These Are The Times That Try Men's Souls
Lesson learned, Senator?
The New York Times smear of John McCain is a perfect example of the old saying: "When you lay down with liberals, you come up smelling like garbage."
OK, that's not exactly the old saying, but let's make it the new one, shall we?
Conservatives have ethical constraints that liberals don't, and you've seen it right here as personified by, but certainly not limited to, Lenny and Snowy who will say anything that supports or justifies their beliefs and ideology regardless of whether or not it's true.
People on the right can't get away with that. If a conservative makes a dubious charge or commits a breach of ethics, other conservatives will call him on it. As they should. In politics, when a Republican does or says something that reflects badly on the party, and an apology just won't do, he's forced to resign. Not only is that not so with liberals, but Democrats can commit acts of criminality and still retain their seats. And the more liberal, the bigger the criminal act you can get away with, as if "talking while liberal" isn't criminal in itself.
And of course, the other side of that coin is that when people aren't constrained by a system of moral values, "the end justifies the means" becomes their rule of law.
Such is the case with the New York Times today. In one of the most overt displays of bias and a most blatant attempt to undermine a Republican candidate and indeed, the party itself, the Times ran perhaps the weakest hit piece ever. Not only are the sources anonymous, but the charges aren't even the least bit substantial, much less substantiated.. In addition, it has come to light that the Times had, and failed to even mention, evidence and sources willing to go on record, both of which would mitigate the accusations, such as they are.
Now this is certainly no surprise. It was done to George Bush days before the 2000 election, but one wonders why then didn't the Times wait on this in order to plant doubt about McCain closer to election day? I say it's because the Times felt it could effect maximum damage right now.
You see, because the story is so weak, it might not have the intended effect in November, but right now, well, that's another story. First the Times endorsed McCain when it already had the smear in the works. Why? Conservatives groaned that the Times endorsement only proved what people on the right already felt about McCain. But that certainly wasn't who the Times wanted to reach. It wanted to encourage moderates, independents and liberals to help cement the McCain nomination so they, the Times, could then undermine it once he was the guaranteed winner.
That's only speculation on my part, but have you got a better scenario? The Times' idea: McCain secures the nomination - then he's toast. With a mortally wounded candidate and a loss in November guaranteed, why try?
And if McCain's not down for the count, at least the Times thinks it has laid the groundwork for others to expand on the charges and level new ones. I've said that I've never seen an election like this one, but I also have to say that once the liberal viciousness came out of the closet circa the Clinton impeachment, said viciousness has been on public display ever since, and it continues to grow and become more bold.
I see little difference in tactics between American liberals now and those employed by the leaders of the old Soviet Union. Pravda has nothing on the New York Times.
But the Times effort could backfire, both on the paper and the election - there is a golden opportunity for John McCain. For the first time, I believe conservatives are slightly sympathetic, even if they needn't be. I mean it's the perfect time to say, "Senator, we told you so." That's why McCain needs to seize the opportunity. It's not enough for him to call the Times story a smear. He has to understand that the Times represents all liberals. That the Times is liberalism at its finest.
McCain must (but I doubt he will) regard the Times attack as a gift. He has a window that won't remain open for long. If he were to move even slightly more right, he might accomplish what was previously unthinkable. Conservatives won't embrace him, but they might stop attacking him.
However, McCain, being far more like George Bush than conservatives are willing to admit, will probably do what Bush continues to do - he'll regard liberals as human, and he'll not only be civil to them, he'll still 'work" with them. I don't know about you, but I've found hyenas to be more approachable.
Comments
Note to Lenny. I told you how many times that I wasn't going to accept garbage from you or anyone? I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding, but I am deadly serious when I say that I'm not going to allow fools like you to post the sort of laundry lists that others of your lot joyously embrace as proof enough.
Had you wanted to deal with a specific topic or person, I would have given you fair consideration, But you just have to take my word for the fact that I'm very much smarter than you are, more perceptive, more reasonable, more objective, and fairer, and I am only too happy to criticize conservatives when necessary.
You on the other hand are a blindly biased little liberal, who's incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff. But if you'd like to offer evidence that I'm wrong, kindly post a link to where you've been highly critical of a liberal.
And only the link, as I'm afraid that if you were to say anything else you'll blow it.
I've given you every opportunity to make your cases logically and rationally. Now if you come back here and post the sort of garbage I just deleted, it will be your last visit. I can't help you think, but you're not going to post your trademark disjointed ramblings here.
And Lenny, I admit this is all completely selfish on my part. I am simply unwilling to take any more time out of my life to entertain the sort of sheer nonsense which you think constitutes prima facie evidence.
Youre a coward. If what i wrote was indeed such "disjointed" garbage-- if it really had no substance or truth to it-- you couldve just let it sit here, for all of you smart and serious conservatives to ridicule and criticize.
But no.
You deleted it for a reason. You deleted it because i rightly pointed out that the very premise of your post is bullshit.
So wallow in your bullshit Ted. Jerk off to it while repeating to yourself, "I'm much smarter than everyone!" over and over again.
You may have others here in your thrall-- they may look up you as some sort of wise old man, whose approval they crave with every post and comment, but i could give a shit.
So Ted, you enjoy being smarter, more perceptive, more reasonable, more objective, and fairer in your remaining years down in the desert. And dont forget to tell people every chance you get.
Thank you, Lenny, I figured that if I pushed you enough I could get the real you. I mean, I've seen it elsewhere, but I'm sure others haven't, and so I say to them that while the above is representative of the you I found so repulsive, it is still a quite watered down version of what Master Leonard is truly capable of.
There are so many things you can't grasp and I have never had the patience to be a teacher, so I'll just say that when I address you, I'm not really talking to you. I'm speaking to those capable of rational thought, and they do, regrettably, seem to be rather exclusively conservative.
And if I thought I was only talking to you, you'd have been gone long ago since you are the epitome of sound and fury signifying nothing, but I've singled you out in hopes of eliciting that very sort of reaction.
So now you've served your purpose.
At the same time, you've had an incredible opportunity, and you've blown it, You had a chance to impress me, and frankly, I might have been more sympathetic if you'd tired, but instead, you did what all liberals do - you ignore questions that are inconvenient, you misunderstand other points, and you're incapable of discerning between the relevant and the irrelevant.
Even at the eleventh hour, you ignored a very specific request, and so now you're done. It's as simple as that.
I said I am being selfish in deleting your pitiful effort... and now you, yourself, but the real winners are all those who will never have to waste the time on you that I have.
But being the fair person I am, i will allow you time to read this because I think you deserve that much if for no other reason than that you've validated my every observation about you and your ilk, and for that, I thank you.
See, ML, there again is your problem - I'm well aware of that... but they should. I'm the New York of Blogland.
Start spreadin' the news.
Have a good weekend.
The Vox people like your stuff. Loads. Of course, they're putting my stuff up now so the standards can't be but so high.
I believe the McCain debacle is being perceived as a "circle the wagons" thing. Remains to be seen just how it all plays out.
Scio,
I can't tell you how glad I am to hear that you've arrived! Now I ask again, can you tell me where we're being "put up?"
Did you stop to think that maybe we're the only two who write about politics all the time?
Snow,
I always try to reflect what I'm getting and to magnify it all out of proportion, so you'll get what you're looking for (and then some) when you look at what you're giving out (and then some).
Your personal advisor
It's the links at the top by "explore vox"
Much obliged. Though I'm not quite sure what "by 'explore vox'" means, the link would seem to eliminate or at least reduce the need for further explanation.
And I further express my appreciation since my request appears to fit in the category: with friends like these... I'm indebted to friends like you.
Thanks.
Although I admit that there's the ever so slim possibility that they couldn't believe I'm so unfamiliar with Vox that I'd even have to ask for assistance. It has nothing whatsoever to do with disinterest, I'd tell them, and everything to do with self-centeredness.
--------
So get this... Something went wrong and this didn't post, so I ended up going to the politics page first, and I must say, after looking at some of the people who are on it, I really am not thrilled to be there.
But that in no way lessen the gratitude i have toward you.
Oh bloody 'ell, I would like to request that you disregard the last part of my last comment. I was reading the COMMENTS. I didn't even see myself there initially. I only saw Lenny's typically insipid comment about something I'd said, so I though I'd scrolled off.
Now that I see I'm right at the top of the heap... and what a heap it is, I might add... I have nothing but admiration for those incredibly perceptive, quite possibly brilliant, people at Vox!
That you again, that was very kind of you to explain, and even better, I finally get it!
Jeff, I'm not sure if that's a general question or if it's meant to contradict what i said, but I'll answer because... you know... you're Irish.
I was very specific in what I said, and in that context, Rush is irrelevant. However, I know that conservatives were divided about Rush. I was critical, but I understood how someone could get addicted to painkillers because I was once in such pain as to be nearly crippled, so in the end, he did wrong, but I can't exactly fault him to the point where it should have been career ending.
Notice that I didn't say that conservatives would speak with one voice, but contrast the fact that conservatives were critical of Limbaugh, and that all Republicans in Congress with the exception of Craig (who is temporarily out of their control) were forced to step down with the fact that Democrats rarely even apologize much less resign as a result of criticism from liberals. More usually, liberals rally around them.
Rush weathered the storm... with liberals, it's always fair weather.
What's more interesting to me is how the liberals here "rushed" to claim I was wrong when they had no case whatsoever.