All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
Lamest.NYT.Attack.Ever.
They devoted plenty of pages criticizing how Republicans were launching harsh attacks on Barack Obama in the days, weeks, and months leading up to the election. What are they doing now? Taking shots at Republicans for … being gracious after Obama’s win on Tuesday.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
10 Responses to “Lamest.NYT.Attack.Ever.”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Expletive deleted.
Funny, they get mad at us when we don’t act like those on the Left. I am not happy about a President Obama, and think that this is going to be an unmitigated disaster. I also hope that I am wrong. Yet there is nothing in his past that has been revealed, and there is a lot that we don’t know about him that leads me to believe that he is up to the challenge. see following video from Tom Brokaw.
LINK
Controvery sells.
The NYT is displeased because we’re not contributing to their marketing plan.
I think you should be pleased, ST. You guys are managing to annoy the New York Times by doing nothing very much and doing very well, indeed.
Also found in the NYT is this little item: Jihadi Leader Says Radicals Share Obama Victory .
No big surprise there. AQ did give Obama a backhanded endorsement late in the campaign. Every terrorist and anti-American despot on earth has been euphoric since Tuesday night.
But here’s the line that caught my eye:
One of the left’s favorite nostrums over the last five years has been that our liberation of Iraq has mobilized the Arab street to flock to the jihadis – that as long as our soldiers stayed in Iraq, AQ would grow stronger. This is obviously some new definition of “stronger”, since AQ was losing operatives and public support and getting their butts kicked on an hourly basis since the start of the surge.
But now we’re told that if we leave quickly, as the left wants, that also helps AQ recruit. Looks like no matter what we do, the enemy will be able to build up. Of course, that’s just common sense, but really, how often have you seen the NYT guilty of publishing common sense?
Well, in two months it’ll be Obama’s problem, and his dilemma will be largely of his own making. He will either have to disappoint his strongest supporters (the MoveOn, Kos types) by adopting a sensible course or risk revitializing the jihadis. My guess is he will try to steer a middle course, but probably closer to what the far left wants.
Oh, Ratty, you just haven’t been paying attention. Obama has no dilemma. He has publicly said that he’ll side with the Arabs.
Trish, he’s said everything, depending on who his audience is. It’s the campaigning equivalent of voting ‘present’. And that comment was in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli question, not Iraq and AQ. He’s never said he supports AQ against our own troops, even if AQ does support him. It’s a different situation.
He’s going to find out quickly that in the Oval Office, you can’t vote ‘present’.
I note that the link is to Times reportage, not opinion, and that it is quoting the opinions of others. Whatevs . . .
Anyway, I agree with El Raton, for the most part.
I slightly disagree with His Whiteness to this extent: I think he will soon learn that the far left is insatiable, and after a few tussles with them will drift back toward the center.
Leslie, in the message board you and I post at, I responded to your comments about this NYT piece and look fwd to your response there (or here). In a nutshell, it’s not just quoting the opinions of others. It spends the first few paragraphs setting the narrative, and then quotes the opinions of others that agree with that narrative. IMO, this is a classic example of the NYT creating news, not reporting it. It’s really a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Imagine what the piece would have looked like had the GOP not been gracious in their congrats.
Leslie, I see little in his career or campaign that validates the idea that he will move to the center, but I’ll be very happy if you’re right and I’m wrong. We may have a better clue when we see what his appointed foreign policy team looks like. And before anyone brings it up, I don’t mean the famous 300 from the campaign; I mean his final choices for the most important spots.