The New York Times has a problem with McCain’s chosen tactic of running against the establishment.

“Party in Power, Running as if It Weren’t”

The nominee’s friend described him as a “restless reformer who will clean up Washington.” His defeated rival described him going to the capital to “drain that swamp.” His running mate described their mission as “change, the goal we share.” And that was at the incumbent party’s convention.

After watching two political conclaves the last two weeks, it would be easy to be confused about which was really the gathering of the opposition. As Senator John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he and his supporters sounded the call of insurgents seeking to topple the establishment, even though their party heads the establishment.

…But as a matter of history, it is easier to run as the opposition party if you actually are the opposition party.

“When the president of the United States is from your own party, to present yourself as a change agent is not the easiest thing to pull off,” said Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist. Referring to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, Mr. Trippi added, “All Obama has to do is say, ‘Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain.’ ”

How does something so moronic get printed in the New York Times? You would think, after however many years of peddling such blatantly biased reporting, they would have at least managed to comprehend that there is more than one branch of government. A Republican most certainly can run against the establishment, since that establishment includes a Democrat controlled House and Senate (which also just so happens to be more unpopular than the Republican controlled branch of government).

Here’s a little quiz for the New York Times. Which of the two Presidential candidates holds committee chairs as a member of the majority party? Here’s a hint: it’s not the republican.

 Print This Post