Conservatives Rallying – At Least Against The Times
Mitt Romney used the New York Times' endorsement of John McCain last month as proof that the Arizona Senator was not a true conservative. Now that the paper has published it's controversial story about his alleged relationship with a Washington lobbyist, it may be the push conservatives need to convince them he is. Or at the very least, begin the healing.
In his opening comments on his nationally syndicated radio show today Rush Limbaugh, a fierce McCain critic throughout the primaries, claimed vindication. Limbaugh noted he had long predicted that the media, who McCain has had an exceptionally close relationship to, would "turn" on him if he won the nomination. Limbaugh did not embrace McCain but offered that the episode offers an educational opportunity for the senator.
"They are what they are," Limbaugh said of the paper. "A snake is a snake, a tiger is a tiger, the New York Times is the New York Times … the important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this? And what is the lesson? The lesson is, liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them, you cannot reach across the aisle, you cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you are a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. And at some point, the people you cozy up to … are going to turn on you. … And if the right lesson is not learned from this, it will have proved to be of no value."
Talk-show host Laura Ingraham, another McCain critic, likewise did not race to offer a defense of McCain but blamed the Times of hit-and-run-journalism. "You wait until it’s pretty much beyond a doubt that he’s going to be the Republican nominee, and then you let it drop — drop some acid in the pool, contaminate the whole pool. That’s what The New York Times thinks," Igraham said according to a report in the Politico.
Conservative talker Sean Hannity tolde viewers of his television show last night that the story was not believable. "I have read this New York Times piece now three times,” Hannity said according to Politico. “And what I see here is nothing but innuendo, rumor. They want the reader to draw conclusions.”
And GOP consultant Greg Mueller tells CBSNews.com that this will only help McCain among conservatives. "It was a poor and revealing attempt by the New York Times to try and smear McCain at a time when he is starting to define Obama as an inexperienced liberal, so the New York Times takes up for Obama's defense," Mueller said in an e-mail. "If anything, this helps energize conservatives to come to McCain's aide in beating back attacks by The New York Times and other liberal media outlets."
In his opening comments on his nationally syndicated radio show today Rush Limbaugh, a fierce McCain critic throughout the primaries, claimed vindication. Limbaugh noted he had long predicted that the media, who McCain has had an exceptionally close relationship to, would "turn" on him if he won the nomination. Limbaugh did not embrace McCain but offered that the episode offers an educational opportunity for the senator.
"They are what they are," Limbaugh said of the paper. "A snake is a snake, a tiger is a tiger, the New York Times is the New York Times … the important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this? And what is the lesson? The lesson is, liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them, you cannot reach across the aisle, you cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you are a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. And at some point, the people you cozy up to … are going to turn on you. … And if the right lesson is not learned from this, it will have proved to be of no value."
Talk-show host Laura Ingraham, another McCain critic, likewise did not race to offer a defense of McCain but blamed the Times of hit-and-run-journalism. "You wait until it’s pretty much beyond a doubt that he’s going to be the Republican nominee, and then you let it drop — drop some acid in the pool, contaminate the whole pool. That’s what The New York Times thinks," Igraham said according to a report in the Politico.
Conservative talker Sean Hannity tolde viewers of his television show last night that the story was not believable. "I have read this New York Times piece now three times,” Hannity said according to Politico. “And what I see here is nothing but innuendo, rumor. They want the reader to draw conclusions.”
And GOP consultant Greg Mueller tells CBSNews.com that this will only help McCain among conservatives. "It was a poor and revealing attempt by the New York Times to try and smear McCain at a time when he is starting to define Obama as an inexperienced liberal, so the New York Times takes up for Obama's defense," Mueller said in an e-mail. "If anything, this helps energize conservatives to come to McCain's aide in beating back attacks by The New York Times and other liberal media outlets."
Romney in 2012!
Their reporting gave us Judy Miller WMDS and Whitewater, their editorial board lies and exaggerations about Gore and blind Clinton-hate, their sensible centrists the biggest flag-wavers of Bush''s failed war, their David Broder heartlander the soft-spoken calls for passivity in the name of civility.
From the Dem perspective, we''d be better off with the WSJ editorial board and Washington Times journalism because everyone knows they''re shills. The NYTs serves to mainstream extremism through a liberal guise.
If Drudge would link to it, the only thing the Time''s would need to run the story is a story in the Enquirer to quote. How many lawyers sign off on stories about the unquestionable fact Kerry was in Vietnam?
To this dimwitted GOP people, any real news is liberal. They don''t want to know what is really happening, what they want is to believe whatever they want. They want to be told what to think, what to buy, what to do and who to support. That''s how we got bush and his crime family, because of support by corporations like the NYT.
%u201CI know most of the candidates running for president but I%u2019ve known Mike Huckabee the longest, since we did our graduate degrees together in the late 70s. Mike%u2019s a man of vision, compassion, and integrity. I%u2019ve watched his uncanny ability to identify with normal people in ways that many leaders don%u2019t. That%u2019s probably why TIME named him one of the five best governors in America. He%u2019s definitely presidential material. But honestly, what I find most appealing is his self-deprecating humor. That%u2019s a key sign of a spiritually and emotionally healthy leader - someone who is comfortable with himself, is authentic, doesn%u2019t wear a mask, and is secure enough to be humble. People love that.%u201D
From day one, Mike Huckabee''''s message has stayed consistent. His message is to bring America "up" not just "left" or "right". He wants to lift America up to higher ground.
The Democrats voice has been heard by picking Obama who is about Change. But on the Republican side, the establishment has stifled the voice of their voters and force the Republican voters to choose McCain because of their greedy pride.
Ohio and Texas must vote for Huckabee, otherwise the Republican party is doomed forever. We are counting on Ohio and Texas to lift this nation up.
"National Right to Life is grateful for the strong pro-life record established by Mike Huckabee as governor of Arkansas, and recognizes that Governor Huckabee has taken the strongest pro-life position on all of the life issues of any of the remaining candidates for president."
Ohio and Texas are true conservatives states. They will play a huge role in electing Mike Huckabee a true pro-life candidate for President.
Primary Goal, uniting the Republican Party. Conservatives will side with McCain over the New York Times (that liberal rag) any day of the week. Mission One accomplished.
The secondary benefit? Defuse a potential issue...
The primary goal of staffers to unite the party is not to say that there is nothing to the story of John McCain''s potential manipulation by a "hot" lobbyist.
It is reasonable to say that the potentially real issue of lobbyist influence on McCain is diluted due to the focus, by innuendo, on the specter of an "affair", something that most likely never materialized given the McCain staffers collective actions to "Caulk-block" the aging Senator at the time.
It is my hope that we have reached a "tipping point" in public awareness of political manipulation. Hopefully, these tactics are highly transparent to the 70 percent of Americans that have rejected these tactics in the current administration.
That last 30%? Still like Kool-aid!