The New York Times keeps flailing

In what is starting to look like its own version of Operation Chaos, the New York Times endorsed John McCain for president earlier this year. But since McCain clinched the Republican nomination, the Times has been doing its best to smear the candidate. Who can forget, for example, its hit-piece implying that McCain had an affair with an attractive lobbyist?

Now the Times editorial board has weighed in with an attack on McCain for his alleged reluctance to disclose health information. The Times asserts that “no presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.” It then notes that McCain has not yet produced detailed health records or made his doctors available for questioning.

But the TImes was happy to endorse McCain for the Republican nomination without mentioning this alleged deficiency in McCain’s record. Thus, the paper’s good faith in raising the issue now is subject to doubt.

That doubt becomes particularly acute given the fact (which the editorial ultimately acknowledges) that McCain has said he will release the information in question later this month. So all that’s really left of the Times’ “grievance” is the question, “Why has it taken so long?”

But if we’re talking about the general election, it hasn’t taken long. Late May is more than three months before the Republican convention. And if we’re talking about the primary season, why didn’t the Times raise this matter during that season?

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.