Skip to comments.NY Times Is Setting Up Sarah
Posted on 10/31/2008 11:07:22 AM PDT by AIM Freeper
In this campaign, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is easily The New York Times favorite target.
John McCains running mate represents everything the mainstream media despise - pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage and anti-big government.
Once upon a time (before he secured the GOP nomination), The Times actually liked McCain, and called him a maverick, its term of endearment for Republican lawmakers. Sarah Palin it could never like, even if she was running against Gen. Pinochet.
The Times latest Palin hit is a news story in todays paper, the gist of which is that his running mate is a major liability for McCain.
The Times: All told, 59% of voters surveyed said Mrs. Palin was not prepared for the job [of vice president], up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president
This is based on The New York Times own survey (Oct. 26-29) - surprise, surprise! - conducted with CBS News. Its accuracy may be judged by the fact that of all recent polls it shows the greatest gap between Obama and McCain (51% to 40%). A Zogby poll taken at the same time showed McCain and Obama only 2 points apart (47% to 49%). The latest Rasmussen poll has the candidates separated by 5 points, versus 9 points in The Times/CBS News poll.
That aside, nobody votes for a presidential candidate based on his running mate, regardless of what they tell pollsters.
The Times is setting up Sarah Palin. If McCain loses, the paper will blame Palin and McCains focus on the Obama/Ayers connection, which the paper claims is a foray into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia (in an October 7 editorial).
(Excerpt) Read more at boycottnyt.com ...
Adios amigo...uh....buh bye......
How can I boycott something that I don’t buy or read?
The Times is in self-destruct mode and frankly we don’t have to anything to accelerate the action aside from cancelling, if anyone still has a subscription to this dinosaur.
Another “helpful” post by a noob.
I gave little credence to anything from the NY Times, about as much as I would give to the official Hamas or North Korean news organ. I rather expect I am not alone in this view.
“How can I boycott something that I dont buy or read?”
Find out who its sponsors and advertisers are and boycott them, and let them know why you are boycotting them.
I’ve boycotted almost everything from the media. They are beyond playing with fire.
“How can I boycott something that I dont buy or read?”
You send a letter to the advertiser.
Good lining for the bird cage and the outdoor privy.
“That aside, nobody votes for a presidential candidate based on his running mate, regardless of what they tell pollsters”
This time that is exactly what I am doing
I’m in L.A. so don’t see NYT, but based on who advertisers are out here at that rag, the LAT — you would be totally safe in complaining to Macy’s, AT&T, Bloomingdale’s, Citibank, etc.
////How can I boycott something that I dont buy or read?
Don’t click on their links. The more eyeballs they get the more they can charge advertisers.
As usual, we were right.
They DESPISE her because she’s a CHRISTIAN.....period....a Christian that BELIEVES MUST be DESTROYED!
The NYTimes is not a newspaper. It is a “Baghdad Bob” type spokesman for the DNC.
You are not alone.
I am! So are many others. We have another job in mind for her after she's done being VP.
They are not “setting her up.” They don’t have the ability to “set her up.” They would have to build her up falsely, then knock her down somehow to “set her up.” Obviously, they have not built her up in any way, shape or form. They have attempted to tear her down since day one. We know all about it, and no longer fear the New York Times, because they have no power over us. This is true about all of the appendages of the Major Media propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. They are all working for the invitation to the cocktail parties.
Did you read that Dribble from Peggy Noonan?
She is sooo gone... in the head.
Maybe this is the newest strategery! Talk about the NYT rather than talking about Zero kaka 0baminus, a modern day math that proves Zero = negative!
There others around that are doing the same thing; “concentrating on other subjects” to limit lurkers from learning about him.
Either way, they’ll all be gone by Nov. 5.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, that's what the libs fear most, a Thatcher emerging!
If they come on too strong, they get zotted. If they're too subtle, they end-up sounding like real FReepers, then they don't get paid!
No, does she play for the Harlem Globetrotters?
I did read her article full of drivel though. You realize that the msm will, from the this point forward, eagerly trot her out as the token voice of "conservatism".
Pretty soon the Slimes won’t be able to borrow enough money to buy ink or paper...
That's why we confound them every time. Just when they think they've got us pegged....
I don't think anyone would believe that.
I think that’s why everyone keeps repeating the “no one votes for pres on the vp...” line so much this year! Because there are droves of us who want Sarah, and we’ll take McCain as boot.
Actually, that's not true this year.
I believe that thousands and thousands who would not have bothered to vote for McCain are going to crawl across broken molten radioactive glass to pull the lever for Sarah.
I know I am...
The mistake is when the reporter thinks they're valued for who they are - not what they offer. Reporters are valued for what they can do for a politician. Period. Those "party" offers evaporate the minute the "power" behind their job goes away.