The Media is in a frenzy because McCain dares not to participate in the smear machine

After yesterday's victory of getting Senator McCain to denounce the character assassinations and call for the return of actually debating the issues, the media is getting in a frenzy because a politician dares not to play by their rules. You would think a call for civility would be a breath of fresh air in this presidential race. You would think that America would rejoice in the fact that there just might be some hope that we can have an honest and respectful debate. Apparently we gave them just a little bit too much credit.

This headline from Time says it all: Is McCain Too Soft on Hillary?

Apparently wanting to get to the real issues instead of the smear tactics is a sign of weakness in the eyes of the media. Actually, they just might realize it's a sign of strength and they're getting worried they may have lost their control over the their ability to keep the presidential race a circus which brings in more ratings. More importantly, the circus environment allows for the smear campaign against Hillary Clinton to continue.

Read these excerpts from the article:

McCain's seeming reluctance to overtly engage in the kind of overwrought attacks on Clinton that have characterized the campaigns of the other front-runners first became apparent in early October.
-
McCain's unwillingness to make the "anyone but Hillary" argument endangers one of the most substantial rationales he makes for his candidacy: the idea that he, alone among the Republicans, can beat Clinton in the general election.

Read this carefully folks. Time magazine is conveying the message the only way to beat Hillary is to engage in "overwrought attacks." I don't know about you guys, but to us that sounds like an admission that the opposition simply cannot beat Hillary on the issues alone. The very fact that Time magazine feels that smear tactics are necessary proves this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our favorite line from the Time smear piece: "It is temping to applaud McCain's restraint."

This is a very carefully worded sentence here folks. The word tempting has a hidden negative connotation. What Times is essentially saying is that you probably might be lured into believing restraint and a lack of bottom of the barrel tactics is a good thing, but in fact, that is necessary to beat Hillary.

What would you think of a person that said "pay no attention to that man with dignity and respect, we must continue the character assassinations." I would expect that any rational human being would find this notion to be preposterous. The fact that this backwards idea that integrity is weakness and childish behavior is strength confirms our suspicions that we've had all along: The opposition (in cahoots with the media) have no intention of having a mature discussion of the issues. They've determined that character assassination is the only way to win, and anyone that undermines the smear campaign must be also met with character assassination himself.

It's about to get dirty folks. It's about to get really really dirty.

By the way if you haven't already, please make a note to cancel your subscription to Time. Actually, don't waste any time making a note, just do it.