when it might actually have an effect on the process - say at convention time or a couple weeks before the general?

 

And wasn't this the same New York Times that allowed Jon Corzine's ex-wife pen an Op-Ed piece the weekend before the election that basically said because he was a horrible husband, that he'd be a horrible governor?

 

The truth is that there are plenty of hit pieces that run on Page 1 about the Dems in the NY Times too. It's just Democrats don't cry bias every time a bit of negative news hits their side.

 

 

You are going to compare the McCain NEWS piece to an OP-ED by a DEM candidates wife in the state of NEW JERSEY? This state would elect a Dem if there was no Dem in the election. Sorry, but they are not comparable.

 

Why did Keller change his mind?........

[Rex Kickass]

You are going to compare the McCain NEWS piece to an OP-ED by a DEM candidates wife in the state of NEW JERSEY? This state would elect a Dem if there was no Dem in the election. Sorry, but they are not comparable.

 

Why did Keller change his mind?........

 

Like Christie Todd Whitman?

 

I worked on the Corzine campaign... that seemed a much closer election than it turned out when that Op/Ed smear piece went to press.

[Rex Kickass]

Post 1564 in this thread, Balta posted a link to a story about just that.

Except the story doesn't say that at all. It says that Drudge and The New Republic were reporting on the unreported story and why the NY Times hadn't published it.

 

I remember the Drudge headline from December or January. And the TNR story was about the Times' coverage about this story, not the story itself.

 

So where again did you get the sense that the gray lady was getting scooped?

[Chet Lemon]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that Obama secured any loose nuclear weapons.

 

In my previous rejoinder, I obviously did not mean Lugar and Obama personally were securing weapons. Their legislation (Lugar-Obama) has effectively done that.