Posted on 09/24/2016 1:35:07 PM PDT by Rockitz
The New York Times editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton for president Saturday. That is not surprising. But the way the board did it is.
“In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year,” the Times admitted in its first sentence. It continued:
A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)
So Clinton is being propped up by the so-called newspaper of record, and that newspaper is openly conceding that the issues have nothing to do with it. Predictably, it is all about Trump. But the Times, in defiance of the standards of coherent literature, also shoots down the very premise that it established in its opening sentence, claiming, “Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump. The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.”
Also, she’s a woman. The Times opines:
The 2016 campaign has brought to the surface the despair and rage of poor and middle-class Americans who say their government has done little to ease the burdens that recession, technological change, foreign competition and war have heaped on their families.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“Hillary Clinton — has a record of service”
Yeah, just look at her bank account growing over the years ...
“..and a raft of pragmatic ideas ... “
A life raft full of money and ideas of how to make more money and power?
Is that the same board she donated 100,000 dollars to
That’s why I posted the Breitbart item. I don’t want to give ‘em the traffic.
You forgot the “/sarc.”
So, just a query to the ‘esteemed’ New York Times Editorial Board.
In 2008, you had a 4 year 1st term US Senator with an underperforming record running against a Vietnam War POW and hero, with 2 terms as a Congressman and a US Senator since 1986. Unless my memory fails me completely, you picked the former, inexperienced neophyte candidate, Barrack Obama over John McCain, right?
Were you able to print this statement without breaking into helpless laughter?
They would never endorse Donald Trump if he said all the right things... NYT’s last endorsement of a Republican was in 1956.
It wouldn’t matter who the GOP nominee was, they still would have endorsed Clinton.
The neo-Nazi Propaganda Ministry at the NYT endorses wanna-be dictator Hillary.
We’re shocked.
Not only is the media’s credibility on the line in this election, it’s existence may be in jeopardy. The nonstop propaganda is losing its traction.
“You forgot the “/sarc.””
Nah. You got it. :)
The NYT: the finest fishwrap and bird-cage liner money can buy.
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.