So, the New York Times endorsed McCain, something being touted by every candidate except McCain, though McCain does have the endorsement on his site. That’s being a maverick to the point of sheer stupidity.
You figure this has to hurt him. His big issue is he’s the best candidate for the Iraq War, but he just got the endorsement of perhaps the most prominent “defeat at any cost” douches.
So, do you think the New York Times editorial board knew what they were doing? If they were at all strategic, they would have praised the candidate they hated most and trashed the candidate they really wanted to win (incidentally, the NYT only singled out Giuliani as a target of their impotent anger); they could really affect the election outcome that way. I think the NYT is too arrogant for that, though. Anyway, this combined with whether this is true might be enough to sink McCain, paving the way for a Romney victory. Yay vanilla ice cream! It’s so… there!
Editor’s Note: Though the title of this post is meant to be a rhetorical question, the answer is, of course, Ron Paul, the only hope for America.
Like this:
Like Loading...