As longtime readers of the blog know, I'm related to the Swing Voter, aka my mother. Her vote is an infallible indicator of who will win the general election. We had dinner last night, and somewhat to my surprise, The Swing Voter is completely outraged by the New York Times story--she vows to no longer take the Times, nay, not even for the Sunday crossword. She is also now thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times.
I found myself offering a tepid defense of what really is a pretty indefensible story: to wit, that reporters in cases like this usually know more they can tell, because so many sources refuse to go on the record. The Swing Voter was unmoved. She feels like the Times, and the sort of people who staff the Times, feel that they are entitled to manipulate the election in order to get teh "right" results--that such a story would never have run about a Democrat. No doubt the folks at the Times would strenuously disagree--but it matters that people feel that way. I seriously doubt my mother is the only one.
Vote McCain to spite the Times!(?)
I don't understand the Swing Voter.
Does your mom think about voting for Democrats when she reads some of the outrageous nonsense on the WSJ opinion page? Or some of the ridiculous "the rule of law is important, but let us not question the Commander in Chief too much for the sake of Security and certainly not investigate anything too thoroughly because that would be partisan or something and thus we will critize Democrats in Congress for their meek attempts to hold the executive accountable" arguments in the WaPo's editorials? I think she should read that and get fired up and ready to go and vote Democratic.
The idea that papers should be given the benefit of the doubt when they publish unsupported, anonymous allegations because they **must** know more is pretty dangerous. I'd say that undeserved deference gives them the right to bluff, as in poker, and try to smoke out stories by printing them when they are only 80% finished. And, by the way, what do they "know" that they can't publish? Why can't they publish it? Is it single source anonymous gossip as opposed to double source anonymous gossip? There have been plenty of incidences of terrible journalism at the Times in the past few years. They don't deserve the benefit of any consideration beyond what lies on the printed page. Journalistic standards dictate using information which can be verified by reliable sources willing to go on the record. If they won't go on the record, there better be a compelling reason [besides someone will be mad at them!]. If the sources aren't willing to put their good name on the line, why should the Times' readers believe them? This is another example of really, really shoddy reporting in a very high stakes situation. I predict it will be taught in journalism classes for years to come.
David, the fact that the Swing Voter doesn't share your opinion about the "ridiculous [...] arguments" in the WaPo ought to tell you something about the quality of your own opinion. We can and should debate the limits of the CiC and so forth, but a front page article consisting of innuendo put forth by unnamed sources in an attempt to smear a candidate, well, that is an equestrian animal of an entirely different hue. The reporters sound like they are covering Saudi-land, where women are arrested for drinking coffee with male coworkers.
John:
I am not defending the Times article. I think the affair angle was stupid, but I do think that an investigation into Mr. Straight Talk's dealings with lobbyists in entirely appropriate. That is the angle they should have taken. Also, the Swing Voter should keep in mind that St. John McCain has gotten a free-ride from the press for a long time. I am sorry that string had to be broken by this story, but a similiar story asking whether this woman's firm got special favors (without implying a romantic angle) would have been welcome.
To be clear then, the other examples were intended to point out that it is stupid to vote one way because a newspaper does or says something. Perhaps they were not qualitatively the same, but the point still stand that just because a newspaper says something doesn't mean you should do something else. I mean the NY Sun loves McCain and loves perpetual war--could there be a connection? Maybe thinking about what ones stand on perpetual war would be a better reason to vote one way or another.
You'd be shocked at how many people I know who are seriously pissed about that story. Most consider themselves moderates/independents (all work in a UNION cabinet shop, in Baltimore, MD). Nearly all say they will vote for McCain because of NY Time's attempt to smear someone who seems to be a pretty good guy, and a reasonably honest politician. One diehard "arch-conservative" told me before the article that there was no way he would vote for McCain, but afterwards said that if the NY Times is trying to smear him he'd have to vote for the "SOB" just to spite the Times.
Several of my neighbors, I live in a staunchly Jewish area are rather angry at the way the story was written, and have expressed serious doubts about voting Democratic because of it.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Vail
Pikesville, MD USA
Richard:
I am sorry to hear that, but I wonder if any of them have reflected on the fact that McCain has this image of being such a great guy is because of the media. See Ryan Lizza's story in the New Yorker for more
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_lizza
Now all of that isn't to say that McCain isn't a decent guy. I think he is. Although I suspect like Megan that there was probably something to the story (even though I agree there should have been more reporting if the romantic angle was going to be involved--and in reality I don't think any politician's love life is of concern to me, unless that politician's romances mean he is giving favors to companies or lobbyists. Then I actually do mind).
It should be noted that the Times ran a similarly crappy, anonymously sourced story about the Clintons leading "separate lives" a year or so back. So, I don't think this is necessarily a case of nailing the Times for bias as opposed to just being really poorly managed. Reporters will be happy to print many half-baked, poorly sourced stories. It's the editors who provide the counter balance.
Also, when would it be proper to print a story about a personal affair? I suppose if the other party to the affair was willing to go on the record, or there was really compelling hard evidence of some sort, it would be legitimate [if the candidate was married].
Richard A. Vail,
If your friends base their votes on something the New York Times publishes, as opposed to weighing the prospective presidencies of the two major candidates, then they're...what's the word...Oh yes. Stupid.
I was considering voting for Obama before he released the details of his economic plan. Then I thought about sitting out. But the more I read about McCain, the more likely I am to set aside my reservations about him and vote for him.
And normal, rational people should be pissed at the Times clear betrayal of even the most basic standards of jounalistic integrity. In addtiion to the absolutely staggering lack of substance to the article, there's this, buried in a CNN report:
"Dan Schnur, McCain's communication director during his 2000 presidential bid, told CNN on Thursday that he was involved in most high-level situations and that such a problem almost certainly would have "landed on my desk."
Schnur said that he was unaware of any "improper" relationship between the senator and Iseman and that he had never heard of any meeting with staffers and McCain about such a concern.
Schnur, a professor of political science at the University of California-Berkeley, has no connection to the McCain camp now.
Schnur said he spoke on the record with a Times reporter in December and said he knew of no problems surrounding Iseman. He said he was surprised the paper gave no hint of his views."
Not only did the Times clearly go after McCain with thin sources, they ignored credible evidence that contradicted their desired innuendo. Despicable.
Mesa & Bill:
Thank you. I wonder if "Swing Voter" remembers that Clinton story last year. Probably not(and I can guess why). And for someone to say they'll vote for someone just because the NYT "smeared" them? That has to be one of the dumbest reasons to vote for someone. Where was "Swing Voter" when various news outlets were smearing Obama with that madrassa nonsense?
Klein - The nutjob "news outlets" that spread the ridiculous madrassa story were NOT the New York Times. Big difference between a hit piece in a clearly partisan rag and one in Americas paper of record.
DSR:
The problem is that McCain lied. Not about the affair(he's already a known cheater, so who cares). He lied about his association with lobbyists and the favors he does for them. If you seriously are thinking about voting for McCain because of the NYT piece, than God help us all because that has to be some of the dumbest logic to pick a candidate.
DSR:
You still haven't answered(at least, not yet) what your thoughts were about the Clinton smear piece by the same NYT. And what partisan rags are you talking about? Faux Noise wasn't the only one to carry the madrassa nonsense.
Think back to your "What do voters want" article from yesterday, Megan.
And VOILA. Real issues get a blank stare...but tap into that silly caricature of political battle between the Right and Left and suddenly everyone finds purpose.
Pathetic. Oh well, whatever makes them happy, right?
:)
And furthermore why should we analyze the reasons of the Swing Voter? A swing voter is probably by definition someone who a) doesn't pay attention to politics or understand the issues and (therefore) b) gives entirely arbitrary reasons for his/her vote when asked. Swing vote = whichever way the wind is blowing by election day. It's now February. Look for Swing Voter to reserve the right to change her mind several times over the ensuing months (assuming she pays any attention).
How exactly did he lie? He does claim to be interested in lobbying reform, and McCain - Feingold (misguided as it was) is far more credible evidence of the sincerity of this interest than anything Hillary or Obama have ever done. But just because McCain has staked out a position against money in politics, does that somehow preclude him from ANY association with lobbyists? Face it, lobbyists are a fact of Washington life. Proven association with one lobbyist does not in any way make McCain a hypocrite in my book. Of course, money in politics isn't, in my opinion, the most pressing issue facing this country right now.
If I vote for McCain, it will be because I am firmly opposed to the vast expansion of government (and the corresponding increase in taxes) that is being proposed by both Obama and Hillary. The NYT piece, awful as it was, is not the deciding factor.
As long as we are calling candidates "liars" - what should I think of a candidate who sells himself as an agent of "change" and a bringer of "new" ideas to Washington when nearly all of his policy proposals are simply warmed over and relabeled versions of the same government programs and taxation policies that have been advocated by this country's left since the New Deal?
A petard is a small bomb. One can't swing from it.
Wikipedia
DSR:
I prefer the New Deal to the Old Deal, which was kind of a Raw Deal. Say what you will about Social Security, but it has solved the problem of poverty in old age (in comparison to what preceded it.)
If I vote for McCain, it will be because I am firmly opposed to the vast expansion of government (and the corresponding increase in taxes) that is being proposed by both Obama and Hillary.
Translation: the trillion dollar Iraq war, paid for by debt, not taxes as any war worth fighting should be, doesn't count as an expansion of government.
I guess you are right. But it is a forgivable mistake on Megan's part since it is used that way a lot.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - pe·tard (pĭ-tärd')
n.
A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.
A loud firecracker.
[French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind, from Latin pēditum, from neuter past participle of pēdere, to break wind; see pezd- in Indo-European roots.]
Word History: The French used pétard, "a loud discharge of intestinal gas," for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. "To be hoist by one's own petard," a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means "to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices." The French noun pet, "fart," developed regularly from the Latin noun pēditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, "fart."
If I vote for McCain, it will be because I am firmly opposed to the vast expansion of government (and the corresponding increase in taxes) that is being proposed by both Obama and Hillary. The NYT piece, awful as it was, is not the deciding factor.
And George Bush hasn't overseen one of the largest expansions of government in memory? What about the trillion dollars down the rabbit hole called Iraq? Do you know that McCain has called for a tax increase too(If you get employer sponsored health care)?
Klein - It always annoys me when my leftist friends, in response to my objections about Hillary/Obama's planned expansion of government, fall back on the irrelevant (but true) point that "But Bush increased government too!" I AM NOT CHOOSING WHETHER TO VOTE FOR BUSH (I never have cast a vote for that idiot if you are wondering). If you can't see the difference between McCain and Bush when it comes to holding the line on government spending then you truly have your head up your ass.
And Iraq? Was it a mistake to invade? YES. Will it be an equally big mistake to withdraw before the country is stable? YES. Will the costs be regrettable? Without a doubt. But are you naive enough to think that Obama/Hillary's health care and other government goodies won't cost just as much or even more than staying in Iraq?
The philosophical difference is clear - McCain will spend money where he is FORCED to. Hillary and Obama will spend money anywhere they think they can "help". We may just have to agree to disagree, but given the history of heavy handed and wasteful government that results from such well intentioned efforts to "help", I'll vote for the former option.
Also - McCain's tax "increase" for employer health care is unfortunate, but I can live with it much more easily than I can live with the expiration of the Bush cuts and/or an elimination of the cap on social security wages.
It's already been established that McCain lied about his acting in response to Iseman's lobbying on behalf of Paxson communications, a fact confirmed by Paxson himself and a sworn deposition by McCain. Matt Yglesias is on top of this, why aren't you? http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccains_lying_problem.php
http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid=topnews
DSR:
Forced to? McCain isn't forced to spend anywhere. When will Iraq be stable? What if it takes another 100 years? Is that worth it to you? And as far as who has their head up their ass, when was the last time McCain voted against a Bush budget? Heavy handed and wasteful government? Who is pushing the new FISA laws? Who has ran up the national debt to crazy levels? Republicans, that is who. To say that Democrats are responsible for all wasteful spending and heavy handed government is just stupid and intellectually dishonest.
It's already been established that McCain lied about his acting in response to Iseman's lobbying on behalf of Paxson communications, a fact confirmed by Paxson himself and a sworn deposition by McCain. Matt Yglesias is on top of this, why aren't you?
Because they don't care. They have this idealized vision of McCain that doesn't have anything to do with the truth. They buy into the same stupid thinking as the dreaded "librul media". They like to think that McCain is a maverick when he is nothing of the sort.
Lesher -
I see your point, but the denial of a meeting came from his campaign staff, not McCain. Since the events in question happened almost nine years ago, don't you think it's possible that this was just a misunderstanding? They admitted some contact between McCain's team and Paxson. Christ, I don't remember meetings I had 9 MONTHS ago, and I'm not a Senator. To call this a "lie" is a bit of a stretch I think, and requires an assumption of some serious stupidity on the part of the McCain campaign (how could they have hoped to get away with it?).
I'm really getting tired of this "gotcha" politics crap. Both sides are guilty of it obviously, but it is a distraction nonetheless.
Klein - I'm getting a little tired of this. You keep deliberately avoiding my general point by trying to turn this into a debate about the (obviously disappointing) last eight years. Look, if anything, the last eight years has taught me and every other person who cares about the size of government one lesson - divided government is prefferable to one party controling the legislative and the executive.
To sum up as clearly as possible before I move on to better things:
1) I think most government programs are wasteful, and generally try to vote for the candidate whose stated intent is NOT to increase the size of government and my tax bill.
2) While I admit that Republicans have been pretty bad at keeping their small government promises in the past, in THIS presidential election there is a clear difference between McCain and his opponents in terms of philosophy of government. And McCain's record is largely one of opposition to wasteful government spending.
3) Therefore, as I always do, I will vote for the least bad alternative - McCain.
I was astonished by how many co-workers, whom I normally don't consider to be political junkies, knew about the McCain story, and found it unfair.
My office still leans to Obama, but some are taking a second look at McCain, since they consider him fundamentally honest and competent.
The real loser in this is the New York Times, which, although widely read in the office, is seldom trusted.
Every voter is uninformed. (Sorry to veer off the McCain-is-a-liar topic) What voter can make a truly inormed decision? We don't have any test as a prerequisite to voting, so why come down on someone who is open about making an arbitrary decision? Because in the end, even if you have expert knowledge of economics or foreign policy or military tactics, you're going to be pretty ignorant of other topics.
1) I think most government programs are wasteful, and generally try to vote for the candidate whose stated intent is NOT to increase the size of government and my tax bill.
You are obviously missing thr point. Besides being against the Bush tax cuts(originally) and McCain-Feingold where else has McCain challenged Bush these last 7 years? Did McCain vote for the creation of the Homeland Security Department? Has he voted to waste a trillion(and counting) on Iraq? His stated intent is to increase your tax bill(of course that tax bill might come twenty years down the road). Given the debt this country is in(I mean governmental), do you really think taxes can be cut much more? If they can, you do realize things will get much worse economically then they are now, right?
2) While I admit that Republicans have been pretty bad at keeping their small government promises in the past, in THIS presidential election there is a clear difference between McCain and his opponents in terms of philosophy of government. And McCain's record is largely one of opposition to wasteful government spending.
See answer to number one. Also, what proof do you have of McCain's record to opposition to wasteful government spending? How much do you wanna bet that he'd vote for a bailout of Citigroup or the other IB's if they need it(which they still might)?
If Mother McArdle is so outraged about the NYT ginning up phony stories, I would have assumed she'd canceled her subscription years ago, when the paper played a key role in the Big Nothing that was the Whitewater 'scandal.'
Or she would have canceled her subscription after Judy Miller helped the Bush Administration lie, distort and mislead in order to carry out the Iraq war.
Odd, what some people get irate about, innit?
Oh dear, Yglesias says he's a liar? How can I argue with someone so objective who will only call people liars after thoughtful and thorough investigation with adequate evidence?
This whole Paxson episode shows that we should outlaw all constituent services by congressmen.
This whole Paxson episode shows that we should outlaw all constituent services by congressmen.
Did Paxon live in AZ? Did Paxson own any stations in AZ? Of course I bet if it was Clinton you'd be howling at the moon in outrage.
Woody Bombay:
Right you are. It's also funny how some people can't get over their preconceived notions that Democrats are tax and spenders and Republicans are for fiscal responsibility. Some people are conned by slick slogans and snake oil salesmen.
[Some other] Bill: Translation: the trillion dollar Iraq war, paid for by debt, not taxes as any war worth fighting should be, ...
Has any major war been fought on a pay-as-you-go basis? Wars are the sort of thing for which deficit spending can be justified — very expensive, but not infinitely so.
Bill Woods:
When was the last time we cut taxes in the middle of a war(and some want more cuts)?
JKC wrote: When was the last time we cut taxes in the middle of a war(and some want more cuts)?
When was the last time we went to war on the leading edge of a severe recession that was driven substantially deeper by a significant act of war perpetrated within walking distance of the country's stock exchange and the head offices of several major fianancial entities?
David [from 2/23/08], the editorials you decry are editorials, and marked as such. This article was on the front page.
It reminded me of nothing so much as Rathergate -- a well-timed presentation of lame evidence of some wart in the past of a Republican running for president -- a wart that was probably true but that the public already knew and had put into the back of its mind. The lame evidence does not meet any conceivable journalistic standard but it provides an excuse to put the non-news onto the front page at just the right time to hopefully do some damage.
-dk
I really don't want to read news that "asks questions"... I want to read news that tries to answer the questions. The NYT asked a lot of questions but didn't provide a lot of answers.
I can "ask the question" about whether or not Obama drinks the blood of children. But should the NYT write a story about that? It could, you know, ask the question.
Social Security solved the problem of poverty in old age? Now we just need to solve the problem of paying for Social Security. My credit cards could solve the problem of my lack of a new car. But I'd still have to pay off the credit cards...
Oh, and McCain thwarted Bush on the judicial appointments with his gang of 14. He went along with Bush (but against almost every other Republican) on immigration. McCain seems to be pretty principled.
Unfortunately, I don't think McCain will be able to fix our souls... so he probably shouldn't be President.
Good or bad completely undoing the New Deal is fairly unrealistic. The main reason being voters are unlikely to support such a thing. In addition to that neither party would want to do it. Even on the GOP side of things many to most Republicans were born after FDR was elected so they're used to campaigning in a post-New Deal world. Lastly I'm not sure any current nation has an economy ran like pre-FDR America. Maybe Singapore does, but I'm not sure.
On the New York Times thing I could see this helping him in the short-term, but in the long-term maybe not. Like cops, teachers, priests, and other vocations the media can be extremely defensive about their own. (Also like those other professions they can be very catty or hostile to each other "in house.") I remember CNN used to have "Reliable Sources" which was ostensibly to be about the media criticizing itself, but in reality was a weekly love-fest devoted to countering all criticism. The negative letters have shown the New York Times that they must work harder to prove themselves and show no mercy. If the media considered McCain a friend that might make a break even worse. And seeing how he's probably not as pure as the driven snow they could theoretically end his time in politics altogether.
Okay that's probably an overreaction. Still considering McCain's history with Right-wing talk radio losing more of the media is going to hurt. And I think it's likely to happen especially if regular people treat the media as monolithically as I just did.
BTW: What I read of it McCain sounds fairly likeable in the New Yorker deal. Mean or weird sometimes, but not excessively so.
Mr. Iconoclast,
Your comment on Obama caught my interest. Do you have personal knowledge about rumors about Mr. Obama's blood drinking proclivities? If so, would you be willing to go on the record as an anonymous source for a story I and three other reporters are writing?
Any help you give would be appreciated. With it, I think we can nail down this story.
Megan, can you offer us some estimation of how likely the Times article is actually likely to affect your mom by the time November comes around? It seems likely that this article will either be long forgotten by the time fall rolls around, and if not the reason will likely be that more substantive information (presumably damaging to McCain) surfaces.
We still have 6+ months to ago of pundits telling us how influential the current news cycle's top story will be in deciding the election.
Swinging from their own petard
Sometimes when you mix metaphors you get a result that has some kind of meaning.
This is not one of those times.
I can't believe Senator McCain would put himself anywhere near this position, again, especially after the stunts he pulled in the Lincoln Saving & Loan swindle, years back (otherwise known as the Keating 5).
Literally billions of dollars were looted.
It was the largest Saving & Loan swindle in the entire country, and the swindler was business partners with MCCain's wife and her father, and a major donor to McCain's campagins to boot.
Many of Lincoln Saving & Loan depositors lost their entire life savings while Senator McCain and the rest of the "Keating 5" joined forces and repeatedly tried to interfere with the banking examiners who were auditing the S&L's books.
The "Keating 5" ultimately succeeded in stalling the banking regulators and allowing McCain's campaign donor to continue looting the bank for more than another year until he was finally indicted, tried, convicted and imprisoned.
Years later Senator McCain wrote that his judgement was poor and he learned a lesson from it.
Maybe not.
they are entitled to manipulate the election in order to get teh "right" results-
She is also now thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times.-
Good thing the Swing Voter won't be manipulated in her voting choices by the Times. Sounds like one smart cookie.
Lemme clue you in on something, little Megan. Your mom aside -- really compelling "research", that -- in less than a month this little episode will be the aura of the glimmer of the vanishing reflection of a dim memory.
If I had a subscription to The Atlantic, I'd have dropped it when they hired you. Although by that point I would have already nixed it when they hired that incompetent fraud Sullivan.
Do you know what "petard" means?
for all us young grasshoppers about, 877-RENT-A-CLU has this: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=lincoln+savings+and+loan
to say about Lincoln S&L..
the good news was that it tanked FSLIC, too bad it spawned the RTC-- it's a good thing we don't have much of an idea of the multiple Trillions that have been stolen from the Public Treasury-
So, let me get this straight. The NYT publishes details about McCain in bed with lobbyists (again)..and she's offended by being informed? Methinks your "Swing Voter" only swings to the Right.
The story isn't about the Times. Rather, it seems to be how easily manipulated that any "swing voters" (mythical or real) seem to be by the pushback from the GOP noise machine.
I guess Swing Vote Mammy never heard of the New York Times' Judith Miller and the propaganda parade that led to the glorious War for 1,000 Years that John McCain yearns to perpetuate.
Tell your mother to vote for John McCain, I'll vote for whoever the National Enquirer chooses to attack.
-GSD
Whatever happened to the stories about John Kerry's alleged affair that Limbaugh and Drudge ran up the flagpole in 2004?
Your mom is now like the rest of us liberals who cancelled our subscriptions after the Times allowed Judith Miller to run amok. She's just 6 years late to the party.
It's interesting to read that there are several completely contradictory stories about what really happened with the Keating 5 and several completely contradictory interpretations of the NYT story on McCain and the lobbyist. These blog comments appear to be coming from several alternate worlds where history has taken several different similar, but different, paths.
I once wondered what it'd look like if concern trolls had their own community.
such a story would never have run about a Democrat
That Rielle Hunter story was banished to the pages of the Enquirer, and rightly so.
The problem is that McCain lied. Not about the affair(he's already a known cheater, so who cares). He lied about his association with lobbyists and the favors he does for them.
It might very well be that McCain is in cahoots with some failing telecom company. It's equally likely that Obama's keenness on the fraud that is ethanol has something to do with interest groups in his own state and/or his need to win Iowa to compete for the presidency. McCain sold out on torture. Obama sold out on the drug war. Both know better.
Finding a politician who hasn't done favors for a lobbyist or special interest group is probably impossible (I'm not entirely certain that would be desirable, anyway). So is finding a politician who won't sacrifice positions for his own ambition. Yet we must pick our president from among politicians.
Perhaps McCain brings extra scrutiny on himself with the holier-than-thy-Senate routine. But so does Obama, arguably, with even more sanctimony.
For what it's worth, I think both Obama and McCain are the best of the worst, so to speak, when it comes to integrity.
Journalistic standards dictate using information which can be verified by reliable sources willing to go on the record.
In fact, no journalistic standard implies that. To be true, any journalistic standard worth its salt preserves the right to the anonymity of the source.
Like a lot of swing voters, your mom sounds pretty dense.
"...thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times."
Brilliant. Maybe we should rethink this whole democracy thing, what with cretins being aloud to vote.
Like a lot of swing voters, your mom sounds pretty dense.
Amen. Apparently the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
Translation: the trillion dollar Iraq war, paid for by debt, not taxes as any war worth fighting should be, doesn't count as an expansion of government.
It's far easier to end a war than it is to end any other government programs.
She is also now thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times.
Pretty funny, given that the Times endorsed McCain for the GOP nod.
Of course, the idea of voting one way or another "to spite" a newspaper for running a story one doesn't like is pretty much the definition of silly.
Bill has it exactly right -- Swing Voter and anyone like her is completely Stupid.
Why would you post something that makes your mother look like a stupid redneck jackass just to score your own political point? You're not a very good daughter.
Misspellings can often have the same effect. See:
It does appear to me that the 2008 election will be an insipid contest between two sanctimonious vessels, one filled to the brim with projected and fuzzy hopes for the 21st Century and the other spilling carefully fertilized virtues from the 20th.
PS - "Cretins Aloud" also nicely describes those of you rushing to insult Mrs. McArdle.
Without endorsing her voting heuristic, may I suggest her mind is more open than many of yours.
So the stupidity is genetic? Good to know.
She is also now thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times.
Your mother wants to bomb Tehran, bankrupt the country and torture people to spite the New York Times?
Wow. Does your mom know you make her look like a mouth-breathing halfwit on the internets?
And here Jim shows that some people don't need a daughter for that, and can do it fine on their own.
She is also now thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times.
Uh - shouldn't a person protect their mother from looking silly? It's a bad reason to vote for or against someone and odds are very good "The NY Times" is not going to know, much less feel "spited", over anyone's vote. (Or whatever you would call such a ridiculous thing.)
And tell your mom they endorsed him. Maybe she missed that?
Without endorsing her voting heuristic, may I suggest her mind is more open than many of yours.
It's like playing T-ball.
nyt "reporting" in the lead up to bush's invasion of iraq.
where was everyone decrying "anonymous sources" then?
huh?
huh?
yeah, right. that's what i thought.
With all respect, your mother doesn't sound particularly bright when she talks about how she's going to punish the NY Times by voting for John McCain.
If she would have read the entire article, and checked carefully the many ways Senator McCain has played both sides of the street in regard to his "ethics", she might come to realize that by voting for McCain, she'd be punishing America more than she'd be punishing some NY newspaper.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "three generations of McArdles is enough."
Thank God Ezra Klein is sterile.
Because the Times supported Hillary and McCain as the respective dogs for each party, this is likely a conspiracy. Face it, they know better than this kind of journalism about McCain.
What better way to gain sympathy than to create a piece so bad that it will draw sympathy for McCain?
Do you think the Times is above conspiracy? They
have been tagged for bad journalism before.
If they are willing to take the shot right on their
corporate noses, they could help McCain. McCain is their second choice, Obama is not their kind. Times
is establishment. T
Voting for McCain to "spite" the NYT? That's about as well thought out as invading Iraq to bring Al Qae...oh, nevermind.
Twit.
"Brilliant. Maybe we should rethink this whole democracy thing, what with cretins being aloud to vote."
An elitist who mixes up "allowed" with "aloud"?
Now I do think some people are too incompetent to vote. I know of a case where they signed up people from an institute for people with severe mental impairment. These were people with the mentality of six-year-olds who had no idea of how to vote or what it meant. I considered that to be basically fraud as they'd just vote for whoever their guardian told them to vote.
However an elitist system of voting has a risk of only representing an elite and encouraging popular discontent. It's better to allow people who may make some votes for irrational or whimsical reasons than to forbid them to vote outright.
Meghan?
"Sitting down with Mummy for tea in the morning does not count as "research."
Meghan?
"Sitting down with Mummy for tea in the morning does not count as "research."
Your mother is in cult that can tell her to eat a dog turd and she would.