Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Newspaper of Record is Angry (Again)
Intellectual Conservative ^ | 23 January 2004 | Isaiah Z. Sterrett

Posted on 01/24/2004 9:20:54 PM PST by Lando Lincoln

Media reaction to President Bush's State of the Union speech was...predictable.

President Bush's State of the Union address was better than expected. Highlights included his strong defense of the Patriot Act, an absolutely necessary component of the war on terrorism, despite the endless clucking of addled librarians; his surprisingly vigorous rebuttal to those who continue to blather about our “go-it-alone,” “unilateral” foreign policy (see below); and, of course, his justification of tax cuts, which he asked Congress to make permanent.

Also particularly impressive was his talk about judicial tyrants: “If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.” And this wasn’t just a hollow threat; he has Judge Pickering’s recess appointment to prove it.

Excellent as the speech was, there were, as usual, sections that could have been left out. Maybe ridding the world of steroid-addicted athletes ranks high on the White House’s to-do list, but it’s nowhere near mine. And as for the so-called “Re-Entry Initiative,” which was designed, one assumes, so that the President can capture the needed vote of the ex-convict, I’d be much more inclined to support a Re-Entry Initiative that involved federal dollars re-entering the pockets of tax-payers.

The best result of the speech was that it left the New York Times spinning with rage. On the front page Wednesday the Times snarled, “Mr. Bush put forth no major new foreign policy or domestic initiatives in an address that was as much about political drama as substance and that served as the president’s grandest stage until his party’s nominating convention in New York in September.”

It was on the editorial page that they could really let loose. First they said that the only reason Bush is so determined to keep taxes low is that his “wealthy donors…expect that he will.” Though, admittedly, I’m no economist, it seems that if rich people want to cut taxes, and rich people are the ones doing the business, perhaps the White House should take that as a sign that cutting taxes promotes the growth of industry. Why, pray tell, would businessmen favor policies that hurt business?

Next, they said that, despite the dozens of countries that have supported the war since the beginning, we still have a foreign policy of “stubborn unilateralism,” with no “real international backing…”

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, the LA Times was also furious. “[T]he less a listener let the facts get in the way,” they wrote, “the more effective the speech became…Bush offered himself as the president who slays terrorism, kills taxes, and saves traditional values. While the facts of the matter may get in the way, it’s a smart strategy for reelection.”

It’s always the same with these people.

In other political news, John Kerry won the Iowa Caucuses. Howard Dean pulled a pitiful 18%, which makes New Hampshire essential. He doesn’t have to worry about Joe Lieberman, the only half-decent man in the race, but Wes Clark and Kerry pose a grave threat to his candidacy. If Dean wins the nomination John Edwards could luck-out and take second place again, but that’s unlikely. He, like Clark, will be strongest in the south.

I maintain that the most egregious of Dean’s gaffes was to say that he got into politics because of Jimmy Wear-A-Sweater Carter, but he hasn’t made it easy to choose. In dealing with Osama bin Laden, Dean said recently, “we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.” After being scolded by his staff no doubt, he then told the Associated Press that he favored the death penalty for bin Laden, so long as we complied with “the rule of law.”

This, and all other issues aside, if George W. Bush can speak as articulately as he did on Tuesday night, no Democrat—including Howard the Coward—has a chance.

(Still, he should look on the bright side. Even if he doesn’t win the nomination, surely Patty Murray will take him under her wing.)

Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bias; liberalbias; mediabias; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; nyt; sotu
1 posted on 01/24/2004 9:20:54 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
waaaaaah more liberal whining from the pages of the SLIMES
2 posted on 01/24/2004 9:22:10 PM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Life is good.
3 posted on 01/24/2004 9:47:20 PM PST by Egon (If you can read this tagline, you may be sitting too close to the monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Exactly! They're mad because the President TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED. And .. especially to the "go it alone" crowd. Poor NYT they just keep shooting themselves in the foot.
4 posted on 01/24/2004 10:09:23 PM PST by CyberAnt ("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
The "Newspaper of Record" is barely fit for the bottom of a hamster cage.
5 posted on 01/24/2004 10:23:54 PM PST by clee1 (Where's the beef???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
I am amused at how the NY Times shoots itself in the foot. But I am very pleased at how fast they are at reloading.
6 posted on 01/24/2004 11:25:27 PM PST by fini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: clee1
"The "Newspaper of Record" is barely fit for the bottom of a hamster cage."

Why, that depends on how incontinent the hamsters are.
(Most NYT staffers own hamsters, I bet...)
7 posted on 01/25/2004 12:07:21 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Isaiah Z. Sterrett ... a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee.

Heh heh. This is about as meaningful as being a Member in Good Standing of the National Geographic Society.

8 posted on 01/25/2004 12:47:47 AM PST by Timesink (Two fonts walk into a bar. The bartender says, "We don't serve your type here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson