Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times Delirious Over Obama’s Election
Boycott The New York Times ^ | November 5, 2008 | Don Feder

Posted on 11/06/2008 10:11:23 AM PST by AIM Freeper

The New York Times is ecstatic over the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a candidate who is largely a creation of the mainstream media, The Times included.

In this euphoric state, it both misrepresents the past campaign and, like its hero, offers exactly the wrong prescription for an ailing economy.

In an editorial in today’s paper, The Times claims Obama won, in part, because John McCain “forsook his principles for a campaign built on anger and fear.”

The media has been feeding us this line since the nominating conventions: mean old John McCain is cruelly campaigning on Obama’s connection to ex-terrorist William Ayers and the Democrat’s promise to spread the wealth.

How are these not legitimate issues? The fact that Obama worked closely with a man who hates America, who planted bombs, and whose only regret is that he didn’t blow up more buildings, speaks volumes about the judgment of our next president.

Besides his response to Joe the Plumber, Obama has been talking about income redistribution for years. With Obama in the White House and his party in control of Congress, taxpayers should be afraid - very afraid.

Finally, The Times maintains, “Mr. Obama spoke candidly of the failure of Republican economic policies that promised to lift all Americans but left so many millions far behind.”

Am I mistaken, or has Mr. Obama’s party not controlled Congress for the last two years?

As the editorial reveals, The New York Times fervently believes that the way help “many millions” left far behind is to drive more corporations overseas, to take from the wealthy the income they’d otherwise invest to create jobs and to regulate the economy into another depression.

When President Obama and a Democratic Congress take a wrecking ball to the economy over the next two years, who will The New York Times then blame for the resulting debacle? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bho2008; donfeder; election; mccain; nytimes; obama; obamatransitionfile

1 posted on 11/06/2008 10:11:23 AM PST by AIM Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper

A bunch of wet panties at The Times, I imagine.


2 posted on 11/06/2008 10:12:56 AM PST by hoe_cake (" 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper

Their bias isn’t exactly a new development.

Write a letter to the editor to complain. It doesn’t take long, and they might not print it, but it will probably annoy their editors. That’s enough satisfaction for me.


3 posted on 11/06/2008 10:13:01 AM PST by ksm1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper
When President Obama and a Democratic Congress take a wrecking ball to the economy over the next two years, who will The New York Times then blame for the resulting debacle? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin?

Right on - Lord Barack Øbama will never be blamed for ANYTING during the next 4 years - he is their MESSIAH.
4 posted on 11/06/2008 10:14:31 AM PST by Cheerio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper

Editorial

Primary Choices: John McCain

 

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

The other candidates offer no better choices.

Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is an affable, reassuring Baptist minister who talks about a softer Christian conservativism. His policies tell the real story. To attract Republican primary voters, he has become an anti-immigrant absolutist. His insertion of religion into the race, herding Mr. Romney into a defense of his beliefs, disqualified him for the Oval Office.

Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.

In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.


5 posted on 11/06/2008 10:17:14 AM PST by VU4G10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VU4G10

“They are too wedded to discredited economic theories”

Who the heck discredited them, and who the heck credited Obama’s theories (if you can call them that)? The people have a right to know.


6 posted on 11/06/2008 10:25:19 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VU4G10

“We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush”

I don’t care how liberal the Times are, they should be ashamed of themselves for demeaning Bush by denying him his rightful title. I look forward to them referring to President Obama as “Mr. Obama.”


7 posted on 11/06/2008 10:27:55 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper
Lil Pinch made a dishonorable discharge down where Chrissy had tingles...
8 posted on 11/06/2008 10:29:08 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper

And why not? It shows that reports of the MSM’s death were greatly exaggerated.


9 posted on 11/06/2008 10:32:26 AM PST by Unlikely Hero ("Time is a wonderful teacher; unfortunately, it kills all its pupils." --Berlioz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper

Time to pack up the Palin/McCain buttons and turn attention to current events. Pres Elect Obama is choosing 1200 nominees for various offices between now and January. Who?


10 posted on 11/06/2008 10:36:47 AM PST by RightWhale (Exxon Suxx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what_not2007

Yes, several of their senior editors were dropped off by their moms without a change of diapers.

And the caption of this thread is wrong. It SHOULD read
“New York Times DELUSIONAL”


11 posted on 11/06/2008 10:57:58 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Unlikely Hero

Sorry, but to say the msm isn’t dying is BS — and we need to sharpen the financial stake that must driven through its treacherous heart.

Speaking personally, I haven’t bought the times for years — I read it online, for what it’s worth, and don’t pay a penny. Circulation is down to 1 million-and-change. Next ABC audit will lop a further 50,000-60,000 of that figure, sure as eggs.

If I was pro-active, instead of simply p*ssed-off, I’d set up a website and social network to target one Times advertiser at a time, blitz those company’s execs with protests and boycotts for advertising in the rag, and I’d be swearing blind to their marketing departments and ad agencies that I will never, ever again buy their products so long as they keep giving Pinch & Co., their advertising cash.

One outfit at a time, that’s the way to do it. Times are tough and about to get much worse. Companies will be more inclined to listen as their margins shrink.

Organise, network, marshal our forces and punch hard. That’s what Obama did and it worked. Steal his tactics and use them against him and them.

If any energetic freeper wants to kick this off, it will have my full support, right down to $$$ contributions.

I’m too old, too tired, and too beset by preparations to survive the coming financial storm to find the time to do it.

But somebody needs to get the boycott ball rolling. And soon.


12 posted on 11/06/2008 11:09:29 AM PST by Kiss Me Hardy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper

Newspapers that live in glass buildings....


13 posted on 11/06/2008 11:33:36 AM PST by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AIM Freeper

Having OB in office will bring the demise of several MSM institutions.

A few were clinging on by selling Bush Hatred. Selling politician fawning will not be nearly as profitable.


14 posted on 11/06/2008 2:08:16 PM PST by MNDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson