Why Would McCain Be "Prickly" With Time?

Saw this headline ... at Time, so I decided to click in: McCain's Prickly TIME Interview.

The first thing they publish from their interview is a question asking McCain to define Honor - then Honor in Politics. Hmm.

Transition to the claim, perhaps valid, that he isn't running his campaign the way he said he always would as regards almost unlimited access to the media. Hmm.

Then they want to know if there was a debate around attacking Obama as aggressively as he has. Hmmmm.

Seque to a question about the Keating Five. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

If you search Time.com for "Bill Ayers" - aside from letters, you get a defense of Obama by Michael Kinsley in May. But if you dig a bit more, you'll find this by Charles Krauthammer from December 31, 2001:

The fire at ground zero burned for exactly 100 days, finally going out on Dec. 19. But not before it forged a new America. The old America made its final appearance just hours before the planes hit, when the Sept. 11 New York Times featured a rather wistful portrait of American terrorist Bill Ayers. A former member of the Weather Underground who claimed credit for a string of bombings (including the Pentagon in 1972), Ayers was reminiscing with the Times reporter about the various romances of his revolutionary days, especially his "love affair with explosives." "Even today," wrote the Times, "he finds 'a certain eloquence to bombs.'"

Anyway, why would McCain be a bit prickly with Time and potentially some other media outlets, as well?

Hmm.

I haven't a clue. Do you?

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

"Time" cries and lets you care. Oh, how that plucks on my banjo-like heart strings. "Time" is a lapdog of the Dems. Always has been as far as I remember. They epitomize the liberalism of the MSM. And here we have two more writers who point that out that the MSM love those poor Dem victims of the terrors of our country and culture. And they worship and adore two losers. What losers, you may ask. Why the Clintons:
http://www.theamericanprowler.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13777

[SacTownMan]

The same Times rag that has had Barry on it's cover 8 times to McCains 2! With a Halo no less!

How can you make such a outrageous statement you evil neocon!

Time for the Sock Puppet to throw in the "McCain is old" line right about now.

[seekeronos]

"--- Time for the Sock Puppet to throw in the "McCain is old" line right about now. ---"

Or for him to chime in with an ever-timely comment on your house's worth, completely ignorant of the fact you bought it well before the 2006 peak.

[seekeronos]

"--- Time for the Sock Puppet to throw in the "McCain is old" line right about now. ---"

Or for him to chime in with an ever-timely comment on your house's worth, completely ignorant of the fact you bought it well before the 2006 peak.

[SacTownMan]

"Or for him to chime in with an ever-timely comment on your house's worth, completely ignorant of the fact you bought it well before the 2006 peak."

He does seem too stupid to understand that if I paid $72,000 for it in 1986 and it is worth more than $500,000 it has increased in value almost 700% in twenty years.

I lost lots of money in my 401k plan over the past year also but the idea is it's a long term investment and short term loses are not what's important. Also with decreased price per stock my 401k money means I can buy more shares than when the market was peaked.

Sock Puppet is just full of hate and bitterness, SOP for the troll kingdom. His quick one line comments are an indication of his lack of knowledge and simply show him to be a loser, nothing more, nothing less!

Nothing to see here, move along!