The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Both Barrels

2.22.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 6)

Why does Washington invent systems that don't work? Maybe it's that: 1) These people don't live in the real world and therefore don't understand the real world. 2) They really don't care about results as long as they have pandered successfully to their constituency. 3) They deliberately design failure in so that they can come back again with another fix knowing that they won't be held responsible for the previous failure. How can the public continue to cling to the illusion that government is the answer to every need?
-- Richard Parr

RALLY? REALLY?
Re: J. Peter Freire's The Sources of Our Discontent:

This article perfectly nails the dilemma of John McCain. He played with snakes until one of them bit him. He thought the mainstream media "liked" him. No, Johnny, my boy, they don't like you. You are a Republican and they hate you. The pushed your nomination. They lulled you into a false sense of security -- even endorsed you -- but, my friend, they don't like you in the least.

However, John, these are your chosen people. I hope all of you get along nicely together. I can hardly wait until Tim Russert and Chris Matthews turn their big guns on our nominee.
-- Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky

I doubt that the N.Y. Times unloading 2nd party sourced slams against McCain will really "rally conservatives to McCain." It's more likely to produce this sentiment: "If you chum up with the mainstream media, don't complain to us about that itching-burning sensation that appears days later."
-- P. Aaron Jones
Gaza, Michigan

McCain is disappointed in the NY Times, not angry, just disappointed. Amusing. McCain gets angry with Conservatives and the Religious Right and condescendingly disappointed with the Times. Maybe he should demand a timeout and have the paper reconsider its naughty behavior!

Me, I'm glad. The NY Times attempted a bite out of his behind in a way no Conservatives could or would. Though this Conservative Republican is not responsible for the bite it has set my taste buds to salivating with glee. Who knows, perhaps this will deflate some of that liberal, self-righteous, holier-than-thou McCain flatulence. I Hope for Change (my snarky).
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey

Freire's article is as lacking as that of the Times. Republicans who seem to take joy in knocking McCain ought to get on board or they will soon be enjoying eight years of the very far left Obama.
-- Dan Mittelman
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Conservatives will not rally to McCain and he is going to lose the November election, barring some unforeseen skeleton in Obama's closet. He has undermined the conservative cause and stabbed conservatives in the back one time to many. I held my nose and voted for Bush I, Bob Dole and Bush II. I will not hold my nose and vote for John McCain, the stench of his betrayals are to overpowering.
-- Paul Martell

The New York Times article on John McCain hardly falls in the category of a cautionary tale, let alone being a valid story. It's a hit piece compiled by at least one reporter who's leftward tilt was clearly demonstrated about five years ago.

On March 31, 2003 the Times reported that Peter Arnett, NBC correspondent, was being fired for appearing on Iraqi state television. In his appearance, Arnett stated that his reporting about Iraqi civilian casualties "helps those who oppose the war." Arnett further stated "The allied war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance." In an early version of the Times' account, deep in the article -- paragraph nine -- there was critical comment about Arnett's appearance attributed to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). Overall, the article seemed to be straight reporting by Times reporter Jim Rutenberg.

In a later version that day, March 31, essentially the same story plus political spin, Rutenberg stated in paragraph three: "The comments were likely to make Mr. Arnett a renewed target of Republican lawmakers, many of whom already contend that his reporting is slanted in favor of the Iraqis." In this version the comments of Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen had vaulted all the way from paragraph nine to being nearly the lead.

Then there is the article by Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post. It's also dated March 31, 2003. His piece showed that there were two members of Congress who criticized Peter Arnett and one of them was a Democrat. Apparently, Mr. Rutenberg and the Times editors missed the comments by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).

Some have said "But these (Times staff) are good reporters." They have to be. It takes more talent to manufacture a scandal than simply report valid information -- sometimes referred to as "facts."
-- Stan Welli
Aurora, Illinois

Anyone still wondering why most Americans view the media with contempt need only look at two sentences from J. Peter Freire's column regarding the N.Y. Times' report on John McCain's alleged affair with a female lobbyist: "This is not a story about what happened. It's a story about what could have happened."

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Television, Business, Federal Budget, Entitlements, Social Security, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Israel, NATO, Communism, Medicare