Ok, the the New York Times released a sort of kinda of non-story. And boy are tongues a wagin! You would think they had actually broken some news! It was all over the place… everyone was talking about it. The younger woman, the possible corruption of a public official, the old scandal. Oh the horror! Oh the shock! Ummmm yeah. Did ANYONE read the darn article? I mean I know it is four pages long and all, but if you are going to raise a ruckus, you might want to actually determine what the article is about. There was a alot of suspicion cast on his actions… and there was a lot if digging up of his past errors in judgement. Some of which were not even really errors.
1. He had a friend who was a lobbiest. Um, yeah name me one person whe spends anytime at the capitol that does not consider at least one lobbiest a friend. It is worth mentioning that the Times did not accuse him of doing ANYTHING in favor of her clients… just that they were friends and she was a around alot…. How is this news?
2. She is female and 40 years younger then him…. which makes her the sprightly age of FOURTY. Yeahp you hear about those damn fourty year olds with careers trying to nab geriatric hubbies ALL THE TIME.
3. He made errors in judgement in his past. This one is my favorite. This is the one that makes me wonder WHO in the DNC made the call to get the ball rolling on this story. I mean why not start the national campaign now since clearly he will be the Republican nominee. (Huckabee is not gettin’ it that is for darn sure. Gotta hand it to Huckabee though. He’s got some tenacity!) They list things like the Keating Five Scandal that earned him a reprimand for bad judgement, but did not find him to have done anything improper, flying on a jet at a time when it was not against the rules… but since he voted on it later he should have known better?!
Seriously… people are supposed to be seers now? They can’t choose to fight corruption from the inside? They have to hope the any and all actions they ever take can never be considered improper later when the rules change? What? Come on. McCain is an honest no BS kinda guy. He has been the same no-nonsense, honest guy since the day he entered the political arena. I might not agree with him on 100% of his ideas; but I don’t agree with any of ‘em on 100% of their ideas. What truly sucks about this article is that no one gets the point they were trying to make… nobody really read it. They are trying to say he might have a blindspot… he might not see what other folks from the outside see. He does not question how his actions are perceived enough. The problem is that people focus on the evidence to the point while missing the whole damn point. The coverage of it certainly did. All they talk about is the woman and the impropriety (which does not exist… at least as presented in the article).
They are no dummies at the Times. Why write this article at all? I mean this story is so lacking in any actual reason for existence it is hard to imagine how they could have dedicated the space to it. Was it just that they spent so much time in research trying to find a scandal and when one failed to materialize felt they needed to justify themselves by publishing anything at all? Were they put up to it by the DNC to jump start the post-primary election season? Were they bored? Or was it just shoddy journalism? I don’t know, all I know is they may say it was a subtle article in a time when there is no room for subtle… but really come on… You knew how this was going to play out.
