John McCain shoved his spokesperson out into the fray today and armed him with these words about the New York Times:
"If the shareholders of The New York Times ever wonder why the paper's ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper's editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate."
This is kind of like saying the price of oil is on the rise because people like the smell of gasoline. Papers were cash cows in their days, but then came the Internet and cable and reality tv shows that aired three times a week and their revenue went down. I may be stepping out on a limb here, but I would venture to guess this has very little to do with the New York Times editorial board. The board skews Democratic--we get it. They are more likely to support progressive measures than to not. But that has been true for a very long time, I remember my father complaining about this when I was a child...in the 80s. It's not as if the woes of print journalism can be blamed on economic and technical realities and the woes of the New York Times can be blamed on an editorial board that's had the same political tendencies for decades.
This statement just serves to underscore how out of touch McCain is with every topic. He seems befuddled and slow and unable to find the veracity or vital energy of ideas. The Times has published a series of front-page love letters to him--including one on how McCain refuses to use his veteran son as a political talking point. Even the editorial section had little trouble endorsing him for the Republican candidacy in January. But, despite that, the McCain v NYT fight is deep into round four. First, they had the audacity to report that McCain cheated on his wife, which (incidentally) no one seemed to care about, then they rejected a deeply hackneyed OpEd he wrote on Iraq that no one would have read had they accepted it but ended up getting a ton of play because they didn't, and now they have the temerity to say his new attack ads are "negative" and "belittling." Whoa. That is harsh. (PS -- I'm just confused by these ads. When your only argument is that someone is too awesome and too popular you may be in trouble, but that's for another column.)
It's easy for conservatives to use the New York Times as way to rally their base. "Vote for me or the Sulzberger family will make your grandchildren biracial gays." But this tactic with these arguments will ultimately show just how out of touch McCain is with the independent voters he needs.
Later in the statement, McCain's spokesman went on to compare the NYT editors to a blogger "sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons." But doesn't that sound like what McCain's doing? Screaming that a newspaper is after him makes him sound like a paranoid ex-lover not the great and understanding leader he keeps accusing Obama of being. If anything he is enforcing the stereotypes that are weighing him down; showing himself to be angry, vindictive, unthoughtful, and unable to understand basic economic principles.