The London Times calls out the New York Times for double standards
Bookworm on Jul 27 2008 at 8:29 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama
The London Times is discrete about it, but there is no doubt that, in its article about the MSM’s studied avoidance of the John Edwards love child story, it is noting the New York Times’ remarkable double standard:
The New York Times has not deigned to touch the story, although it recently ran thousands of words on a relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist, which appeared to be based more on innuendo than fact.
Can’t put it clearer than that, can you?
By the way, I would not be at all surprised if we start hearing similar stories about Barack. My father always said “Democratic scandals are about sex; Republican scandals are about money.”
It’s true that, at the lower echelons, members of both parties have degraded themselves with sex and/or money scandals, especially lately. However, since Roosevelt’s time, when you look at the Presidency (or presidential wannabes) there is no doubt that it’s the Democrats who have been more likely to use the White House as their own personal cathouse.
In that regard, I offer you Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Bill Clinton as examples of Democratic presidents who slept around, with the last two doing so on a perversely heroic scale. At the candidate level (didn’t make it, but ran for it), first Gary Hart and now John Edwards wiped themselves off the slate with their escapades.
In the same era (1932 forwards), no Republican president has had a known affair (including Eisenhower, about whom false rumors swirled.) I also don’t recall any major Republican presidential destroying his candidacy with a sex scandal.
Given the fact that Obama is young and that women find him attractive (see this post too for that same point), and given the fact that he is a malignant narcissist (and narcissists in the Clinton mold have affairs to validate their sense of self), do you really think Obama isn’t a likely candidate for an affair?
I also don’t think that the scary Michelle is likely to stop him from having affairs, assuming that he does. After all, the equally scary Hillary never made a dent in Bill’s style.
I know this is all conjecture, but I’m putting it in writing. That way, if something ever comes out (and I think it will), I can go back to this post and say, “I told you so.”
Email This Post To A Friend
16 Responses to “The London Times calls out the New York Times for double standards”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m with you. I’m tired of the “favorite son” status of John McCain with the MSM. They’re much harder on Obama than McCain, as reported today. McCain should be held to the same standards as his opponent. Instead, we let him fuddy-duddy his way through his statements. As for John Edwards, who cares? He’s out of the picture. Let’s talk instead about McCain reacting to his wife affectionately telling him that he’s losing a bit of hair on top by saying to her, “At least I’m not made up like a trollop, you c**t.” Once I heard that story, confirmed by witnesses, I decided I didn’t want him anywhere near the nuclear trigger.
do you really think Obama isn’t a likely candidate for an affair?
Michelle’s dominatrix leash on her boy toy must be slipping.
The media would prefer women and children allied with the US die and terrorists rewarded.
Why does their favoring Obama, surprise anyone? It is just how their side operates, cause if they didn’t… they would be on our side. But they aren’t on our side.
Concerning narcissism, we’ll see how many Americans and Iraqis and our allies he sacrifices, then we’ll know whether he is a malignant narcissist or not. He is certainly a narcissist. And I believe he is totally amoral.
But malignant narcissists are exceptionally cruel. They enjoy seeing an entire nation, like Vietnam, fall into darkness by their hand.
You believe what you want to believe, BigAl. Such does not reality make.
To your point, Book, the Republicans also punish those that stray, whereas Democrats adulate them. Consider how the Dems /Feminists closed ranks behind Clinton, whereas the Republicans /Conservatives drove Gingrich and his successor, Livingston, from office.
It’s not just that the Dems are the party of sleaze, it’s that they no longer recognize what the word means. It’s all relative, you see.
In the same era (1932 forwards), no Republican president has had a known affair (including Eisenhower, about whom false rumors swirled.) — Book
I take it you never heard of Jennnifer Fitzgerald?
Though I suspect that John Edwards is guilty, at this point, at his affair is mere allegation, too.
I also suspect that George H.W. Bush was similarly guilty.
I understand and sympathize with your suspicions, Ozzie. Is it because they have cooties?
Is it because they have cooties?- Danny
I know it’s silly, but I believe that politicians of both political parties are prone to lying and cheating.
But people have long complained about the way the media reacted to George H.W’s Bush’s alleged affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald (though the London Times was on that one, too).
You might notice, Bookworm, that your all-time favorite-to-criticize, Jimmy Carter, is not mentioned in your post nor will he be. In all fairness, you might post this with a tag concerning him. You may not like Carter’s policies, but he did not cheat on his wife.
>>You may not like Carter’s policies, but he did not cheat on his wife.>>
Well…yes he did. Only in his heart, though.
Give me a break! Eisenhower’s long affair has been long known, and what about Reagan, Gingrich, McCain, Guiliani, etc. But, what does any of this have to do with anything? It’s a private or family matter and has absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics.
Didn’t anyone read the hyperlink I attached to Eisenhower’s name?
Also, Reagan’s presidency was never sullied by legitimate rumors of affairs. As the Times acknowledges, the charges against McCain are, to date, all smoke and no fire. Gingrich’s affair cast him into the wilderness for a long time amongst his own group — and he wasn’t running for President, a distinguishing point I made. Giuliani, too, wasn’t running for, or acting as, President when he messed around. I did point out, as you may recall, that lower level political operatives of both stripes have been involved in sex and money scandals, to their mutual shame.
Er, Book, you might want to link to a dictionary definition of the word “shame” for your more Liberal/Left commentators.
There’s no point in sowing even more confusion in the ranks.
I also suspect that George H.W. Bush was similarly guilty.
The Left always likes to tear down people and then say that their own are heroes.
Unfortunately for you, we already know you are a nihilist, O. The same applies to most of the Left, as well.
Didn’t anyone read the hyperlink I attached to Eisenhower’s name?
You can’t let the facts get in the way of winning for entropy. At least, that’s what the Left thinks.
I also suspect that George H.W. Bush was similarly guilty. - Me
The Left always likes to tear down people and then say that their own are heroes. - Ymar
Wait a minute. Wasn’t Bookworm smearing Democrats with a wide adulterous brush, while touting Republican presidents’ virtues?
I think ALL politicians have a tendency to be liars and cheats, and was merely pointing out tht the fantasy world in which Republicans remain true to their mates by virtue of the Republicanyness didnt exist.
“Unfortunately for you, we already know you are a nihilist, O. The same applies to most of the Left, as well.” — Ymar
Unfortunately for me? hahaha. I’m not a member of “the left” Ymar, as I think there arguments of “left vs right,” “conservative vs liberal, ” Democrats vs Republican” are meant to blind people to the truth.
I’m a registered Independent who thinks the entire system is broken.
But it’s rip-roaring fun to read partisan arguments and look for gaping holes.
Wait a minute. Wasn’t Bookworm smearing Democrats with a wide adulterous brush, while touting Republican presidents’ virtues?
When did you tout the Democrats virtue? By mentioning Jimmy Carter? Hecks, that was helen, not you. And that’s not so good for you.
I think ALL politicians have a tendency to be liars and cheats
That’s what the nihilism is for.
was merely pointing out tht the fantasy world in which Republicans remain true to their mates by virtue of the Republicanyness didnt exist.
Which is called destroying ideals and beliefs of others, not propping up your own beliefs by the merits.
I’m not a member of “the left” Ymar, as I think there arguments of “left vs right,” “conservative vs liberal, ” Democrats vs Republican” are meant to blind people to the truth.
Which is why you’re a nihilist. And why I mentioned “the Left” in an entirely different sentence as an addendum.
Read what you quoted again and then tell me I was being partisan by calling you a member of the Left when I said you were a nihilist.
Which is why you’re a nihilist. - Ymar
Actually, I’m more of an iconoclast.
I try to refrain from telling people I’ve never met who or what they are, but you are most amusing.