A couple of nameless sources told me that the New York Times was involved in a discreet relationship with journalistic integrity.   My sources were bad, however, and the story turned out to be false.

There's really no need to go into much detail on the New York Times smear of John McCain.  No conservative voter who follows politics closely should have expected anything less from the supposed "paper of record."  The Times has been engaged in journalistic jackassery and smear jobs against Republican figures and issues for years.  This latest stunt is simply in keeping with the character of the paper.  If you're wondering why I haven't linked to the original story, it's because I'm not going to dignify the Times by connecting my blog to their site.

My only question for the Times is this:  Don't you people realize that the circumstances of your "story" undermine the credibility of your paper more than the symphony of criticism directed your way over the years in response to your naked, brutal agenda journalism ever could?  In this regard, the Times is playing the Hillary Clinton role opposite the candidate running against the "old politics of attack."  Just as Hillary's line about Obama speaking "change you can Xerox" fell flat and received a chorus of boos, this unsubstantiated and recycled eight-year-old non-story about John McCain, vomited out right after he seems well on his way to clinching the GOP nomination, will fall flat and further marginalize the source.

The folks at the Times really aren't very intelligent.  Ah, but we already knew that.