Pandering

Wow, what a piece of shit the Washington Times is.

I know this isn’t news, but I am still amazed that some people look at this assrag and call it journalism.

Take a look at this story. The headline: “McCain refuses to pander.” I guess the Times missed the senate vote on the Intel Authorization bill, noted in a post below, in which McCain voted against making the interrogation rules in the Army Field manual apply to U.S. intelligence personnel.

So I’m reading this steaming pile, and it appears to be about Huckabee’s refusal to drop out of the race, not about McCain’s refusal to pander.

But then, just as I was about to give up hope of reading about McCain steely resolve against pandering, I got to the 12th graf:

He also disputed the sentiment from some conservatives that Mr. McCain needs to make a specific gesture to conservatives, such as selecting a vice-presidential nominee they can be excited about, to win their support. Instead, Mr. Davis said the important move is conservatives joining the McCain campaign, including defense, economic and social conservatives.

And there it was, more than halfway to the end of the story, and after the virtual jump: A passing reference to the subject brought up in the headline.

This is followed by a couple of grafs describing McCain’s pandering-free asking of conservatives for their votes. And then we get to this:

Mr. McCain yesterday held a closed-door meeting with House Republicans to consolidate his support and begin unifying the party's elected leaders behind him.

Even though many of those Republicans have fought Mr. McCain bitterly on immigration, campaign finance reform and other issues, Mr. Davis said the meeting was so congenial it was “almost like a rally.”

And that, of course, is almost like cheerleading. And from an unbiased source like McCain’s campaign manager, at that.

And just to hammer home the point that McCain refuses to pander (and that the Times isn’t wasting its time propping up McCain because here’s why he can win. No, really), we finish up with

Mr. Davis said there's plenty of room to undercut Mr. Obama's support by pointing out information such as his ranking by National Journal as the most liberal senator in 2007.

And, as we all know, playing on conservative fears and biases connected to the word “liberal” isn’t pandering.

pan·der intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses.

So to sum up: What this story does is state in large type that “McCain refuses to pander” in the hope that you will read that and nothing more. But, just to be on the safe side—and to avoid looking like the wrong headline is on the story, the lede repeats the ballyhoo, quoting none other than McCain’s campaign manager. Of course, that’s exactly what you’d expect any candidate’s campaign manager to say, but it serves its purpose: It gets the words “McCain” and “will not pander” in the same sentence, in the lede. The story then immediately veers off into a discussion of Huckabee’s curious continued presence in the race. It’s at that point that the editors expect you to stop reading.

I have some bad news for Times readers: The editors of your paper think you’re stupid.