The New York Times, having undergone a transgender experience from its former existence as the good Gray Lady, is now appearing as Iago.
Under fire for its savage smear attack on John McCain about his relationship with a woman lobbyist, the Times today fielded David Brooks in an op ed column . In a grand display of passive-aggressive hand-wringing, Brooks manages to lay the whole mess at the feet of McCain staffers.
Cunningly, he also gets in a whack at McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, dissects the personalities of Davis and former staffer John Weaver, and declares at what point McCain's presidential hopes will be over. Waving Desdemona's handkerchief, Brooks, pandering relentlessly for the Times, declares McCain to be a hopeless romantic who likes death under fire but who is "a fine man."
Brooks does everything but directly parrot Iago's famed quote about the warrior Othello: ""I follow him to serve my turn upon him." Yesterday, the Peanut crew, no stranger to Shakespeare, asked if the Times had endorsed McCain only to later knock him down. And so we come to act II, Scene 3:
"When devils will the blackest sins put on,
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows.
Now the meaning of the Times' endorsement of McCain as the best Republican candidate becomes clear. Here, we need to page Dr. Freud, because Brooks, either knowingly, jabbing at someone in the McCain camp, or unknowingly, takes on Iago's own language of poisons: "the poisons have yet to be drained."
Here's an out-take from Brooks' column:
"But while calling around to a dozen senior McCain friends and advisers Thursday, what struck me was the enormous tragedy of the rift. They all love McCain. They all say it is absurd to think he abused his power in the way that is alleged.
But the rift is like some primal sore. It affected every conversation I had Thursday, as it has infected McCain efforts again and again over the past many years.
At his press conference Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn’t just say he didn’t remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over. If no evidence surfaces, his campaign will go on and it will be clear that there were members of his old inner circle consumed by viciousness and mendaciousness.
But lingering over everything is the bitterness of the rift, which has caused duplicity and anger to seep into the campaign of this fine man. The poisons have yet to be drained."
Having done everything but posed downstage to proclaim "Oh, notable strumpet!" about lobbyist Vicki Iseman (without even a handkerchief as proof), the Times has revealed--perhaps too quickly?--its Iago strategy in endorsing McCain.
"Though I do hate him as I do hell-pains.
Yet, for necessity of present life,
I must show out a flag and sign of love, which is indeed but sign. "
Senator McCain: don't pick up any more handkerchiefs with the initials NYT embroidered on the edge, no matter how perfumed.
Showing posts with label new york times smear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new york times smear. Show all posts
Friday, February 22, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Video: How The New York Times Set Up John McCain, McCain Replies
Did the New York Times knowingly and willfully set John McCain up for a kick to the groin when they endorsed him as their choice for the Republican nomination for president?When the New York Times backed John McCain, they knew about the rumors of McCain's involvement with a lobbyist, and had discussed it with the McCain campaign.
Shortly thereafter, the Times went below the belt with allegations about McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. So far, the Times has no real evidence--just gossip, and unnamed sources purported to be some angry staffers who were either fired or laid off.
McCain, scrappy and angry, took on the Times.
John Gibson said that he believes the Times endorsed McCain only to later knock him down with rumors of an affair. Iago in newsprint? You decide.
Although former McCain staffer John Weaver denies having a finger in the rumor pie, where apparently four and twenty unidentified blackbirds were singing to the Times, some are now pointing at him. Weaver's issued his own denial to John Cillizza at the Washington Post:
"The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman.
Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.
I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.
From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm."
Shortly thereafter, the Times went below the belt with allegations about McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. So far, the Times has no real evidence--just gossip, and unnamed sources purported to be some angry staffers who were either fired or laid off.
McCain, scrappy and angry, took on the Times.
John Gibson said that he believes the Times endorsed McCain only to later knock him down with rumors of an affair. Iago in newsprint? You decide.
Although former McCain staffer John Weaver denies having a finger in the rumor pie, where apparently four and twenty unidentified blackbirds were singing to the Times, some are now pointing at him. Weaver's issued his own denial to John Cillizza at the Washington Post:
"The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman.
Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.
I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.
From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm."
Video: How The New York Times Set Up John McCain, McCain Replies
Did the New York Times knowingly and willfully set John McCain up for a kick to the groin when they endorsed him as their choice for the Republican nomination for president?When the New York Times backed John McCain, they knew about the rumors of McCain's involvement with a lobbyist, and had discussed it with the McCain campaign.
Shortly thereafter, the Times went below the belt with allegations about McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. So far, the Times has no real evidence--just gossip, and unnamed sources purported to be some angry staffers who were either fired or laid off.
Although former McCain staffer John Weaver denies having a finger in the rumor pie, where apparently four and twenty un-identified blackbirds were singing to the Times, some are now pointing at him. Weaver's issued his own denial to John Cillizza at the Washington Post:
"The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman.
Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.
I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.
From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm."
The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman.
Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.
I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.
From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm."
Shortly thereafter, the Times went below the belt with allegations about McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. So far, the Times has no real evidence--just gossip, and unnamed sources purported to be some angry staffers who were either fired or laid off.
Although former McCain staffer John Weaver denies having a finger in the rumor pie, where apparently four and twenty un-identified blackbirds were singing to the Times, some are now pointing at him. Weaver's issued his own denial to John Cillizza at the Washington Post:
Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.
I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.
From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm."
The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman.
Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.
I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.
From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
