Posted on 09/01/2002 12:36:08 PM PDT by Torie
I part ways with Sullivan on his last line of this sentence. It seems to me that critics of Clinton had legitimate complaints. Complaints that have been borne out over time, not diminished.
The label of Clinton-hater was meant to imply that the "hater" had no basis, in fact, for his "hatred".
It has been my contention for some time that the media(NYT in this case) is in a better position to advance the Dim's social causes than the Dims. Fact is, the NYT is out front on this one and the Dims are acting like they don't have the stomach for it. The NYT is not running for re-election this year ; )
The most frightening thing about this is that it is apparently working.
It should come as no surprise. The Times is on the case; we don't need no stinkin' congressmen!
FGS
FGS
FGS
Sullivan nails yet another one; &, interestingly enough?
It takes an English publication to frame what's going on here stateside with our own Liberal-Socialist media as led by the toilet I affectionately call the NYSlimes.
Amazing.
I do take exception with a few things said, though.
Not to parse too much, one guy above named one point of contention when the use of "Clinton Hater" was used as-if there existed no just cause?
But, the main rub (for me) is Sullivan's *perception* of this disgusting rag as he wrote:
"Beginning in July, he used the most authoritative front-page in America to run a series..."
Nonsense.
One must have credibility to ever be considered, "authorative."
...the NYSlimes has none of either; &, hasn't for some time, now.
heh, heh ; )
I also find it interesting he used the expression, NYT replaces Dims as the opposition. I wonder if he suspects the possibility of the major media actually taking point for the Dims most of the time. The Dims will generally join the parade; sometimes sooner, sometimes later. Since the Dims have no core values, they go wherever the major media takes 'em. Is this reaching??????
FGS
I knew that the NYT was was off in the deep-end politically, even for this traditionally liberal paper ... but the cause and source of it was not clear to me. I didnt know they had a new exec editor ... Just like CNN became Clinton News Network under Kaplan, NYT is Howell Raines' Liberal trash rag. I had to dissect the Alaska eco-lie from NYT here on FR, good to know Andrew Sullivan and others caught it too.
Sure he does; he must.
Associated Press has a presence in Europe too, right?
The damnedable little socialist bees are as busy there as they are here, shamelessly buttressing *everything* Liberal-Socialist to come down the pike 24&7 plus making some of the pap up themselves, now & then.
Sullivan strikes me as much too bright to not be aware of which direction & who's behind the onslaught of Leftist gobbledegook.
"The Dims will generally join the parade; sometimes sooner, sometimes later. Since the Dims have no core values, they go wherever the major media takes 'em. Is this reaching??????"
Sure it is.
Phoney is, as phoney does; in fact?
Both entities are comprised mostly of not much more, than illusion.
If the relationship between these two weren't so dangerous, I'd say it were laughable.
..."playing jester to the clown," I believe the relationship's called?
The Loyal Opposition
The New York Times ^ | 08/24/2002 | BILL KELLER
Posted on 08/24/2002 0:13 AM Eastern by Pokey78
If candor counted for as much as courtesy, the author...............
The David Copperfield School of Journalism; where perception is reality? Dead on! humina, humina....I see a David Copperfield Journalism Award in here somewhere. I'll have to work on that.
If the relationship between these two weren't so dangerous, I'd say it were laughable.
Couldn't have said it better myself ; )
FGS
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.