Maybe There's Another Possibility?
I have to laugh at this article on the Politico
by Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei speculating on why the Right supported John McCain in the recent dustup with the New York Times:
The right-wing response to the New York Times article was in some ways as stunning, and as revealing, as the salacious story itself.
Some of the loudest voices of the modern conservative movement — Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Gary Bauer, CBN.org — flogged the Times while hardly pausing to consider the underlying facts of the story. Immediately, almost reflexively, these commentators assumed the worst motives and behavior by The Times and accepted McCain’s bland yet broad denials.
Maybe because there was almost nothing to the story? Nah, Allen and VandeHei can't buy that explanation:
The Times’ reporters and editors involved in this story are top-notch. Such stories usually only go into the paper when reporters and their editors feel certain they are true — because they know a vicious response will likely follow.
"Usually?" "Feel certain?" And what was "true"? That the Times didn't have any real backup for the "salacious" parts of their story?