Shockingly they haven't endorsed a Republican since 1960 because they are not ideological. It's "only the news that is printed to fit". They don't even realize they are a joke.
My personal favorite was the 1984 endorsement of Mondale. Check it out.
Posted on 10/25/2008 12:34:38 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
A collection of The Times's endorsements for the presidency, from Abraham Lincoln in 1860 through the editorial board's choice of Senator Barack Obama this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Shockingly they haven't endorsed a Republican since 1960 because they are not ideological. It's "only the news that is printed to fit". They don't even realize they are a joke.
My personal favorite was the 1984 endorsement of Mondale. Check it out.
They haven't endorsed a Republican since 1956.
Correction, thanks. I wasn’t even born but I like Ike too.
That would be Eisenhower, the war hero. In 1952, first time around, they endorsed Stevenson against Ike. Since 1956, straight Dem. That is objectivity.
----NY Slimes, 1984.
And it gets even funnier from there.
This is not the complete list...where’s Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Osama Bin Laden, Lenin, Satan, and Bill Ayers?
That’s the funny thing.
Even a serial rapist and mass murderer would shut up once they were caught and be ashamed of himself.
Not Sulzberger and the Times. They plaster this up there and think they are taken seriously.
What a treasure trove of proof of the NY Times timeless idiocy!
1916: Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. “No one can deny that he has honorably kept our country at peace amid infinite difficulties and temptations.”
1980: Jimmy Carter, Democrat. “For all the wobbling, Jimmy Carter has forthrightly often bravely upheld intelligent and humane values on a roster of issues.”
1984: Walter Mondale, Democrat. “Walter Mondale has all the dramatic flair of a trigonometry teacher. His Nordic upbringing makes it hard for him to brag. The first debate may have been the high point of his political personality. But there’s power in his plainness.”
1996: Bill Clinton, Democrat. “The Presidency he once dreamed of is still within his reach if he brings the requisite integrity to the next four years.”
These are classics.
You know, I am getting tired of people referring to the NYT for anything. Including all my favorite radio hosts. Just don’t mention the NYT and it will fall through the floor. How can a company have $1.1 billion in debt and only $46 million in cash survive?
Come on, read it. Part of war is understanding your enemy.
That’s why spies and advance scout teams exist.
The Times endorsed Hillary in the Democrat primary and McCain in the Republican primary. Now they’re endorsing Obama in the general. So what they’re saying is that they like their least favorite Democrat candidate better than their favorite Republican candidate.
They endorsed Wendell Willkie over the Leftist Hero FDR? That’s shocking!
NY Times, 1984 “Mondale for President”:
“So why not re-elect the President. For three reasons. First, because of the way he has paid for our recovery, and his popularity; with the pain of millions of people thrown out of work in the last four years (snip)
Second, Second, because much of hte rest of his domestic program is repugnant. Mr. Reagan has punished the poor and retreated from civil rights. He has, laudably, the deregulation begun by Jimmy Carter. But the samePresident who vows to get Government off the people’s backs has recklessly pushed its nose into the most private realms of religion and family life.
Finally, and most important, becauce Mr. Reagan’s diplomacy, mostly ineffective, has also been dangerous..”
NY Times 1980 Carter endorsement. First and last paragraph says it all:
Is the Carter Presidency a failure? There have been plenty of reasons to wonder—and even wince-—since that Saturday in March 1977 when Walter Cronkite asked the new President whether the job was harder than expected.
snip
Jimmy Carter has failed utterly in the role of Presidential teacher, inspiring few and infuriating many.
The chart says a Rep. was endorsed in 1952. That would have been Ike.
Interesting...
“Jimmy Carter has failed utterly in the role of Presidential teacher, inspiring few and infuriating many.”
And it could be said by honest observers later that “Ronald Reagan infuriated many by inspiring many.” I wonder if the Times would agree...
Yep, they haven’t supported a Republican since Eisenhower.
But wait the good news is they supported Wendell Willkie and Thomas Dewey (hang down your head Tom Dewey), against FDR and Truman respectively. /s
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work."
They also endorsed McCain in the Primaries and yet somehow concluded Obama, never their choice for a nomination, would be the best president?
The last time the NY Times liked a Republican:
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.