So, let's see. The newspaper that endorsed you, the newspaper whose endorsement you are proud to display on your campaign Web site, is the same newspaper that is out to destroy you. Well, if the New York Times was out to destroy John McCain, why didn't they endorse Huckabee or Romney instead? Or was that all part of their nefarious plot?
You know, if the Times would stop spiking their stories in order NOT to impact the election, there'd be a lot less reason to suspect that the Times is using their stories TO influence the election. They did the same thing when they spiked an anti-Bush story, about illegal eavesdropping, BEFORE the 2004 election in order not to hurt Bush. So, basically, they hid the news because they thought the news might hurt the Republicans (funny how the Times never seems to spike stories to help the Democrats). And they did the same thing for John McCain now. They had this story two months and they sat on it because John McCain whined and, presumably, they didn't want to influence the primaries. So, yet again, the Times is facing accusations that that they intended to do just that.
The right wing will always accuse the Times, and every one of us, of being liars and traitors, and nothing we do will change that. The Times, unfortunately, is reaping what it sowed. If the editors of the Times have a policy of making sure the news doesn't impact the elections, then why are they writing about the candidates at all? Isn't that the entire point of writing about elections, and politics generally, and the world generally, to impact that world with the truth?
