When the NY Times published a Barack Obama op-ed on Iraq the McCain campaign asked for equal time. But after submitting his copy, the candidate became peeved when the editors asked him to revise it and add more substance. He refused and figured he’d get some good mileage out of it with his conservative base: “Conservative Shut Out of Liberal Media Elite Club Again.”
Then the Times attacked McCain’s low-blow campaign ad likening Obama to Hollywood party girls like Paris Hilton. This was too much for ragin’ John, whose campaign aide excoriated the paper with this rhetorical non sequitur:
“If the shareholders of The New York Times ever wonder why the paper’s ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper’s editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate,” said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb.
There’s little danger of anyone in the McCain campaign ever paying much attention to petty things like logic or coherence in their statements. In his eagerness to slam the paper he feasts on the Times’ financial troubles and presumes that their origin lies in its supposed favoritism toward Barack Obama. Would that the American newspaper slump was so simple. Then all newspapers would have to do was become conservative bastions (they’re not, are they?) and return, presto change-o, to financial health.
Since virtually every newspaper in America faces the same woes as the Times, I’m assuming that McCain’s home state paper, the Arizona Republic, must be hurting as well. Does that mean that the Republic has been shilling for Barack too?
In a few months time, I’m hoping that McCain’s fundraising revenue will be ‘plummeting’ and his campaign’s ‘share price tanking.’ Then I’m gonna ask John whether perhaps it’s because American ‘shareholders,’ that would be us citizens, aren’t taking too kindly to his hysterical attacks on Obama.
Just read that Obama has rejected having a serious of face-to-face “town hall” meetings with McCain in addition to the regular 3 debates in the fall. How is it that such a “golden-tongued” orator would be afraid to face off with a low-profile-type like McCain. He is now carrying out the “Tom Dewey-play-it-safe” campaign tactics of 1948. Dewey’s policy in the campaign was “don’t say anything controversial”. In the end Dewey lost to Truman.
Richard Silverstein says
@bar_kochba132: Today the NY Times compared Obama to Reagan. But I don’t think anyone has ever been “clever” enough to see a comparison to Tom Dewey. I have to admit, that took some creative thinking.
Dewey was a N.Y corporate Republican lawyer. Obama is a former community activist. Dewey spoke for the moneyed interests. Obama is seeking to restore American government to its traditional sense of checks & balances after an imperial presidency practically tore the nation asunder. “Playing it safe?” I don’t think so.
Mark Goldman says
The McCain campaign is looking really desperate these days. This sounds like it came right out of the Fox News playbook.
Although the Obama campaign is claiming that much of its funding is coming from $10 and $20 internet contributions, in fact, the large majority is coming from “moneyed corporate interests”. (David Brooks in the New York Times pointed this out). Do you think they are giving him this money hoping that he will then carry out another FDF-New Deal-like “attack on moneyed corporate interests”?
Richard Silverstein says
As usual, you don’t provide a quote or any documentary evidence to prove yr claim. Besides, you provide David Brooks as yr main evidence (w/o even providing the gist of his argument) & he’s not exactly non-partisan.
But if yr claim were true then this statement from The Guardian would have to be erroneous: