In noting yet another hit piece by the New York Times on Cindy McCain, Powerline discovers the Times reporters attempting to dig up trash by simply emailing Bridget McCain’s classmates looking for dirt:
I saw on facebook that you went to Xavier, and if you don’t mind, I’d love to ask you some advice about a story. I’m a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I’m reaching out to fellow parents at her kids’ schools. My understanding is that some of her older kids went to Brophy/Xavier, but I’m trying to figure out what school her 16 year old daughter Bridget attends– and a few people said it was PCDS. Do you know if that’s right? Again, we’re not really reporting on the kids, just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like.
Also, if you know anyone else who I should talk to– basically anyone who has encountered Mrs. McCain and might be able to share impressions– that would be great.Thanks so much for any help you can give me.
Jodi Kantor
Political correspondent
New York Times
Now, Kantor’s slime trolling came up empty because, A) there was nothing to find, and B) Bridget’s 16 year old classmates are better aquainted with common human decency than your average liberal reporter. However, the entire episode is telling; MSM have plenty of time to attempt to dig up dirt at McCain’s daughter’s high school, but they have no time to investigate the connection between the large ear mark supplied by Barack Obama to his wife’s employer, and the subsequent $100,000+ pay raise enjoyed by Michelle Obama. Exploring that would be uncouth you see.
This fish is rotting from the head.
The New York Times and the Obama campaign… can they stoop any lower? I’m sure they’ll keep trying.
Nor have they bothered to do the same type of investigatory dirt digging in regard to Michelle Obama or Mrs. Biden (I don’t know her 1st name) or even the Obamessiah. And yet they will STILL claim that they are fair and unbiased journalists. What a laugh!
Yuri’s “smart people” in action – doing the job Joseph Goebbles used to do.
Has anybody checked McCain’s barber? Maybe he’s got some “dirt” about how McCain forgets to wash behind his ears.
jeez, guys. Where in this e-mail you see any suggestion he’s looking for dirt? He’s just writing a piece on her and traces people who could have come in contact with her. Isn’t that what’s called journalism?
Anyway, talking of smears, take this from one of yours
(and one of the few I deeply respect) about the smear balance of the campaigns:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490
P.S. And now, from the horses mouth on the topic of Friday’s post:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/joe-plumber-discusses-life-changes-media-target/
Joe the Plumber added that he doesn’t think either of the candidates pushed the media to look into his life.
“I think the media pretty much did that all by themselves. I hold no animosity towards either one of them, by no means,” he said…
Geez guys. Where is any suggestion of “dirt” in this e-mail? Looks to me, he’s just doing a profile. That’s called journalism, no? Unlike some outlets that know what to write without bothering to gather the facts?
Anyway, I hope Powell’s take on the tone and balance of campaigns would make some of you see the light.
P.S. And now from the horse’s mouth, this is from FOX news website, the definitive answer to last Friday’s post:
Joe the Plumber added that he doesn’t think either of the candidates pushed the media to look into his life.
“I think the media pretty much did that all by themselves. I hold no animosity towards either one of them, by no means,” he said…
BTW, Daudi, I have thick skin, but just for your information:
I lost about a third of my extended family to Holocaust. In fact, I narrowly made it at all: my dad, a kid then, was going to visit his family (he lived in Moscow and extended family was in western USSR) in the summer of 1941, but got sick. That pretty much saved his life, Germans invaded and they never saw or heard from anybody there again.
So mind the Nazi talk.
Once again Yuri…in order for your claims to stick you would have to COMPARE them to similar behavior. For example, Obama lies about his connections to Bill Ayers, and who exposes that? The media? Why no, it is bloggers. Obama inflates is resume concerning his work expereince in New York. Exposed by the MSM? Nope….bloggers again. Racial inflammatory pastor exposed by the media? No again, that was bloggers and YouTube. Problems with Tony Rezko and shady property dealings, a MSM exclusive? Not so much…broken by bloggers as well. Indeed, if you dont count NR as a MSM outlet, I cannot think of a single negative report on Obama that originated in the MSM. This is the same media that found time to print a false “McCain had an affair!” rumor on the front page of the Times.
But maybe I should cut the MSM some slack….after all they have only so many resources, and it takes a lot of leg work to produce Todd Palin’s driving record, or to dig up video of Sarah Palin in a bathing suit, or to troll for “information” at the schools of McCain’s children. (Gee, it seems the media was too busy to do the same at the Obama girls’ school. Musta just been an oversight.)
And I’m sorry but Mwalimu is right. The press has been acting as the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign, and not as independent observers. As such, his invocation of Goebbles is entirely appropriate.
Exploring that would be uncouth you see
Well, not “uncouth,” but racist.
“The press has been acting as the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign, and not as independent observers. As such, his invocation of Goebbles is entirely appropriate”
Oh, what a short memory people have.
Do you remember media circa 2002? They were marching like lemmings behind Bush’es lies about Iraq, mindlessly parroting outrageous claims the White House made – all of them, including New York Times, MSN, what have you.
Back then it was the left who shouted about Goebbels.
May be we should admit that what media does reflects what country wants, and therefore would sell?
(to media’s credit, by 2004 many papers put out official apologies for being more of a mouthpiece to the White House then concerned citizens and “fourth power”…)
But that aside, back in 2002 there was obvious pressure coming from the White House to suppress unwanted information. So I’m confused about where do you think the pressure comes now? Republicans are still in power! Doesn’t make sense to me.
“I lost about a third of my extended family to Holocaust”
Yet, you now stand here and defend Walter Duranty’s New York Times????
By the by, Jodi is a she not a he; perhaps your lack of readings skills makes it difficult for you to understand that the Nazi Party was a National SOCIALIST WORKERS Party where even Hitler orated that his Socialism went deeper, as in, killing anyone who dissented against The One and his Party!
Why do you think it is that so many Socialist Democrats in America are over-whelmingly anti-Semitic and further accuse Israel of committing genocide, violating human rights and would have no problem seeing Israel wiped off the face of the planet?
Take a look at American anti-war movement, most all the signs were paid for by the International Socialist who find Jews as distasteful as did Hilter and impliment the same goon tactics Nazi’s used to shut down dissenting voices.
Re: Ayers, Rezko et al.
figured if I don’t reply to this, you guys would criticize my last post for being “empty rhetoric”
Politics, power and money attract a lot of people. Most of them with selfish motives and some of them outright crooks. And all these people, unfortunately, make the topsoil on which the young politicians grow.
And everybody comes up and rubs shoulders with all kinds of people. Also, politics being “art of possible” makes strange bed fellows sometimes…
I believe it is unproductive in the extreme to use this as “guilt by association”. Ans then, GOP ticket has problems of their own. McCain seems to have been much closer to Savings and Loan scandal then Obama ever was to Rezko. As for Ayers, Palin’s husband was, until recently, a member of a political party arguing for secession, wasn’t he?
“Oh, what a short memory people have.”
There you go again. Did you remeber when the NY Time’s editors published several opinions beignning in 1998 after President Clinton signed the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act giving reasons why Saddam Hussein must be removed?
Yet nowhere do you mention Joe Wilson and the NY Times printing his lies about those ’16 words’ in Bush’s State of the Union.
“GOP ticket has problems of their own. McCain seems to have been much closer to Savings and Loan scandal”
Exactly, how many MSM media outlets have re-covered that story? A dozen? The only stories on Rezko have been to reprint the Obama campaigns memos on the subject. (Thanks for proving my point for me.)
And, thank you Yuri, for being so honest. Yes, i agree. I believe the press is acting in this duplicitous manner to “get” Republicans for percieved past misdeeds, but it is hardly the same thing. Last time I checked the Democrats overwhelmingly supported military action against Iraq back in 2003. (How quickly we forget.) Therefore if the press didn’t do its job back then (a claim I find slightly ridiculous…last time I checked the MSM didn’t have an intelligence gathering arm), how is it improving matters by being deliberately misleading, biased, and one-sided now?
What it comes down to is power. Liberals control the MSM and they feel free to employ it in any manner they like, for any ends…as long as they harm Republicans. Once again, National Socialism isn’t too far away.
“Last time I checked the Democrats overwhelmingly supported military action against Iraq back in 2003. (How quickly we forget.)”
ooohh, I didn’t forget. Like spineless and fearful fools they behaved, and I am still upset about it.
(Obama, BTW was not one of them. Yes, it was easier to speak against the war in a state like Illinois, but he provided, even by Illinois standards, a very thoughtful and stinging critique).
I don’t know who controls MSN, but I’m sure that if underreporting on Obama would cause them to loose money, they would change in an instant.
So it’s us who is feeding the media by paying attention to it (sorry to go Lisa Simpson on you)… Let’s stick to what’s important, and I truly believe that these early associations are irrelevant for either side. We know that fertilizer unfortunately smells. And we’re all in a political farm. But shouldn’t we focus on the fruit instead of the dirt where the tree comes from?
“Let’s stick to what’s important, and I truly believe that these early associations are irrelevant for either side.”
Thats fine for Obama who has almost no record at the level of national politics. So everything that is part of his state record (like palling about with the socialist New Party) is out….. except for Obama speaking out against the Iraq war…that still counts. How isn’t this the same as saying Obama should be above all criticism? The real argument to make is that the people can decide for themselves what is and isn’t important. So when a college professor colleaue of Obama from his teaching days says Obama is “As close to an out and out Marxist as we’ve ever had running for national office,” I dont want the press sitting on such information because it “isn’t good for me to know.” What they really mean is it might not be good for Obama.
And hey, the only thing about Obama I mentioned in my post was something Obama did as a US Senator. Now that is off limits too?
Maybe the Obama campaign can put me on their fax list so I too will not what is and isn’t acceptable to talk about.
One thing that this current campaign has given me is a visceral loathing for the big city newspapers and television news networks. I find myself applauding every layoff and cutback, and cheering for the destruction of the MSM. And that won’t go away when the election is over.
“Let’s stick to what’s important, and I truly believe that these early associations are irrelevant for either side.”
yuri, if it was just one or even two associations I would agree with you. However, the huge number of questionable associations in Obama’s past show a pattern of poor judgement at best. Look at the list: Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Rezco, Mansour, the Socialist New Party, ACORN, et al. And if he has this many we know about, how many more connections are there that we don’t know about because the fawning MSM refuses to investigate his background in any way and criticizes anyone who does try to ask questions? If it weren’t for the internet we wouldn’t even know this much about his questionable associations.
“The real argument to make is that the people can decide for themselves what is and isn’t important. So when a college professor colleaue of Obama from his teaching days says Obama is “As close to an out and out Marxist as we’ve ever had running for national office,” I dont want the press sitting on such information because it “isn’t good for me to know.”
I think I agree with you here. And I have heard that last thing, wasn’t really aware that this was suppressed information. Was it?
But you can also agree, hopefully, that the debate on whether or not to have progressive tax policy (or, if you like, “spreading wealth around”) is a much more meaningful debate then comparing who got dirtier and chummier with corrupt. For both tickets, there was nothing illegal done. I’m positive there is no liberal bias protecting Obama at the Justics Department, he-he. And the last thing that trouble me with McCain is whether or not he was involved in Savings & Loan.
“I think I agree with you here. And I have heard that last thing, wasn’t really aware that this was suppressed information. Was it?”
Yeah you read it here: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/16/did-barack-spread-the-wealth-obama-just-blow-the-election.html
But notice, the information the reporter had from the prof. was several months old (at least). It became especially relevant because of the “spread the wealth” sentiment advanced by Obama, but why didn’t the reporter go with it immediately? What wasn’t “news” about that? Imagine if it was a frequent aquaintence of McCain who said “McCain is the closest thing to Stalin (or Napoleon or Hitler) we’ve ever had running for the presidency in this country” could you imagine a reporter NOT passing that on, and right away?
“And the last thing that trouble me with McCain is whether or not he was involved in Savings & Loan.”
Ah, but McCain has been through an investigation on that matter and came away with something less than a slapped wrist really. But it is all out there in the public record for people to look at and decide for themselves. If you relied only upon the MSM there is no way to get the same type of information concerning Obama. Only a small percentage of the population are interested enough in politics to go digging through the internet/blogs to find out more. Dont you think there were better ways for the Times to be spending their Time than looking at this high school? Have we really exhausted everything else? I’m just saying such digging has been a one way street when it comes to the MSM.
Plus, Obama has out and out lied about how close his connection to Ayers was…even if you dont believe working with Ayers is a big deal for you, the lying does say something about Obama. More than anything that makes it an issue.
Rich, do you *really* believe that Obama is a terrorist? Do you think he shares Ayers’es violent ideas?
I really did not follow the Ayers thing much. From people I respect (like Colin Powell yesterday, but many people from both parties) I heard that there was no real connection, and it’s good enough for me. Some are just seemingly eager to get Obama on patriotism since they can not get him on race…
“Rich, do you *really* believe that Obama is a terrorist? Do you think he shares Ayers’es violent ideas?”
Hey, if YOU believe Ayers has those views it makes you an improvement over the MSM.
And yes there is a real connection via the Annenberg Challenge, where Ayers was the founder and first director of the board, and where Obama was the second director of the board. Mind you, this is pursuit of an education “Agenda” that Ayers himself has likened to that imposed by Hugo Chavez (hmm..I cant wait.) That Obama began by trying to claim Ayers was “just a guy who lives in the same neighborhood as me” just shows how dishonest he has been.
As for what I think Obama is…I think he’s probably some sort of socialist. Almost all of the signs point to that. We have his autobiography which underscores how he sought out leftists during his education. Hell, the name of his book, “Dreams From My Father” makes you wonder what sort of dreams Barack could get FROM his father as he was a Marxist economist. Then you have his choice of Trinity Church in Chicago, which is “black liberation” in inspiration, which is based largely upon leftist ideology (specifically of a Leninist variety) – I looked more closely at that here http://iconicmidwest.blogspot.com/2008/03/bare-minimum-christianity.html –
Add to that his either being a member of, or a fellow traveler of, the socialist New Party, which seems to offer a kind of Fabianism, and it becomes hard to believe that Obama is simply the victim of “bad luck” in his associations. They all to easily fit into a patter of behavior. For example, Obama admits he has been attracted to extreme political thought from his earliest days. Now, you can believe he did it merely in an attempt to “be cool” (like all the morons in the world wearing Che t-shirts), but it certainly would explain why he had no problem being chummy with the likes of Ayers. Bill Ayers is exactly the sort of person Obama had always liked to hang with.
Indeed, there is nothing in Obama’s record that indicates when and how he had anything like a “liberal awakening.” When did the importance of democratic institutions and Constitutionalism begin to take hold in Obama? He’s written two autobiographies (!) and he hasn’t mentioned that yet. I have come to the conclusion he has never had such an awakening, and thus me remains a socialist (or some variety) at heart. Therefore, when he claims he wants to “spread the wealth around” he absolutely means it. He’s never shown that he beleives in anything else. Now, the MSM seems to think that is an unimportant thing for the American people to be informed about. I think that is complete BS.