I’m really curious – do the editors of the New York Times know how much damage they did John McCain by endorsing him? Not just by endorsing him, but by citing every single time he’s disagreed with conservatives?
In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.
That paragraph is going to show up in a lot of Romney mailers.
This sentence jumped out at me:
Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.
The victories of the surge are “temporary.” The New York Times says so, because they have a crystal ball.
McCain would be well served by declaring, “Those surrender-now defeatists on the editorial board can take their endorsement and cram it.”
UPDATE: Hey, tout it on your campaign web site, why don’t you?