New York Times endorses Kerry

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Yurt, Oct 17, 2004.

  1. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    Click here for left wing media


    We all knew it, but now this is solid proof.

    Question, is this normal for NYT to endorse democrats? Have they done this in the past? If so, then maybe this is nothing knew.
     
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    It has at least been decades since the NY Times endorsed anyone other than a Democrat. I wonder if the NYT has ever endorsed a Republican. You can bet the farm on the fact that the LA Times will also endorse Kerry. On the other hand, the NY Daily News, NY Post, and Chicago Tribune will probably endorse Bush.
     
  3. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Nothing new here ! Their bias is unmistakeable !
     
  4. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Actually, if you read between the lines, the Times is rather careful to qualify its endorsement of kerry. They wave the pennant for kerry and pillory George Bush throughout their two page article, raving on much like an aging drama queen. But then in the last paragraph, they give themselves away. They know kerry is full of crap and has no coherent programs, so they are already thinking ahead and setting themselves up as visionaries. In their so-called "endorsement" of kerry, they hedge their bets. The Times lays the groundwork for blaming the Republican congress for the certain failure of a kerry presidency. In doing so, the Times reveals themselves for the pathetic editorial whores they have become.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/o...1a9760f9069&ex=1255665600&partner=rssuserland
    "Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president."

    Funny, isn't it that the Times can state "A disaster can upend the best-laid plans"? They want to give kerry the cushion for "disasters" that have yet to occur, but they will not give George Bush the same credit for the effect on our nation of the events on Sep 11, 2001.

    If I owned a canary, I wouldn't let him crap on the New York Times. That would improve the content of their pitiful rag.
     
  5. Freedom Lover
    Offline

    Freedom Lover Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    80
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +27
    The NY Times endorsing Kerry is like the Pope endorsing the Catholic Church. Need I say more?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Gosh after 2 years plus of their columnists trying to destroy Bush's reputation, it's no big surprise they finally put the icing on the cake.
     

Share This Page