John McCain and the New York Times

Back in January, the New York Times endorsed John McCain to be the Republican presidential nominee.

Since then, the Times has published pieces intended to do damage to McCain. These aren't pieces about matters that have surfaced since the newspaper gave McCain its endorsement. These are all stories that the Times has tried to resuscitate.

The Vicki Iseman non-scandal was a particularly lame one. The discussion of McCain's Panama Canal Zone birthplace was another stupid non-story. And the piece on McCain's temper was laughable. When Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller became stuck on stupid, McCain supposedly "grew testy." While judging degrees of testiness is subjective, I think the taped exchange revealed the story to be a fabrication.

The latest installment from the New York Times is part of a pattern of idiotic pieces meant to raise doubts about John McCain and his conservatism, regurgitating old news to make stories out of nothing. This one relates to Bumiller's previous hounding of McCain on an old story.

It's back to John Kerry and John McCain as his running mate, back to McCain's consideration of switching parties in 2001.

WASHINGTON -- Senator John McCain never fails to call himself a conservative Republican as he campaigns as his party’s presumptive presidential nominee. He often adds that he was a “foot soldier” in the Reagan revolution and that he believes in the bedrock conservative principles of small government, low taxes and the rights of the unborn.

What Mr. McCain almost never mentions are two extraordinary moments in his political past that are at odds with the candidate of the present: His discussions in 2001 with Democrats about leaving the Republican Party, and his conversations in 2004 with Senator John Kerry about becoming Mr. Kerry’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket.

There are wildly divergent versions of both episodes, depending on whether Democrats or Mr. McCain and his advisers are telling the story. The Democrats, including Mr. Kerry, say that not only did Mr. McCain express interest but that it was his camp that initially reached out to them. Mr. McCain and his aides counter that in both cases the Democrats were the suitors and Mr. McCain the unwilling bride.

Either way, the episodes shed light on a bitter period in Mr. McCain’s life after the 2000 presidential election, when he was, at least in policy terms, drifting away from his own party. They also offer a glimpse into his psychological makeup and the difficulties in putting a label on his political ideology over many years in the Senate.

“There were times when he rose to the occasion and showed himself to be a real pragmatist,” said Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who was one of those who met with Mr. McCain in 2001 about switching parties and who is now supporting Senator Barack Obama. “There were other times when he was motivated by political goals and agendas that led him to be much more of a political ideologue.”

Such swings are common in politics, but for Mr. McCain, Mr. Daschle said, “those swings have been far more pronounced and far more frequent.”

You'll never guess who wrote this article.

It's Elisabeth Bumiller! How did you guess?

She has no ax to grind when it comes to McCain. Noooo, of course not. The article's headline on the Times website is "2 Divergent McCain Moments, Rarely Mentioned."

That's a crock. Bumiller keeps mentioning them.

Anyway, what's the point?

Is the idea to tick off conservatives about McCain?

Is she trying to remind conservatives to be dissatisfied with the presumptive Republican nominee?

Is she telling them not to trust him?

Yes, yes, and yes.

The Dems are currently in an ugly struggle to arrive at a nominee. It's not fair that Republicans aren't in disarray. So, the plan seems to be to keep conservatives angry about the Republican nominee.

It's useless. Conservatives may not be happy with McCain, but they'd be far more unhappy with Obama or Hillary.

In the end, I don't believe conservatives would be so stubborn that they'd sit out the election and not try to prevent a liberal Dem from winning the White House and granting that person the power to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court.

I'm sure the New York Times has more goofy stories about McCain to throw against the wall in hopes that something will stick.

The "McCain isn't conservative enough" story is a complete waste. We know McCain, but we also know Obama and Hillary.