Posted on 01/12/2006 6:35:14 AM PST by Always Right
NY Times or MoveOn.org?
Reading this morning's NY Times staff editorial on Judge Alito, I could not help but think was this hatchet job written by the New York Times or did they just borrow from MoveOn.org propaganda. For starters the title of the piece was "Judge Alito, in His Own Words", but strangely much of the criticism was based on Alito's associations with an Alumni group and admiring Judge Bork. The New York Times concluded that this 'evidence of extremism' was 'deeply troubling'. Well, I am deeply troubled that the New York Times couldn't find any evidence of things Alito actually said that were extreme, but had to use the old trick of guilt by association.
The Editorial starts off by talking about 'bombshells' we 'learned' about at yesterday's hearings. Of course there were no bombshells and we learned almost nothing new from yesterday's hearings. Alito's praise of Bork in 1987, his 1985 job application, and his membership to Concerned Alumni of Princeton have been known for months and represent ancient history. New York Times spinning these as 'bombshells' is misleading at best trying to create buzz over old information. Besides, the New York Times had no problem dismissing Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick because it happened over 20 years ago. I guess in the minds of the NYT editorial staff, the statue of limitations for making a statement favoring abortions and praising Bork is much longer than that of rape.
Strangely, the New York Times editorial 'Judge Alito, in His Own Words' offered not one quote of Alito from the hearings. In fact the whole editorial only provided two chopped up quotes from Altio, both of which were almost 20 years ago. The New York Times even had the nerve to cast doubts on Alito's honesty because they did not believe Alito did not remember much about his involvement in the Alumni Club from over 20 years ago. The New York Times never questioned Clinton's honesty when he answered 'I don't recall' some eight-one times when questioned for the Starr grand jury concerning much more recent events. Most of 'His Own Words' were in fact the New York Times desperate spin to try to derail this nomination of a judge that the American Bas Association gave its highest rating of 'well-qualified' to. It is not unexpected to see the New York Times do a hatchet job on a Republican nominee, but next time perhaps they could do it without looking like the moonbats at MoveOn.org.
The New York Times lost all credibility some time ago. No thinking person pays any attention to their opinions (no news anywhere in that rag).
There's a difference...? :)
The New York Times has never been the same since the Jayson Blair scandal effectively finished off the reputation of that paper in the eyes of many Americans.
Isn't this the newspaper associated with Jason Blair..?
Jumping the shark is a good analogy.
Maybe it's time for you to accept the fact that the entire left wing enterprise is in the late stages of obliteration and self destruction.
You are witnessing history but are totally blind to what you are seeing with you own eyes. This is the death throes of Liberal thought and by now most everyone is standing on the sidelines watching the incredible spectacle as these dinosoars do it to themselves.
The NY Times endorsed Michael Dukakis - that's all you need to know!
New York Times Presidential Endorsements:
1960: JFK, Democrat
1964: LBJ, Democrat
1968: Hubert Humphrey, Democrat
1972: George McGovern, Democrat
1976: Jimmy Carter, Democrat
1980: Jimmy Carter, Democrat
1984: Walter Mondale, Democrat
1988: Micheal I look cool in a tank Dukakis, Democrat
1992: Bill Jefferson Clinton, Democrat
1996: BJ Clinton, Democrat
2000: Al Bore, Democrat
2004: John I served in Vietnam Kerry, Democrat
Not anymore.
They are also following the orders of the People For The American Way -- standard procedure is to describe any and every conservative candidate as "extremist" and always make sure that something (rarely explicitly stated) is "deeply troubling" about intentions, thoughts, etc.
I'm willing to bet that the Jason Blair experience was merely a case of "the one who was caught," and that TNYT has pretty well managed to harp along on espionage and innuendo and outright deceit for most of it's existence.
People are just more aware of their methods, is all. And Blair was identified, the sacrificial plagiarist.
Sure they do own it... just indirectly....
Point goes to you.
Bump.
MoveOn owns the NYT.
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.