"Times" for the Wolves to Attack

Since John McCain seized the nomination, I have been wondering when his status as "Media Darling" would change to "Republican." Looks like we didn't have to wait too long. This morning I was looking over the New York Times, and sure enough I found a story about John McCain trying to pull a Clinton. I assumed this was the "quiet before the storm," but it seems the NYT has decided they would not wait until the general election to take on McCain.

Before I get called a hypocrite, let me first start by pointing out that I am not on McCain's side quite yet. I still have not decided what I am doing in November. 4 or 5 people have asked me when I was going to jump in line with McCain. If I am to change my position and back up McCain, I need to do some soul searching. Remember I am a conservative independent who is registered as a Republican. The reason I brought up this story is because we conservatives expect this type of garbage from the "Times" and other newsprint papers.

The NYT is back to showing their true colors as a liberal rag that hates individual thought. Again, we are shown by the "Times" how Republicans are immoral sex fiends who can not be trusted. Of course I just roll my eyes, but too many people believe the "Times" is a newspaper. As we all know, The "Times" has an agenda, and they want the United States to move to the left. Unfortunately, most Americans are lemmings so they follow the lead of the "Times" blindly.

Please read the story and make up your mind. Is the NYT just pushing their agenda, or are they just opening the door to let in some light on the truth. My gut reaction is that this is an agenda driven rumor. Though I don't like the idea of John McCain being my candidate, I would not stoop so low as to accuse the man of having an affair to stop his candidacy. I will be looking into this further to see if there is any merit. Personal, I doubt there is any truth to this story, and even if there was, how does this affect his ability to run the country? Didn't the NYT argue that Bill Clinton's actions had little to do with his ability to run the country? Just as an example, the story from the NYT on the day of Bill's State of the Union Address, they ran a story that basically said, "Yeah, bill might be screwing around, but the county's is what is important, not his sex life."

One last thing. I beg you to see the "New York Times" for what it really is, an agenda driven liberal mouthpiece. If this story is not the greatest reason to write the NYT off as a tabloid, they what is?

*An update:

Looks like others are picking this story up. I just turned on the radio and this story has made the news. John McCain has just started a news conference, I will listen and add to this post later if I find good reason to.

Update:

John seems to have just denied any seedy actions, and basically said what I expected. Nothing happened. Other than that, John had nothing to say. What did you expect? It is time for the Republicans to get the beating they deserve for putting up a liberal. I can't help but smile and think of how stupid the NYT is. The NYT might have just done what McCain can not do on his own; unite the conservative base of the party. Let's see how this plays out.

This still does not move me to a decision. I am still on the fence. Convince me. Tell me what you think, and how does this affect you? (Comments are better than emails. This one needs to be discussed.)

I will look this over and fix errors later. I just wanted to get this out to you as quick as I could.