Michael Kinsley has the best take so far on McCain and the New York Times:
I have come under some criticism for my criticism of the New York Times for its criticism of Sen. John McCain. Many readers of last week’s New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question. To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.
Read all.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
To clarify, the NYT says this article is not about a mountain. It’s about the possible appearance, to Mr Leach, that Sen McCain might think there was a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
Film at 11, or 10, or 11…
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
To clarify, the NYT says this article is not about a mountain. It’s about the possible appearance, to Mr Leach, that Sen McCain might think there was a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
Film at 11, or 10, or 11…
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
To clarify, the NYT says this article is not about a mountain. It’s about the possible appearance, to Mr Leach, that Sen McCain might think there was a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
Film at 11, or 10, or 11…
I haven’t agreed with Kinsley on a lot of things, but that article might have caused some people to create the impression that the possibility existed that it may have occurred to some people that there was a chance that however unlikely it could be argued that the preconditions existed for the perception that it was awesome.
Geez, Ed, I read that before eight in the morning, and that’s too early to be reading something that will make sparks come out your ears.
Thanks, Mike. You just gave me a new slogan: “making sparks come out of your ears since 5:30 this morning”.