Back Talk

The Times did its best to destroy John McCain’s presidential bid with the rumor-based story of McCain’s so-called affair with a lobbyist nine years ago. They had been holding this until the perfect moment to do the most damage – probably during the general election run-up, but got word that another outlet was going to print it so they let it fly. The Times Readers are catching on and saw the story for what it was - a calculated hatchet job. Liberals are, if nothing, persistent; this week the paper printed a story questioning whether McCain should be ruled out as a president because he was born in the Canal Zone to parents serving in the military there. The fabricating Times poses this as a question that people are asking when, if fact, the Times brought up the issue and is alone in posing the question. It is no surprise to me that the Times editorial board, always anti-military, would favor punishing an American citizen by banning him from running for president because his parents were serving their country at a Military base outside the country - even though the base was technically U.S. territory. The paper has been getting by with this type activity for quite some time with its reporters fabricating stories, catering to leftist groups, and biased news coverage, but the public is tumbling to the facts. In a new Rasmussen poll, some interesting data popped up: Just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. Of readers who followed the McCain story, 66% believe it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign. One of the most interesting findings was the difference between parties; Republicans, by an 87% to 9% margin, believe the paper was trying to hurt McCain’s chances of winning the White House. Democrats were split evenly; a telling statistic considering the Times writers are generally Liberals and swing the news in a way favorable to Democrats.