Get me rewrite: NYT spins for McCain

[ChairmanAgnostic]

"In a front-page article headlined "Is McCain Like Bush? It Depends on the Issue," the New York Times (6/17/08) managed to locate "striking differences" between Sen. John McCain and George W. Bush on several issues--in spite of contradictory evidence reported in the very same article about the two politicians' overwhelming similarities on these very issues.

In the article, reporter Elisabeth Bumiller writes that "on the environment, American diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, Mr. McCain has strikingly different views from Mr. Bush." Yet Bumiller offers" little evidence for these supposedly striking differences. In fact, on the environment, she points out that while McCain has called for limits on greenhouse gas emissions, he "has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate -- he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy."


- - -

I always suspected that Elizabeth Bumiller was only a baby step better than White House Stenographer and spinner Judith Miller. Now, that baby step seems to have disappeared.

This is a nice blog, nice article, and nicely points out how the NYT is shilling for John McCain.

The WaPo and Freddie are bad enough. But even the NYT has permanently lost its bearings and right to call itself a newspaper.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Oh bullshit-- I read that article and you're reading...

far too much into it.

Providing your own spin, so to speak.

[tom_paine]

2. Please elaborate, TB. Why is that reading far too much into it?

I am off to read the original article, but I look forward to hearing your reply.

ON EDIT: I read the article, but I am stil interested in your take on it.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. It's a long one, with a half page of...

comparisons as a sort of sidebar. I saw the print aricle, and don't know what will be online.

I thought it was a fairly reasonable comparison of the two, with the simple caveat that comparing any two politicians, particularly a President and someone running for the office, isn't easy or as clear-cut as many would like it to be. Positions change-- call it flipflopping if you must, but someone around as long as McCain will have a lot of past to dig up.

As far as I remember, Bumiller simply started by commenting on something along the lines of the "Bush-Lite" meme and went on to ponder just how true, or false, that might be. She caught a lot of flipping and flopping, but I didn't sense much of an agenda.

[tom_paine]

4. After reading it, I think I agree with you.

In fact, while Googling for it I came upon a massive Bushie critique of the article from the other side from the vile Nat'l Review. They were pillorying Bumiller for propagating the McBush = Bush meme and the NYT allegedly running with it.

Two points: First, the Bushies are either so slow on the uptake or so committed to their strategy of "working the refs" that many of them actually thought Russert was some kind of a Left-Winger! :rofl:

Thus, mere criticism from Bushies proves nothing. They will criticize anyone or anything that raises even the slightest question of Bushler as "Liberal Propaganda" in the exact same way a Nazi will cry "Jewish Propaganda" when hearing something critical of Hitler.

In fact, when I read Nichols article (which the OP is quoting here, no link provided) he lists specific details and examples.

In their customary fashion, the Bushies at NR, offer no specific details and examples of their position at all, preferring to rile their idiots and quickly move on into a lengthy diatribe about the "political genius of McBush". Standard Operating Procedure. Who can blame them? Finding facts and formulating positions isn't easy. Sometimes I wish I had an audience of idiot freepers who were so undemanding and intellectually incapable of seeing through any lie told to them by their side.

That would be fun, and with the extra time I freed up not having to find facts, check facts, or form cogent arguments, I could pump iron to my heart's content, each afternoon in the gym.

But I digress. I tend to agree with you, though I can understand Nichols' arguments. Further, as distasteful as this is, if the Bushies have created a Lie Machine to deceive Americans and a Scream Machine to "work the refs", then, damnit, WE need to "work the refs", too.

It is not what I want, but like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s when the German Bushies ruled, it doesn't matter what I want, it matters what IS.

Further, my readings of these items were quick, and it may be upon further perusal I agree with Nichols more. But for now, I tend to agree with you, about this particular article, anyway.