The New York Times loses MORE credibility

I am so angry with NYT editor Bill Keller today, I could just spit nails.

Not because his paper ran an article yesterday about a rumored affair between Senator John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman.

No, what makes me angry is that Keller and his editorial board SAT ON THIS STORY for months. In fact, Keller actually met with McCain to discuss the details last year.

But, he didn't bother putting it into print in his yellow rag until McCain had won enough GOP presidential primaries and caucuses to make him the party's presumptive nominee.

I think he did it INTENTIONALLY.

He didn't want GOP voters to catch a whiff of a potential scandal until after every Democrat's favorite Republican was far enough ahead in the delegate count.

In so doing, he and his editorial board have failed the public trust.

By denying the public access to this type of information, which could very well sway a voter's opinion, Keller and his cronies at the New York Times are tinkering with our democracy.

That's the real story here, not some supposed extra-marital affair being pimped by a disgruntled former aide. (The Washington Post at least identified the source for the rumor: John Weaver, who left--or, was asked to leave--the McCain campaign last year.) My question is, if the allegation makes McCain a flawed candidate, why did the Times endorse him? I would suggest it is because that is exactly what they want atop the GOP ticket this fall, because it will make it easier for their beloved Democrats to achieve a victory at the polls.

So much for the lofty pretensions of the most self-satisfied organ of the Fourth Estate.

The Times outrageously claims to publish "all the news that's fit to print." It seems it may only be defined as "fit" if it keeps the American public in the dark long enough to suit their patently partisan agenda.

For ye socks living in states that haven't held their primaries yet (are you hearing me TEXAS?!), I encourage you to send a message by voting for Mike Huckabee.

And, if you have a subscription to the Times, cancel it!

Candidates' candor

David Broder wrote an excellent article about this week's GOP debate in Michigan, which appears in today's issue of the Washington Post. You can check out the online version here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002123.html?sub=new

He wraps-up his commentary with a salute to my favorite candidate Mike Huckabee, crediting him for his rare candor.

Finally someone in the media is "getting it!!!"

In the mean time, across the aisle, old Hillary is at it again with her own version of candor. She jubilantly told reporters in Boston today about her plans to increase federal government spending by leaps and bounds if she gets her hands on the Oval Office next year.

To date, the illustrious junior senator from the great state of New York has pledged a whopping seven-hundred and twenty-four BILLION dollars ($724,000,000,000.00) in increased spending if she is elected to her lovely husband's old job. That works out to over eighty billion dollars ($80,000,000,000.00) for every month she's been on the campaign trail. And, we've got another twelve months to go, so if she keep up her present pace, that would equate to an additional nine-hundred and sixty BILLION. Add that figure to what she's already pledged, and she will have promised one TRILLION six hundred eighty four billion dollars ($1,684,000,000,000.00) in INCREASES alone!!

I appreciate her candor, too. She's making a very public display of her plans to expand the reaches of our federal government. And, we all know who will foot the bill for it, don't we?

To keep track of Hillary's ambitious (sinister?!) plans, check out the Spend-o-meter at this site:

http://www.gop.com/flexpage.aspx?area=spendometer

If Mike Huckabee's candor doesn't make you want to run out and vote for him in a Republican primary, then Hillary's plans for your wallet/purse should scare you into doing so!