[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
I really don’t understand your points here.
First off, the claim is that the NYT knew something newsworthy about the candidate that contradicts one of his major selling points. And then sat on it.
Which, I’ll admit, seems only a little shady, until we get to point two - the NYT also gave its endorsement to this same candidate that they were protecting, for the Republican party nomination. At which point, the NYT is deliberately obscuring information about the candidate, while making it clear that (for whatever Macchiavellian reason) they support his candidacy. Which goes beyond a little shady, IMNSHO, into deliberately trying to rig the election.
Your final sentence really fucking pisses me off - so you want the Republicans saddled with someone unelectable, and any distortion of the facts is suitable to achieve that goal? Fuck you! And fuck the NYT.
And this is in a State where Independents cannot vote in primaries without joining a politcal party, in part, to prevent party faithful from one party from spoiling the primary process of the other party. But if it’s going to benefit your party it’s all good?
I’m so goddamned glad to see that you and the NYT feel so strongly about the idea of an informed electorate being able to make the best choices.
Is there anything you won’t stoop to to get your candidate or party into power, I wonder.
[/QUOTE]
Alright, I’m going to backpedal some.
I didn’t read everything beyond the OP as carefully as I thought I had. But there doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence to support the idea that she’s influencing his decision-making or giving him illegal money, unless I’m missing something (and it’s possible that I am, though I’m reading the NYT article right now.) She spends a lot of time around his office- she’s a lobbyist! That’s what they do! Lobbyists are a sketchy, shady part of our political process. And just like Bill Clinton, JFK, and FDR, I don’t give a damn who he’s sleeping with as long as there aren’t laws being broken or influence being peddled. Besides, there’s no evidence that he is sleeping with her besides that she hangs around a lot.
However, I’ll apologize for suggesting that the NYT was right to sit on the story while endorsing him- the OP has no link and doesn’t mention that the NYT had endorsed McCain, and I didn’t read the whole thread carefully. That’s shady at best and conspiratorial at worst on the NYT’s part, I’ll concede.
In my last sentence, I was thinking of the NYT as a fairly liberal publication that was supporting Clinton or Obama if anyone. (I had no idea that newspapers endorsed candidates, and I don’t think they should- it promotes bias. I suppose at least this way you can see who’ll they’ll be biased towards.) My thinking was that it’s probably good not to drop bombshells on candidates that you don’t support on, say, Super Tuesday, when a candidate has no chance for a rebuttal before an important election. November surprises like that can really sink a candidate for something they may not actually be guilty of. Granted, that has to be balanced with “the public’s right to know,” so it’s an ethical gray area. My last sentence was meant to convey that this might be the best time to publish it- when McCain has a long time to rebut these accusations before he’s up against another big election. Look, there’s no perfect time to publish this- there’s not much hard evidence. If they’ve had this for six months, then I’ll grant they’re quite late in releasing it.
I don’t understand your comment about “so you want the Republicans saddled with someone unelectable”- if I wanted an unelectable Republican, I’d have been raving for this material to have been released three weeks ago- this material hurts McCain, who I think is the most electable Republican running. Ron Paul is too much a fringe player, Guiliani is too liberal, Mitt Romney is too slimy and flip-floppy (and a Mormon, which I don’t care about but the religious right does), and Huckabee isn’t appealing to many outside the religious right.
Again, my apologies for not reading carefully before posting.
