The New York Times, a shrill partisan voice, assails John McCain in yet another misleading, loaded-for-bear "expose." All in a day's work for the partisan gray lady. Not exactly your October Surprise, but close.
Article: “For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling,” New York Times, September 27, 2008, by Jo Becker and Don Van Natta, Jr., as cross-referenced to a Special Section, “Election 2008.” (No kidding!)
Another mugging of Senator John McCain at the New York Times is hardly news, in light of its previous take-downs of him. Shady partisan reportage is in full view again in its lead article Saturday, September 27, 2008 (“For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling”). It is a professionally-rendered hit job, replete with unattributed barbs, innuendo, unfounded hints and allegations of guilt by nebulous associations. Real Piece of Work.
Come to think, somewhat like a tawdry TV political spot, it presumes all sorts of mischief and darkly-hinted pokes at one's opponent. This hatchet job features gratuitous, thinly-disguised accusations based on a raft of anonymous sources and McCain enemies. Facts struggle in such a milieu of bias and sometimes, raw anger on the Left. Precious few are the concessions to reality in this hit piece.
Use of “links” — in this case, “ties to” (see headline) — has little to do with the truth, and a lot to do with partisan politics. The writers give ink to dark suspicions, without evidence, and say little exculpatory, ever, for their target, McCain. Their liberal use of the non sequitur indicates a finely-honed contempt for the man, a bias that must be more than subconscious.
How the political Left must rejoice in such pieces. Why, it's almost as though they planted them. God knows they get replays in the Huff Post and Daily Kos; hate-mongering is “in” in these nasty places. Here it's that old gray lady doing her level best, again, to bring down a Republican. It's rather Rather-like, serving up falsehoods and innuendo to “prove” a presumed, prejudiced point.
Not quite an October Surprise, but close – it's dated Sept. 27.
From the git-go it socks it to McCain. In its heavy-handed lead, McCain is playing craps in 2000 at the Foxwoods Indian casino in Connecticut. Folks play craps every day, by the thousands, only their names aren't McCain. Eight years ago, after his South Carolina primary loss. At an Indian casino! With a friend! Oh, the horrors of it all. Would someone, please, get a life?
Wait! There's method to this madness. It's a segue to a Point: “Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table.” Well, duh? A former Navy fighter pilot, shot down in North Vietnam, a POW there, is suddenly into risk-taking?
Now comes their Main (talking?) Point: “McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates.” What's the crime here? When a luminary senator shows up in your employer's gambling room, what's not to wish him good luck? Sounds like good PR.
McCain and his friend, today his campaign manager Rich Davis, won that night, say three (3!) anonymous “McCain associates.” A few thousand dollars, it is said. It was McCain's good luck at craps after being slimed in his South Carolina primary defeat.
Falsely, the article claims McCain “oversaw” the casino as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. But day-to-day casino ops is vested in the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), not a Senate committee. (Besides, the chairman then was Senator Byron Dorgan, not McCain. If anyone “oversaw” anything, it was the Democrat Dorgan of North Dakota..) .
Then comes the Times's de rigueur little cheap shot: “Their [McCain and Davis] night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCain’s affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.”
“Epitomized” what? Playing craps with a friend “epitomizes” nothing more than having a good time, and having a bit of good luck. Wait! Linkup with “gambling industry”? Come on, get real. Such tenuous cheap shots of journalists are partisan stretches, and sadly, how they earn their lowly reputations as spinners. Not many folks trust mainstream media these days for just such stretches and going loosey-goosey with facts.
You, gentle reader, are asked to “buy into” their premise. Word traps such as “epitomized” (“exemplifies” is another drop-dead favorite) are designed to snare the gullible, mislead folks, maybe inflame the base, and above all, to serve an agenda. All in a day's work at the Times?
McCain “portrays himself,” it says, “as a maverick.” Note that “portrays,” the stage word, is used, rather than “describes,” its firm cousin, or even, “others say.” “Yet,” say Berger and Van Natta, in count mode, “. . . more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests — including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors.”
Guilt is implied what, by vocation? In law practices? As croupiers? Shades of past employment as a sort of McCarthyism? On that basis, a lot of lawyers are in deep doo-doo based on whom they once represented. “Lobbied or worked for” is breathlessly far-reaching but useful here is to somehow lash out at McCain. It fails that smell test, but it's instructive to see spin at work.
Berger and Van Natta likely seek a little protective cover for their slick partisan slants. So they go to the Bush camp for comment. They can claim to have made a good-faith effort to contact “the other side” with all the words in quotation marks here imply. The Times connected with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds who turns out not to be born yesterday. Wisely, knowing the Times' M.O., he turns them down:
Not rising for the bait, he knows of previous attacks spawned by the Times upon McCain. For the record, Bounds will only say this and, surprisingly, it finds ink:
Your paper has repeatedly attempted to insinuate impropriety on the part of Senator McCain where none exists — and it reveals that your publication is desperately willing to gamble away what little credibility it still has.
Touche! Why would “the other side” of a partisan newspaper's attack be a willing party to a foregone-concluded necktie party? Silly. Bounds got it exactly right.
Not all is unfair in this slam job. Credit (!) is given to McCain's “leadership” three years ago in the Jack Abramoff scandal, a national symbol of the pay-to-play culture in Washington, D.C. Their article, perhaps surprising some (me, certainly) relates this about that:
The senator’s leadership during the scandal set the stage for the most sweeping overhaul of lobbying laws since Watergate. "I’ve fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes," the senator said in his speech accepting the Republican nomination.
Not to be outdone by mere facts, though, their piece turns again to the famous “But,” as found below. Note, please, the presumptuous items denoted by “[sics]” I have conveniently supplied:
But . . . interviews and records show that lobbyists [sic] and political operatives [sic] in Mr. McCain’s inner circle [sic] played a behind-the-scenes role [sic] in bringing Mr. Abramoff’s misdeeds to Mr. McCain’s attention — and then cashed in on the resulting investigation.
Let's follow the logic: “Political operatives” (boooo!) in McCain's “inner circle” (hisss!) brought meaningful evidence to Congress about Abramoff's misdeeds, all the better to prosecute him. How dare them, some have the audacity to represent other tribes in their private practices. Is this yet a free country, or what? Sound the alarm! Arrest the usual suspects.
The hits keep coming. “The senator's longtime [sic] chief political strategist . . . was paid $100,000 over four months as a consultant to one tribe caught up in the inquiry, records show.” Where's the nexus to McCain? Is “aggressive billing” of private lawyers now a crime? Call your bar association. Investigate! Toss 'em off a moving train? Call Will Shakespeare?
Thus begin a series of tenuous guilt-by-association accusations aimed at Target McCain. It's a virtual circus of presumed guilt by nebulous associations, let not mere facts intercede. Anything goes to bring down a presidential candidate — and his running mate, but that's another story
Truth is, McCain has distanced himself from Indian “gaming” after first supporting it, for the benefits it provided to impoverished tribes. That was behind the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), the late Representative “Mo” Udall's (D-AZ) eternal gift to tribes. Today, as a result, Indian casinos dot the national landscape, fast-becoming over $20 billion-plus annual business. And for politicians, like Willy Sutton, it's where the money is, attracting interest like bees to honey.
On the stump, McCain calls it a business “out of control.” Much of the public agrees. Indians with casinos do not, of course. They now seek their “adversary's” defeat. Opening up anonymously to the Times is one way to skin a cat.
Yes, McCain has proposed to reform IGRA. For this he is an object of scorn in self-dealing, cash-disbursing Indian casinoland. (His bill to reform IGRA, by the way, was shot down by non-reform Democrats. They, not the “Rs,” despite Abramhoff headlines, receive more from casino-rich tribes in political contributions and vote support. Facts like these are not widely distributed by liberal media; it's Katy bar the door!)
Being assailed for his efforts to reform Indian “gaming” is one thing, but his “loyalty” to Las Vegas (but not Atlantic City?) is the trump card offered by Berger and Van Natta. Please note the “But” is utilized upfront, implying as usual guilt by association, courtesy of the Times' hatchet-bearers:
But . . . he has rarely wavered in his loyalty to Las Vegas, where he counts casino executives among his close friends and most prolific fund-raisers. Only six members of Congress have received more money from the gambling industry than Mr. McCain, and five hail from the casino hubs of Nevada and New Jersey, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics dating back to 1989.
In the presidential race, Senator Barack Obama has also received money from the industry; Mr. McCain has raised almost twice as much.
True believers must be led to believe McCain is captive to Las Vegas interests. No habitué of casinos, as implied in the hint-dropping piece, McCain has “close friends,” you see, who own and run the places. Gosh, they're probably Republicans. Do you think? As such, these moguls just might be averse to the higher taxes Obama proposes to slam the filthy rich, plus pushing for more regulation of business by Big Government. Besides, Obama is not as well known, except as a liberal Democrat. McCain is the devil they know.
McCain singles out Indian “gaming” as one of three national issues “out of control.” (The others are federal spending and illegal immigration.) For this he now takes hits from American Indians, newly enfranchised politically, from their cash cow casinos. Some of them, in this unevenly done piece, lob acerbic criticism of the senator from Arizona. And the sun also rises in the East..
Berger and Van Natta end their attack where they started, at Foxwoods, the Pequots' glittering gambling emporium in Connecticut. There, you'll recall, they began their dragon-slaying with McCain and a friend at the crap tables, in 2000, winning, thus epitomizing something or other.
Suggesting skulduggery, the Times' quotes anonymous sources, what else?, that the Pequots got favors from McCain in his Senate duties. Did they? Not an issue. It's the charge that counts here, and Berger and Van Natta are eager to spread it. Critics say McCain favored the Pequot tribe to placate his pal from Connecticut, Senator Joseph Lieberman. “It was one of those collegian deals, said an aide who worked for Mr. McCain.” Straight from the horse's mouth! “Worked for” him! Then it must be so?
Chalk up that last charge as a two-fer. The Times gets to impugn both McCain AND his friend Lieberman! One spurious charge aimed for alleged favoritism, the other because it was for his pal Joe. One stone, hit two birds! Does it get any better than that double-blow in the intensely partisan press?
The gray lady has become the gray whore.