Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I am SO damn steamed at The Times!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:31 AM
Original message
I am SO damn steamed at The Times!!
NOW they start covering the ties to Abramoff & the Indian Gambling interests?? NOW!?!?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html?ref=politics

Now McCain's team can sell this coverage as "partisan evil librul press" electioneering. Where the hell was The Times when he was sitting there looking down from the chair in the committee room, deciding exactly which were the "good" indians and which were the "bad" indians?

NOW they decide to mention that this massively corrupt series of hearings might not have been on the up & up?.

There SO MUCH CORRUPTION there, and the evidence is dense and complicated. Just how is the electorate supposed to go from 0 to 60 on this information? It would take a THREE DAY TUTORIAL to unsnarl the twists and turns that McCain subjected the Law to in order to promote his interests and punish his "enemies".

I AM SO STEAMED!! :grr: :grr: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think this is actually good timing. A late-September surprise.
One more damning article to drop on McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madaboutharry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think the timing is fine.
There are a couple of interesting points to also make. I have to wonder just how deep McCain's gambling habit runs. Is it compulsive? This would reflect directly on his personality.

Another point that really needs to be made is how casinos have impacted Native Americans. The casino money never "trickled down." Native Americans living on reservations still live in poverty. Another point to be made is a growning problem with compulsive gambling within these communities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adamuu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. The timing of the NYT gambler story perfect. McCain just gambled using our country as the wager
by dropping his campaign and parachuting into Washington... The first spin of the news was "will this work??" Soon, this shifted to "will this WORK?!?!?" In response, Pat Buccahnan said "he likes to shoot craps. its his favorite game. Its a risky game but he think he knows how to place the bets well" (paraphrased) Point is, the media has be recognizing McCain as a risk-taker for the last week. Now we hear this is simply the largest element in a larger pattern. The accusation is that he is a gambling addict and it affects every aspect of his life.

The timing is perfect. It will ring true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. You don't think it's too complicated? Maybe just the aura of "gambling"
will be enough to alienate the RW base?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I agree with posts 1,2,3
The McCainiacs would attack the Times no matter when the story was run. The story fits well now that McCain has just displayed his impulsive, erratic behavior for all to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. Look On The Bright Side: If The Times had covered this when it was happening, McCain wouldn't
be running. Then Obama would be up against a stronger candidate. I mean, they don't get any weaker than McLame.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC