NY Times; McCain and stuff that doesn’t matter

While Clinton and Obama are busy duking it out over which of them is more experienced to be president, John McCain is doing all of the things candidates who have their party’s nomination locked up can do – kissing babies, visiting the troops in Iraq, etc. But the New York Times doesn’t want to limit itself to reporting current events. Since John McCain won’t do anything or say anything that reflects poorly on his candidacy, the Times dredges up crap from the past.

The New York Times thought they had caught John McCain in an affair last month and rushed the story to print before they could complete their research and it back-fired on them. A week or so later, they brought up the fact that McCain had a bout with melanoma back in 2000 under the headline that McCain doesn’t talk about it on the campaign trail.

Today, the Times drags out the old story that McCain considered leaving the Republican Party four years ago, again using the headline that he doesn’t talk about it on the campaign trail;

Senator John McCain never fails to call himself a conservative Republican as he campaigns as his party’s presumptive presidential nominee. He often adds that he was a “foot soldier” in the Reagan revolution and that he believes in the bedrock conservative principles of small government, low taxes and the rights of the unborn.

What Mr. McCain almost never mentions are two extraordinary moments in his political past that are at odds with the candidate of the present: His discussions in 2001 with Democrats about leaving the Republican Party, and his conversations in 2004 with Senator John Kerry about becoming Mr. Kerry’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket.

There are wildly divergent versions of both episodes, depending on whether Democrats or Mr. McCain and his advisers are telling the story. The Democrats, including Mr. Kerry, say that not only did Mr. McCain express interest but that it was his camp that initially reached out to them. Mr. McCain and his aides counter that in both cases the Democrats were the suitors and Mr. McCain the unwilling bride.

So, of course, we’d rather believe the Democrats’ version (because everyone knows Republicans can’t be trusted to answer truthfully) that McCain was ready to defect. But boiled to down it’s significance, we (and the New York Times) should realize that it doesn’t matter either way. He didn’t leave the party, and now he’s the party’s nominee. So who really gives a tiny rat’s ass what happened four years ago? No matter whose version is the correct version.

Maybe the New York Times should commit the writers that they’ve dedicated to research on McCain into doing a little research into the two Democrats. Republicans have been a little too cautious to choose candidates with any closet skeletons – forcing Democrats and the New York Times to make up their own scandals with no evidence. Perhaps Democrats should be a little more careful about who they choose – well, if the New York Times would do their job and actually help the country root out corrupt Democrats before they get into office.

Focusing on Democrats might turn out to be more productive for the Times than just throwing McCain’s stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.

Category: John McCain/Sarah Palin, Media, Politics