Editor of The NY Times admitted today that they knew about the McCain scandal story many months before they endorsed him for Republican Presidential Candidate. But, they figured, once he became the party's sure nominee, the story would have much more publicity and thereby increase their circulation.
It was also admitted that they wanted a Republican candidate with "lots of scandal material" whom they could publish about, as they "hate" Republicans anyway, and "want them to lose". He says they have a 39 week series on the Keating Five Scandal that they will publish every day for the next 9 months as well.
When asked how he could be a good journalist and still endorse someone he knew was involved in scandals, the editor just indicated that a scandalous McCain was much better than a squeaky clean Romney or Ron Paul, as there would be little to print about either one of them - and how could he ensure that Ron Paul didn't actually beat a Democratic candidate in November?
"The anti-war is the main issue we got, we sure as heck aren't going to let them take that away", he said.