Posted by
Always To The Right on Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:54:37 AM
Look who’s turned into a scold on “low-road” campaigning! Why’s it’s the New York Times,
the same newspaper who ran an ad calling an American military commander
a traitor, initially at a substantial discount to its client
organization, MoveOn. Today, though, they cluck their tongues at John
McCain — for hitting back
Well, Barack Obama wanted to retreat out of Iraq
regardless of the consequences, and has not changed his policy despite
the enormous transformation in Iraq over the last eighteen months.
Offering redistributionist tax and spending policies certainly puts
Obama in the soft, European model of socialism, as does his repeated calls
for the government to deliver (and determine) “economic justice”. And
Obama did indeed cancel his visit to Landstuhl and the wounded soldiers
there, offering excuses that even the Gray Lady doesn’t really buy.
Does the New York Times editorial board read their own paper?
Besides, nowhere in this editorial filled with vituperation and
unsupported innuendo about Karl Rove and his associates do the editors
mention which campaign went negative first. Hint: It wasn’t McCain
And let’s not forget the New York Times own low standard for smears
This hyperbole about negative advertising is nothing more than the
Times worrying about how effective it will be against Obama.
Candidates can and should draw comparisons and contrasts between their
positions and that of their opponents, as well as highlight their
records. Obama did nothing wrong in running this ad except for the
sanctimoniousness of his pledge to avoid it and the hypocritical way he
reversed himself.
The Times wants to shame McCain into leaving poor Barack Obama
alone. If Obama didn’t want to face negative campaign ads, then he
shouldn’t have run his own. If the Times wanted to set itself as the
advertising police, then they shouldn’t have run this atrocious smear
of an honorable American commander in the middle of a war. The Times
are the worst hypocrites on this issue, and their distorted, venal, and
essentially idiotic editorial today proves it.