Behar: Who ordered the code red on McCain?
posted at 1:53 pm on February 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An unusually good question coming from a halfwit, never mind her suggestion that Limbaugh would shunt this tip off onto a newspaper with 1/20th the audience he has and then sit idly by waiting for it to be published while Maverick ran the table against Fred and Mitt in the primaries. TNR says Times reporter Jim Rutenberg got the tip about Iseman in November. McCain was polling in the low- to mid-teens at the time and didn’t start to really break out until New Year’s. Who would have been trying to sandbag him that early? ABC says Team Mitt was keenly interested in seeing it come out but doubtless all of McCain’s opponents were. Quote:
On Thursday, while no one would allow their name to be published, several former advisers lamented the timing of the story, one suggesting, “If this piece had run before New Hampshire, McCain would have lost. If it had run before Florida, he would have lost.”
The fact that Romney’s camp knew about it but didn’t succeed in forcing it out there through some media outlet means either they weren’t pushing as hard as they should have or, for all the bluster about Mitt being a hardball campaigner, means there was obviously a line he wasn’t willing to cross. Behar’s question remains, though: If this story’s been circulating for awhile and McCain’s nomination really is the end of conservatism as we know it, why didn’t someone on the right kneecap him with it before it was too late?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Because from what we have seen this is all smoke and no fire. They couldnt get msm to carry it because it lacked any punch. Only now when Barak vs McCain does NY Times want to carry it.
So Romney and the others fired a bullet that was hollowed out but still hit its target long after the attempt.
Oddly this helps McCain now and hurts Romney.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Highly DOUBTFUL…these are politicians we are talking about. Geesh
TOPV on February 21, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Or the MSM was well aware of the story but was sitting on it until they could use it to help their friends. Hopefully “too clever by half” will apply here.
TBinSTL on February 21, 2008 at 2:03 PM
This whole line of thinking implies that the story is true. “Beharlot” is speaking as if she inherently knows it’s true.
This should end up helping McCain in the long run, again assuming that it isn’t true, as the NYT have framed it.
awake on February 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM
BTW I imagine the huckabites are all filled with glee to point out that Romney made a deal with the devil NY times.
He will slam Mitt saying “See told ya all those mormons cant be trusted”
Is is really really a stupid move
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM
This is the dirt they have on McCain. That’s it???
All that sotto voce talk of McCain having a big, dirty secret in his past, and it turns out it’s a false rumor and a high school-type innuendo.
indythinker on February 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Yeah, it does. Even without gun powder residue on his hands, Mitt will wear this to his detriment.
a capella on February 21, 2008 at 2:08 PM
If Mitt had any real idea what this story was, beyond the whispers that even Drudge published, he never would have pulled out. He would have hung around until the convention just like Huck.
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Here’s your explaination: Romenee respects Maverick and though it was bs.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Meanwhile, just days prior to FLA voting the McCain and Huckabee camps were busy lying about Romney’s position on the war. Awesome. But Romney is the dirty campaigner?
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM
And, he NEVER would have endorsed McCain and released his delegates. Has common sense been suspended entirely?
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM
THe one thing to come out of this for certain is that neither Huck nor Mitt will be McCains VP
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Because you can’t “kneecap” someone with a wet newspaper.
That’s is about how strong this story is. It’s a stupid, non-starter story, and it just shows how out of touch and inconsequential the NYT has become.
Look, As anyone here will tell you, I have a STRONG dislike for McVain. But even some as biased as I can see this stupidity of this story. If Romney or ANY of the other candidates had run this, it would have had the same effect as it is now. It makes McCain look more sympathetic, and the reporting entity look petty.
wearyman on February 21, 2008 at 2:13 PM
indythinker, this is just the start. There will be a consitent flow of attack news story’s directed at the MSM’s favorite Republican from here up until election day. It has started immediately following his secured position at the top of the ticket.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM
McCain said those charges directly to Mitts face he didnt run behind his back to the NY Times.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I dunno, I think that was a given for a while now. Still going with Gov. Crist as veep.
JetBoy on February 21, 2008 at 2:15 PM
If it is published in the NY Times it has no credibility anyway so why are we making so much out of it? The NY Times, all the alleged news fit to ignore.
duff65 on February 21, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Was Huck not hinting at story? Is Huck, despite mathematical impossibility, still in the race? Did Drudge not hint at a story? Were there not whispers everywhere? How did TNR find out if not? Yet some idiot at ABC lays it on Mitt in a blog and people lap it. They lay it on the guy who go out when he still had a shot, endorsed McCain and released his delegates and people take it for gospel. I’ve gone through the looking glass.
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Rad the whole story there is support that Mitt started running with the theme “Im not in bed with Lobbists” during the South Carolina bid. Which hints he wanted that as a message in the campaign.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 2:20 PM
It’s an attempt to change the subject from the Hilary election flame-out to McCain. The debate is tonight between Barack and Hillary, what makes a better story? Barack wins debate, or McCain has a mistress.
Nothing when dealing with liberals is by accident.
tarpon on February 21, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Well, they probably wanted it out there if is’t true. You don’t want to be the ones caught pushing a fake story into the news, since the backlash could be deadly. It looks like nobody dug up enough evidence to lower the risk/benefit ratio to the point that Republicans would bring it up, and now that McCain has the nomination all but sewn up, it’s a low enough risk for the Dems to float it in hopes of giving the voters a flavor of scandal surrounding McCain.
Big S on February 21, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Logic isn’t real big on a The View panel. If a far-right winger was going to put a hit on McCain, it would be done when it could have still done something. That being said, why would someone really looking to knock him out not wait until November for this (ala Dan Rather)? But don’t lose sight of the real point here. There appears to be nothing to this story. Nothing. So, what you have is the NYT giving McCain a gift. He becomes much more sympathetic to people who were struggling with whether or not to back him as only the third most radical Democrat left in the field.
Sugar Land on February 21, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Drek yentes.
Shy Guy on February 21, 2008 at 2:23 PM
New York Times backs McAmnasty and peeps say “How can I vote for someone who the NYT backs? I didn’t want to vote for him anyhow – now I know I’m not!”
NYT prints a front page smear attack on McAmnasty and the peeps say “Those dirty bastards – I’m voting for McAmnasty just to show them!”
Whats a poor soul to do?
OBX Pete on February 21, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I watched the video of that exchange when it happened. He was talking about being an outsider. You know, a common presidential theme. Don’t lap up rumor and innuendo that makes no sense just because you hate the target. Use your common sense.
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Did you really just say that? That makes no sense.
First of all, you have zero evidence the Romney campaign is any way related to this story. Zero. Meanwhile I have 100% evidence that McCain and Huckabee lied blatantly about Romney’s position just days prior to FLA.
Second of all, why would Romney want this story run? The results of that action are far too obvious. An attack against a Republican candidate during a primary by the NYTimes will only benefit the campaign being attacked. Especially a story as squishy and meaningless as this one.
McCain has been a Washington insider for a very very long time. He has many enemies on both sides of the isle. To act like you know who tipped off the Times to this is completely naive.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I’m one of those who still won’t support McCain despite his sudden falling out with his true love, the Media of the NY Times. His love affair doesn’t interest me nearly as much as his anti-conservative actions for the last eight years.
Snake307 on February 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM
If it had been a male lobbyist hanging out with J-Mac, no one would have said anything. Only because it’s a woman are the allegations raised.
Shouldn’t a bunch of perpetually outraged women raise that point when discussing such things?
What? Feminism doesn’t apply to Republican women? Oh. Never mind.
The Monster on February 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Wow! Thats quite a trend you picked up on William Amos. Perhaps you missed it but every candidate in the race, both Dem and Republican have been claiming “not to be in bed with lobbiests” daily. Thats kind of a necessary claim for any candidate to make while running for POTUS. I believe McCain has said the same thing too! Based on your logic perhaps he tipped the Times off on this!
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM
She speaks as if everything she says is true. The chronically stupid are famous for that. It’s well documented.
Brass Pair on February 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Exactly, there are those on this site the still fear Mitt, the hate is irrational and dangerous, get a grip!
dmann on February 21, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Like many of us, we really thought the GOP still stood for conservatism and that McCain didn’t have a real chance.
ihasurnominashun on February 21, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Read the ABC Article. Ex members of ROmney’s camp are saying the are sad the story came out now. And the NY Times wasnt the only one they peddled it to.
This story came out in NOVEMBER of last year. The NY Times sat on it till last night.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 2:32 PM
First, McCain’s nomination is not the end of conservatism as we know it any more than Reagan’s nomination was the end of conservatism as we knew it then, or the fall of the Soviet empire was the end of conservatism. The same principles that drove Reagan and Goldwater remain true today. The problem is that the fruits of the policies motivated by conservative principles have softened public attitudes towards collectivist policies. In short, success and prosperity have made us drunk on our own largess. Eventually, though, our spendthrift ways will bite us back; how we chose to respond to those consequences depends on what the perceived range of options are in the voting public. Conservatism is one of those; New Deal socialism is another, and in many ways is the most natural choice. Conservatism comes from a rigorous and clear-headed view of economic and personal liberty; it is taught/learned, not inflamed, and must be retaught consistently and maintained like good habits.
Second, kneecapping McCain does nothing to help conservatism once he’s the candidate. Every thinking person knows that. However, blindly running behind McCain as he charges headlong into political oblivion does even less to help conservatism. I think folks are letting the Maverick be as mavericky as he wants but keeping a safe distance from his largely toxic candidacy.
spmat on February 21, 2008 at 2:33 PM
BTW this is just out of the McCain camp. Heh he hates the liberal media now ?
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Thats irrelevant and unsubstantial Amos. You are attempting to connect dots but you have no means by which to do so. There is no evidence and your opinion is being entirely skewed by your obvious hatred of Romney.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Just goes to prove that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM
He had an older man’s crush on a young woman and he hung around with her a bit, which got tongues wagging! … that’s IT folks!
max1 on February 21, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Allahpundit,
How do you find out what the women on the “View” say? tips@hotair.com?
:)
Weebork on February 21, 2008 at 2:43 PM
William Amos, let me put it to you this way. It is just as likely that McCain is actually guilty of what the NYTimes claims him to be guilty of then it is for Romney to be guilty of tipping of the NYTimes. What you are doing is looking at one and saying innocent and looking at the other and saying guilty. You are completely blinded by your own bias. What I am saying is there is little to no evidence other then circumstantial to prove either party guilty.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Ya, where the hell is Karl Rove when you need him.
DMeNTe on February 21, 2008 at 2:50 PM
That’s actually pretty good thinking for a stupid ugly whore. Good job, stupid ugly whore.
RWLA on February 21, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Jim Rutenberg?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0201.mencimer.html
bnelson44 on February 21, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Zetterson you’re the man. I like it when you are posting. You make a lot of sense.
cjs1943 on February 21, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I suspect it’s really simple. With Obama and McCain virtually winning the nomination, there is nothing left for the NYT to do to boost reader interest. It seems that this is the right time to undercut McCain and stall his progress so that Huckabee can try to make it a race again.
NNtrancer on February 21, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Did she just say “the real right wing of the party … Huckabee”?!
Tzetzes on February 21, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Way to go NYT. You have succeeded where Bill Kristol, Bob Dole etc. have failed: that is, rally the conservative base behind the Maverick.
infidel65 on February 21, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Maybe Obama wants all of the news to today to be about McCain so people will not be focused on whatever Hillary plans to hit him with tonight in Austin, and she is desperate and must plan to hit him with something.
donsingleton on February 21, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Baloney. Your saying that McCain should answer the charges about this case because the might be true but Mitt shouldnt have to because they might be untrue.
The only bias here is your own.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Ha, much appreciated cjs1943. Thanks for that.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I know! I about fell off my chair! LOL
Califemme on February 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Lets look at it this way. The NY Times gets a bogus story that seems to be untrue. Yet now the Mitties scream “Told ya soaobut McCain” and then get upset when it seems their guy is behind the smear.
I say McCain should answer the charges to prove them untrue and Mitt should also have to prove he isnt involved.
Clear both their names dont play games.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Yeah, The NYT and GOP joined at the hip. Joy your an idiot.
RobCon on February 21, 2008 at 3:58 PM
That article is just a hit piece on Romney. The msm still fears and hates him and figure they might as use this opportunity to try and damage him. For all you mccain and huckster fans out there does it make you wonder why they are still after the guy who isn’t even in the race anymore?
Suckers.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 4:04 PM
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Wow, let them prove their innocent! I thought we live in the Great United States of America where the prosecution has to prove guilt. All the evidence is hearsay and innuendo. Let the accusers come forth in the light of day instead of hiding in the dark.
PrettyD_Vicious on February 21, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Where have we gotten to as a society, where a proven idiot like Behar is EVER, much less FREQUENTLY quoted as a political commentator and analyst?
pecan pie on February 21, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Yikes! Remind me to never get on your bad side.
nukemhill on February 21, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Its actualy pretty easy here folks… don’t overthink it…
It did NOT get run when the primaries were in doubt simply because it is not a truthfull attack. Conservatives tend to like the truth, and dislike those who lie.
Now, he is the Republican frontrunner, and it gets run… this is simply the first of the typical Left wing liein cheatin stealin type of attacks we’ve grown used to over the years.
Since to the Left, everything is relative… the truth is fuzzy and not that important… and they will forgive other Leftys for lieing, for the greater good…
This is simply the first hit of the GENERAL election… notice it came out right AFTER McCain started hitting at Obama?
Romeo13 on February 21, 2008 at 4:16 PM
You mean aside from the fact that I never asserted McCain should answer the charges about this case? In fact I have said from the start. McCain is innocent until proven guilty. Just as Romney is. There is zero proof either one of them is guilty. That was my point.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Because no liberal would ever do something so underhanded. Right Joy? Looks like Lizzy used all of her spunk (lightly) smaking down Rosie.
srhoades on February 21, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Mitties are not saying “I told you so about McCain.” They are saying, “I told you so about how the MSM was going to treat McCain.” McCain is not guilty of anything. Its the NYTimes who is guilty. This we predicted.
Zetterson on February 21, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Because we are conservatives, joy baby, not liberals.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 4:40 PM
The accusation is out there now if McCain doesnt answer it he will look guilty. As will Romney.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 4:54 PM
That article is a cheap shot with absolutely no substance to it. Romney should ignore it and not get dragged down to that level. mccain went down to that level willingly a long time ago.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 5:02 PM
The accusation is out there. Now no matter what McCain has to address this. If this is a smear attempt by another republican then I think its fair to ask if Romney’s camp was involved.
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Divide and conquer.
Damn those leftists are good.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 5:08 PM
And if mitt did this attack on McCain then isnt he guilty of “divide and conquer” ?
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 5:10 PM
You really need to read the abc article. It is all liberal twisting the facts wordplay. The same thing they did to clinton when he said barry’s iraq story was a fantasy. They turned it into him saying barry’s campaign was a fantasy. They are trying to take the heat off themselves while they wait for the next mccain story to come out in the wash post or la times in a couple of weeks. They will be doing this right through the general elction. If they run out of stuff they will come full circle back to this story. By claiming Romney has to address this you are giving the msm credibilty and respect that they just don’t deserve. The times had this when they endorsed mccain. Would you tell your daughte to go a certain mechanic if you though there was a possibility that he was a rapist? They set him up to knock him down and now abc is using the story to try and damage Romney as they deflect attention off of the times and the msm.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 5:16 PM
The story is bs and that is where everyones attention should be. The blatant actions of the largest propaganda outlet the leftists have.
peacenprosperity on February 21, 2008 at 5:18 PM
You can’t be serious.
Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Was that supposed to do something other than crash Firefox?
corona on February 21, 2008 at 6:34 PM
No, they’re not innocent until proven guilty. This is not a court of law.
This is politics. Different rules apply. On the one hand, no one ever has to really prove innocence or guilt. On the other hand, no candidate can afford to look guilty.
Which means, that McCain doesn’t have to prove there’s nothing to the story, but he has to make people believe there is probably nothing to the story.
The standard for Romney is different. Since he’s out of the race, he doesn’t have to prove that he wasn’t behind the story. On the other hand, if he gets back in the race, he can’t afford to look like he was pushing the story, regardless of whether he was the source.
There’s enough evidence that Romney’s campaign was looking forward to the story to look a little suspicious. That only matters if he gets back in the race, if then.
But proof? The jury is only a 100 million or so people, with no obligation to agree, or even to really examine the evidence.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM
There is no way one can prove innocence, especially if one does not know who is making the accusations or the evidence arrayed against them. A court of law states that the accused has the right to confront the accuser.
The bird cage liner list their sources as anonymous. Therefore, all McCain or Romney can do is state the NYT is lying. What will happen? Liberals will believe the NYT because evidence is not needed for them to believe their preconceived notions of Republicans. Who needs evidence when you have “feelings.” Just ask the Duke lacrosse Players.
Gossip is a vile human activity that is meant to destroy those individuals that are named. Intelligent people should ignore gossip and ask for proof and/or the names of the accusers/liars.
PrettyD_Vicious on February 21, 2008 at 10:54 PM
I be if you unscrewed Ms. Behar’s belly button she would split in two to prove she is so disconnected with reality.
She would be an even funnier stand-up comedian if she would just stand there and be quite-because she’s the funniest excuse for a human being I’ve ever seen.
MSGTAS on February 22, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Comment pages: