Main Stream Media's Overzealous Attack on NY Governor Turning Kiddish and Scandalous

In recent weeks, the State of New York is watching one of the most ridiculous drama, misusing pages after pages of the main stream newspapers, trying to undermine its governor. That too daily.

Calling it childish can be insulting to a child.

How can media barons stoop so low and publish rubbish, as if fellow Americans have nothing inside their heads and insult their intelligence?

And most revealing: how can NY Democrats play such wily games against one of their own by piling up heaps and heaps of worthless dirt just to push him out of the election bid?

Have they forgotten that just four years ago, NY had a Republican governor?

Any Democrat who indulges in character assassination should not have the nerve to think that after muddying their hands so covertly they suddenly can turn turtle and play nice guys on election eve before the voters and win the election.

Sorry folks, the voters want "real" charges against the governor, not gossip and trumped up charges like the one on his driver. Voters do not confound politics with socialite gossip.

Just because some media barons are pumping out garbage doesn't mean that the readers of their newspapers are dumb heads and can't see the real guys behind those articles.

Remember, despite their allegations of infidelity, drug abuse and favoritism, the governor has effortlessly survived unscathed.

Tactics like delaying budgetary allocations hasn't weakened the governor but had the unintended consequence of taxpayers turning against the Democratic members.

Despite being legally blind, the governor has survived the phony "poll results" aired by the TV bosses. I won't be surprised if they next show Paterson's popularity poll result as 0, yes zero. They think that because not many people know how to question the statistical veracity of such polls, they can tell any lie as representing public opinion.

As for fortitude in the face of political adversity, it is not a Democrat's attribute.

What Democrats should learn is the fact that:

America and Americans respect and value COURAGE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY.

And Mr. Paterson is surprisingly exhibiting just that value by not running away like a coward.

As for Democratic cowardice in not standing by their own through thick and thin, we have plenty of examples. Just two them:

1. The only other Democrat to show real courage in recent years was Howard Dean. And they made sure he won't be a "fellow" competitor by planting a proxy in his meeting to ask ridiculous questions. As expected a no-nonsense Dean silenced the guy.

Presto, they "found out" he was angry, asked Americans how an angry man can be USA's President and conveniently and opportunistically "cold-storaged" Howard Dean into the national Chairmanship. And the result: Kerry lost the election. As for Edwards, nothing said the better.

2. Even before that we saw Democrats deserting Bill Clinton. One bold question flung at the intern's lawyer would have turned the tide in their favor:

"Who are those 'philanthropists' who were anonymously paying the intern's legal fees? And why the anonymity?"

Don't tell me those 'philanthropists' were Bible reading Christians who didn't want their left hands to know what their right hands did.

Instead of showing that courage, Democrats just ran away from their President.

To make matters worse, every Democratic leader thinks he is cut out to be the next governor of his state, if not the next President of USA. And he will go to any length to achieve his ambition, conveniently forgetting the fact that, at the maximum, only 25 Americans can be adorn these seats of power in a century. And governorship or Presidency are not the only avenues for political and public service.

Remember,

David Paterson troubles started when he chose Kirsten Gillibrand in place of Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.

Mysteriously, the very next day a television ad started doing the rounds round-the-clock with models acting as nurses and hospital workers, accusing Mr. Paterson destroyed NY's health care.

Did the accusing models know that the money his detractors spent on airing that ad would have been enough to build a hospital in NYC or funding the re-opening of a closed one? Because, the ad ran for at least two months during prime time.

And, as voters in a neighboring state are finding out belatedly, governors do not grow money trees in the backyards of their executive mansions to feed Americans, whatever be the election promises.

And the number of Paterson's enemies grew many times over when he wanted to push through an ethics bill. Yeah, ethics is a good thing to preach but not to practice. Yeah, ethics is for the governor not for his detractors, correct?

And I won't be surprised if the "highly ethical" and "saintly" media barons do stoop deeper into the mire and show Mr. Paterson's morphed "pictures" next in their bid to oust him from the election bid.

Their relentless lies are slowly exposing them before the voters, not Mr. Paterson.

My question to them:

If they are cocksure that Mr. Paterson is too bad a person to win the election, why bother to oust him at all. Let the voters do it.

Democratic majority votes are "floating" votes unlike the cadre-based Republican votes which won't sway. So, even if his party succeed in ousting David Paterson with the dirtiest lies and the blackest tar, the "floating" majority votes won't go to the next Democratic candidate but to the Republican candidate.

The earliest Democrats stop washing "their dirty linen as Paterson's" with the aid of media barons, the better for them. His opponents should show that, whatever be their professional credentials or political track record, they are better at something other than just mudslinging to win the nomination.

Otherwise, their own voters will be anointing a Republican as the next governor of NY soon.