Saturday, October 4, 2008

NYT & the art of partisan propaganda

One of the pet conceits of liberal journalism is that when Republicans win elections, they win by deceptive campaign tactics. When Democrats win elections, they win on issues, and the election of Democrats is thus always an endorsement of liberal policies. The New York Times:
The turmoil on Wall Street and the weakening economy are changing the contours of the presidential campaign map, giving new force to Senator Barack Obama’s ambitious strategy to make incursions into Republican territory, while leading Senator John McCain to scale back his efforts to capture Democratic states. . . .
[McCain's] decision last week to pull out of Michigan reflected in part the challenge that the declining economy has created for Republicans, given that they have held the White House for the last eight years.
Go back to early September, when John McCain was surging in the polls, and try to find any story in which the New York Times cast the GOP advantage in terms of issues. Good luck trying.

But did campaign tactics have nothing to do with Obama's moving ahead in Michigan? In the second week of September, two polls showed McCain leading in Michigan. On Sept. 17, Obama launched a new ad in Michigan:

"McCain would give $4 billion in new tax breaks to Big Oil" -- effective demagoguery tying the Republican to a ready-made villain. But this tactic had nothing to do with McCain's Michigan meltdown, according to the New York Times. And check out this ad that Obama rolled out in Michigan Sept. 23:

Oooh! The rich man with 17 cars -- including three foreign-made cars! But this Obama campaign tactic of appealing to class envy and economic xenophobia had nothing to do with McCain's debacle in Michigan. No, the election is about the "challenge that the declining economy has created for Republicans," and will be sold by the NY Times and the rest of the MSM as a mandate for liberal economic policies.

Again, go back to 2002 and 2004, years when Republicans were triumphant, and see if you can find where the NY Times interpreted those victories as a mandate to overturn Roe v. Wade or prosecute the Iraq war to victory. Good luck!

1 comment:

  1. Go back to when McCain was running in the primaries and the NYT supported him. He didn't get it then, but we the rest of us did: They picked him as he was the weakest republican that would pass as viable. After the parties had their de facto candidates, they turned on him. Duh. No kidding John. I don't know if he doesn't care, or doesn't get it. Either way he suffers from HW disease: no fire in the belly.