Blogoland

Our good friend Hugh Hewitt has heard that The New York Times is holding a damaging story on John McCain. Of course, as a citizen journalist, he knows what that means: Just another example of the liberal press covering for another awful liberal war-loving wingnut:

The paper's conduct is much more interesting than the non-story it is alleged to be sitting on. The only way to make sense of its indifference to national security combined with its solicitude for Senator McCain is via the understanding that the paper's leadership is 100% infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome, and that they view McCain as the best GOP standard bearer when it comes to generating criticism of the president from the GOP side. (Keller et al could never support even the Bush foreign policy-bashing Huckabee because Mike is thoroughly pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and evangelical.) With McCain, the paper would avoid either Romney or Giuliani, both of whom approve of the Bush Administration's general view of the world and its resolve in Iraq in the face of the left's criticism. Both are also much better positioned to beat either Senator Clinton or Obama in the general. McCain of course supported the invasion of Iraq and the surge, but he is much more likely to condemn the Bush Adminsitration as unprepared etc than either Mitt or Rudy, and in a tone far more pleasing to the Bush-haters at the Times. Covering for McCain makes sense as the paper wants the least Republican as the Republican nominee, and in McCain gets a Bush critic to boot, even if for reasons the paper doesn't share.

Get that? The Times is holding the story because it hates Bush and hates the Iraq war, but they love McCain because he loves the war but that's OK, because he doesn't like Bush and is really just a liberal which The Times loves but he's a big poppypants anyway and OMG did you see Mitt today in that suit, he looked totally dreamy, and I need to pee and OMG, Mitt is just reallllly hot!