Comments on: Couldn’t Help But Notice (022608)

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:54:02 +0000

#5, just to be clear, that doesn’t mean I’m optimistic about McCain as a president. It’s all relative.

By: dscott

dscott — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:45:26 +0000

Tom, if the sock puppet wins, I would call myself cynically optimistic. ;-)

If Obama wins, I would be sarcastically euphoric in such a target rich environment.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:51:33 +0000

#3, I find myself strangely optimistic about a McCain win.

By: dscott

dscott — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:27:47 +0000

Here’s my take on McCaingate. The NYT’s stock price has been in decline since W took office in 2001. Why? Because liberalism’s shrill voice grates on the American Public. No one likes to listen to angry people rant all the time about how bad everything is without any hint of good news or solutions with positive outcomes. Negative gossip and salacious stories must be balanced by positive outcomes and the knowledge that despite everything all will turn out well in the end. The NYT had that balance when Clinton was in power because they could at least propagandize “for” the Clinton admin even while covering “problems”. During the last 7 years with W, the NYT had no one to really propagandize for in government so they were left with only negatives. Human nature is to turn away from hearing a continual stream of negatives when you are not personally involved in the outcome. Doom and gloom sells for the short term but it does not sell for the long term, people tune out.

The NYT and the rest of the MSM’s only hope for survival is a Democrat President in the WH to propagandize for in a positive manner to balance off the doom and gloom.

Now on to McCaingate: The reason for the NYT hit piece on McCain is the liberal principle of “false moral equivalence”. We already know the Clinton’s scandal ridden history, BooHoo with virtually no record, a blank slate if you will, gave the Dems something to latch onto and propagandize without the baggage of the Clintons. The problem is the Clintons are not ready to go along with the program, they want 8 more years and are willing to sacrifice the Dem party future if necessary. The Clintons believe that the Dems will vote for anyone with D behind their name because of pride, so in their mind no matter how ugly the primary is and how sleazy they act, they will get votes in any event. The Clinton opposition research has dug up so much dirt on BooHoo that once all released, BooHoo will be no better than the Clintons.

The Dems were left with a problem, both of their candidates have major baggage which can not be swept back under the rug because we nasty Repubs won’t let them. So out comes the NYT hit piece on McCain to lower him to the same level of disrepute as Clinton and Obama. Once the public buys into the “all politicians are the same” premise then the negatives of BooHoo get cancelled out for the general election. The NYT fell on it’s sword in the hope that their actions would tip the balance enough that a Dem would win in 2008 and thus set the stage for financial recovery of the paper. Yes folks, the NYT made a crass financial gamble. If McCain wins in November the NYT is going belly up in 2009 or Sulzberger and the editors will be sacked to save the paper.

By: TBlumer

TBlumer — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:58:05 +0000

#1, Morrissey clearly doesn’t have a grip on Romney’s real record in MA. Perhaps his real record is why Dobson hesitated and stayed quiet. He should have spoken out forcefully. Romney would have been a disaster, and still would be a disaster.

By: Nasty, Brutish & Short

Nasty, Brutish & Short — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:42:33 +0000

One of Ed Morrissey’s recent posts:

How Evangelical Leaders Blew It
“Dan Gilgoff does a post-mortem on how the evangelical movement managed to allow John McCain to win the Republican Party nomination over two candidates more amenable to their cause. Gilgoff focuses on their failure to back Romney, and makes it plain that religious bigotry played no small role in their inability to understand which political agenda suited them the best…”

The whole thing is really quite insightful:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/017013.php#comments