Just in case I was alone in maintaining that the NYT is fiercely biased to the left, I just want to point out that they're wearing their hearts on their sleeves today with their ,a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/editorials/" target="_blank">endorsements for the Presidential nominations:
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
Wow. Why not just say "We are in strong agreement with all the Democrat candidates running for President (in which case, our endorsement can be seen as little more than wanting to back the most likely winner, who also happens to be our NY Senator and who has worked hard to bring 261 pork-barrel earmark programs to our state, most of them right here in our city)."
And they also say this about McCain:
n 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.That doesn’t make him a moderate....
Ummmmm...Compared to WHOM??? Teddy Kennedy himself? How far from the right does one have to go to be considered "moderate" by the left? Jeezum-crow! In my book, he's a LIBERAL, and the only reason I supports Obama more than him are that
a) I've never liked him, precisely for the same reasons the dittoheads don't
b) Obama isn't Hillary, in fact, he's the ANTI-Hillary (anti-Clinton in pretty much every way actually) and since I predict a Dem. win no matter what, I'll cut my losses with him thank you very much. If I'm stuck with a liberal Dem. let it be a guy who isn't a calculating, conniving, evil BITCH, hell-bent on punishing everyone to the right of John McCain for the next four years (scuze me, EIGHT years if she has her way, which you can bet she will if she gets the office in the first place).
I realize editorial pages aren't objective, but it's rare to see one come so clean with regard to its bias on specific matters of policy about which its news sections do so much coverage. Is it then any wonder that those allegedly objective "news" sections of the paper contain NO good news from Iraq, or about the economy, rarely if ever run bad news about Hillary (or any liberal Dem), and routinely blame America first for everything wrong in the world?
I read the paper for David Brooks and that's about it. Beyond that, I might use it to wipe my ass on a camping trip, or to house-train a puppy. Just don't tell me it's "the paper of record" ever again. Whose record? The broken record that plays in the mind of every liberal out there? The one that says "Bush is dead, Bush is dead" (and that's if you play it forward, you don't even want to know what it plays BACKWARD).
Posted by insomnomaniac at January 25, 2008 11:11 AM | TrackBack