Strike Two for the Times

posted at 6:00 pm on March 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Well, I know that people have waited for John McCain to blow his top on the campaign trail, but if this is what they wanted, I think those folks are in for some disappointment. The New York Times and other news agencies have passed this around the blogosphere as some sort of eruption, but I’ve seen priests with less equanimity during Mass than this:

I agree with Michelle about learning a lesson in dealing with the mainstream media. Obviously Elizabeth Bumiller wanted to trip his circuits; she pulls out a story in 2004 about the invitation from John Kerry to join his ticket, hoping to get a reaction. She’s not looking out for his best interests, quite obviously, but trying to be deliberately provocative. After all, wouldn’t that be a question to ask before he had sewn up the nomination?

But his reaction seems rather mild, under the circumstances. He’s annoyed, sure, but hardly spitting and cursing. By the time she asks “Why are you so angry?”, the question is so inappropriate that he asks her to repeat it — and she declines, hopefully out of embarrassment.

Interestingly, the Times now has tried twice to get his goat, and for the second time, they’ve wound up with egg on their face.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I can’t seem to find it now to link, but I seem to remember a story related to football news (maybe about one of the quarterbacks?) where one of the press corps said to McCain on the airplane, “Did you hear the news?” to which McCain responded, “Oh no!” before he even heard what the news was. That sounds to me like McCain is afraid that certain information might become front-page news.

Red Pill on March 9, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Red Pill on March 9, 2008 at 9:22 PM

YOu are just dying for something…anything…

sad really

Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 10:09 PM

No, I’m not dying for anything.

I just think McCain has a lot to hide. And I don’t think his answers about Vicki Iseman were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. His statement (that they “did not have a romantic relationship”) seemed very Clinton-esque. I don’t care if the relationship was “romantic”, I care if it was “inappropriate” in any way.

Similarly, his statement “At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust” could be interpreted along the Clinton lines that personal sexual conduct is none of the public’s business, so it doesn’t betray the public trust. But, did he betray his wife’s trust? I certainly think the pictures of that week (from the way his wife looked at him on the eve of victory to the way she looked at him only a day or two later after the story had broken) tell stories of thousands of words. I think he did betray his wife’s trust. At this point, that’s just my thoughts. But I wouldn’t be surpised if other evidence emerges. I think it is exactly that evidence that McCain fears (and the reason for his “Oh no!” comment).

Red Pill on March 9, 2008 at 10:39 PM

For a more in-depth & balanced look at McCain’s character, click on my username below for my post “Senator’s Surprising Soft Side.”

jgapinoy on March 9, 2008 at 11:25 PM

I love how he stays engaged with that creepy reporter. Once a fighter pilot…

Mojave Mark on March 10, 2008 at 12:21 AM

Do you understand “war-time” vs. 60 days before an election?

Indeed I do, however I still think that the A & S act was a FAR greater attack on 1st Amendment Rights (the Quasi-War was a pretty shoddy excuse) than McCain Feingold. Also, where does it say your firs[t] amendment rights go away in time of war?
Who says its ok to jail journalists and editors? Not meaning to condecend but I didnt think we were connecting very well on what I saw as the issue.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Where does it say it’s o.k. to excessively fine and threaten jail time if you bring up a candidate’s record 60 days prior to an election in a broadcast advertisement? McCain-Feingold. This is not an abuse of the fundamental right of free political discourse? Taking away an entire medium from voters in order to protect, essentially, an incumbent’s seat isn’t a “slippery slope?”

OK, so you think that “quasi-war” time measures are unnecessary when there are known traitors working in journalism not as a free expression of political discourse but to purposefully incite riots over things which did not occur? I don’t know your answer, just asking. Yes it is ok to jail journalists and editors if they break the law, imho. Ok, I think we are actually arguing the same points that both incidents take away freedom of speech but the contexts are quite different. Plus, none of those involved with the A & S are the current nominee of the republican party in ’08.

Branch Rickey on March 10, 2008 at 7:42 AM

Branch Rickey on March 10, 2008 at 7:42 AM

I think we finally understand each other. I get you point about none of the AS signatories being the nominees as well. I just think the hyperbole of it being the WORST EVER was a bit much, but BCRA is a fresher wound for sure.

Squid Shark on March 10, 2008 at 7:20 PM