Thursday, October 09, 2008

NYT distorts McCain-Palin's Obama-Ayers charge

Under Obama reporter-supporter Patrick Healy’s byline, the New York Times runs a puff piece today all about what an even tempered, regular guy in the neighborhood Obama is.

We even learn that on "Wednesday evening, he got home early to spend time with his two young daughters and take one of them to a bookstore in their neighborhood.”

Who says the Times isn’t taking a close look at Obama’s activities?

In the middle of the lengthy story we find this misrepresentation of what Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have been saying about unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers:

Senator John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin and their Republican allies are increasingly trying to tag Mr. Obama with the word “radical,” arguing that he prefers radical friends (Bill Ayers, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and has a radical tax plan and health care plan (even if both are fundamentally Democratic).
McCain and Palin aren’t referring to Ayers as a “radical.” They call him a terrorist. Palin did so repeatedly this weekend. The McCain ad below twice refers to Ayers as a “terrorist.”

But the Times wants to mellow things out for its candidate, so it misrepresents what McCain-Palin are saying by substituting the much milder description “radical” for the one the two GOP candidate are actually using: “terrorist.”

Anything for Obama.

And did you notice Healy’s and the Times’ “even if both are fundamentally Democratic?”

That’s the kind of commentary that’s supposed to be reserved for the editorial page.

But at the Times – news columns, editorial page, whatever – as long as it helps Obama.

BTW – The story takes a lot of swipes at President Bill Clinton to whom Obama is gushingly compared.

The swipes (gratuitous and nasty) IMO are sure signs the Times isn’t satisfied with the help the Clintons are giving Obama.

If the Times was satisfied with what the Clinton are doing for Obama, it would have swiped at some other presidential figure.

W, for instance.


Anonymous said...

I am active in regional theater in North Carolina. In theater parlance, we refer to something called "willing suspension of disbelief" as one of the basics of theater. You know what you're seeing and hearing is not real, but for the sake of artistic enjoyment, you willingly accept the premise that it's "real."
We are seeing this phenomenon on many planes these days as reporters and commentators willingly suspend disbelief when confronted with the reality of just who is St. Barack. MSM accepts St. Barack's explanation of his association with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and refuse to ask any follow-ups; MSM denies that Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Chris Dodd acted as primary enablers for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defraud the American taxpayer and that the Democrats pushed the Community Reinvestment Act (which the GOP lacked the gonads to oppose) that was the root cause of the mortgage melt-down; MSM purposely overlooks St. Barack's association with Rezco and other Chicagoland thieves; MSM isn't the least bit interested in massive nationwide voter fraud being carried out by ACORN and refuses to question St. Barack's long association with ACORN.
The ordinary citizen who supports the Obama-Biden ticket can be excused for being ignorant of the background of St. Barack because the MSM has kept any of this from view. The standard-bearer in this disinformation campaign is the New York Times with the chief acolytes being CNN, MSNBC, and second-stringers like LA Times and CBS.
Historians will have a grand time dissecting this travesty a few decades in the future.
Tarheel Hawkeye