If you have "no place to go," come here!

The Grey Lady was asking for it

shystee's picture

Asking to be attacked by right-wingnuts. She is also guilty of providing Rush Limpballs with an excuse to fall in love with The Mack.

Have folks learned nothing from the past 20 years? The Right Wing will attack any news story, news outlet, journalist, politician or individual citizen they feel is a threat to them. No amount of journalistic or personal integrity will prevent these attacks.

As my man Jon Swift says, articles containing sexual innuendo about political figures (especially if they're republicans) are so 9/10. It's just not cool anymore.

And, in yet another episode of What Digby Said, how can anyone seriously believe that Limpballs and the hardcore right wing fanatics he controls were not going to fall in lockstep to support The Mack sooner or later, anyway. Like this gross injustice finally broke their reluctance or something.

Yes, it is important for Major News Outlets to stay reality-based at all times. But it is also important for those who comment on the media to recognize very real historical patterns of behavior in the right wing.

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

... and timed, oddly, or not, on the day of the Hillary/Obama debate, that I have to wonder if the Times managed to innoculate McCain not only against the sex charge (which I could care less about) but against the lobbyist charge, which is far more serious.

Well done, all.

I mean, it's not like Keller can't sit on a story; look at how he suppressed the warrantless surveillance story until Bush was safely in office.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

you're right, Lambert, this is the Dan Rather maneuver again.

We have a real serious, potentially crippling, charge against McCain that he was involved in pay-for-play with at least one lobbyist and probably more. And that his entire campaign staff is made of lobbyists.

But the first reportage of the story comes out with a badly-sourced racy sex scandal attached, which is being denounced and used to discredit the real story.

Hopefully, it won't work this time.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I, too, think this was, at best, "sloppy" and I can't help but wonder if it was intentional to help McCain. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but the gratuitous injection of a blatantly evidence-free sex "scandal" was just too much.

However, will the inoculation work? The Washington Post is going after him on the lobbyist issue but if McCain is hit by some in the corporate press, it is inevitable Obama will be bludgeoned and I don't see Obama faring as well as McCain.

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

Politic*nt (DCOW) headline today: Why the right reluctantly defended McCain.

The right-wing response to the New York Times article was in some ways as stunning, and as revealing, as the salacious story itself.

Puhleaze! The right wing defending the GOP candidate? Shocking!

Then, the paper tucked the allegation into a story that rehashes other examples of McCain contradicting his claim of being a trustworthy reformer.

Without the very cautious allusions to a possible relationship the NYT article would have been a total snoozer. "Politicians being dishonest about getting money from lobbyists" is not really news. Even for the straight talk express. Hypocrisy and legalized bribes don't really register as news for a lot of people. Especially people who would vote for The Mack. Especially for the Village People. Sex, however...

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

the only problem with this story is that the wingers don't like it, to quote a friend. what did it claim? campaing staffers were worried about the appearance of an affair. word i'm hearing is that the affair (which is treated as real by villagers i know) has been a topic of public gossip for some time. so the timing is suspect, no doubt. but let's not let the wingers define the moment: the times didn't claim he was having an affair, they were claiming his own employees were worried about what people may think.

and of course, the real, real controversy is about his relationship to her employers and how he voted on/influenced various policy questions. funny how few people are talking about that angle.