After sitting through a dozen, maybe more, GOP debates in which their brand was brutally assaulted across the board, I have to say I'm pleased that the NY Times has not held any punches.
It's hilarious that the GOP boosters cannot stand 'anonymous sources', because they have no one to rip apart, mostly.
(Ever notice how former employees are always the disgruntled ones, never the employer? What's up with that obvious falsehood?)
(Ever notice how former employees are always the disgruntled ones, never the employer? What's up with that obvious falsehood?)But above all, the Swiftboat crew got a standing ovation at their C-PAC two years ago, as I recall. A standing ovation. Not Cindy McCain coming out and saying, "I'm disappointed with the SB Vets for Truth". Nada. (Although McCain later did say something). God knows, Pat Buchanan never had any such publicly announced scruples.
People with long memory will recall that the Swiftboats launched, after hiring a firm to handle it for them, by holding a press conference, indicating that they would be bringing forward all kinds of criticism of John Kerry's war record. No sources. No details. After the primaries. Folks on the Right said, "Oh, let's hear what they have to say."
Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, with at least some sourcing, they are just as incensed as I was, back then, it seems.
I DON'T QUESTION THE TIMING OF THIS
Frankly, my assessment is that this is the least damaging time for these facts to come to light (at least outside the circles of Washington).
If it were before, editors would have been accused, as McCain said of them himself in December, of throwing the GOP nomination one way or the other. If later, they'd be accused of influencing the general election.
McCain has his nomination and the general is a long way away, so the timing is hardly the most damaging.
