Sometimes I think the NYT is a secret comedy act and I am missing the joke, their bias is so extreme. Take a look at today’s editorial “Some Truth About Trade” in which the solons at the Times urge Obama and Clinton to stop pandering on trade protection. Of course, the NYT seems to be blaming Rove for what the Democrats are doing. But never mind that. It’s a reflex. Kind of like picking your nose in public when you think no one’s watching (but they are).
What is astonishing in the Times editorial is this: Democrats need to tell voters the truth: First, trade is good for the economy, providing cheap imports and markets for exports, spurring productivity and raising living standards. And second, while trade can drive down some wages and displace some jobs, Democrats have real ideas to help workers cope. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama should base their approach on these ideas. They would not only make sound policy, they would also provide a competitive advantage over John McCain.
Say what????
Are these people illiterates? It is John McCain who has been running around the last few months making speeches against trade protectionism and supporting help for workers. Not only that, he spoke against protectionism in Michigan during the primary when Romney, like Obama and Clinton, was pandering to the protectionists and pretending he could save dead industries. Indeed McCain, again unlike Obama and Clinton, has repeatedly registered his support for NAFTA.
Is the Times so stupid they don’t know this? Or do they just think we are too stupid to notice?
More likely it’s just they are such determined idiot-ideologues (sorry for the tautology) they choose to ignore it. What a repellent newspaper. What reactionaries.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
8 Comments
1. JorgXMcKie:I see no reason they can’t both be so stupid and think we are too stupid to notice. That wouldn’t make them a bit more stupid than they appear to be.
Apr 6, 2008 - 8:09 pm 2. tim maguire:So, in an editorial, the Times asserts that John McCain is closer to the policy that the Times supports than are either of the Democratic candidates and instead of concluding from this that McCain is the better choice on this issue, they offer advice to the Democratic candidates to change their policies to be more like McCain’s.
But they are an objective operation and not an organ of the Democratic party.
I think Jorg is right, the Times is stupid AND the Times thinks its readers are stupid (which a great many are).
Apr 7, 2008 - 7:53 am 3. OregonGuy:Monkey.
Red paint.
Bottom.
Babboon.
Apr 7, 2008 - 6:35 pm 4. Neo:Democrats have real ideas to help workers cope is the operative phrase.
The real question is .. what are those plans ? Do they really exist ? Will they really do the job of creating jobs and trained workers to do those jobs ?
Apr 8, 2008 - 12:18 pm 5. mullinitover:‘Repellent’ and ‘Reactionary’ are soooo accurate. But since YOU are not a ‘Progressive’ your view will never penetrate the self-congratulatory haze. But it sure makes me feel better! Thanks, mullinitover
Apr 8, 2008 - 6:47 pm 6. mullinitover:‘Repellent’ and ‘Reactionary’ are soooo accurate. But since YOU are not a ‘Progressive’ your view will never penetrate the self-congratulatory haze. But it sure makes me feel better! Thanks, mullinitover
Apr 8, 2008 - 6:48 pm 7. mullinitover:‘Repellent’ and ‘Reactionary’ are soooo accurate. But since YOU are not a ‘Progressive’ your view will never penetrate the self-congratulatory haze. But it sure makes me feel better! Thanks, mullinitover
Apr 8, 2008 - 6:48 pm 8. mullinitover:‘Repellent’ and ‘Reactionary’ are soooo accurate. But since YOU are not a ‘Progressive’ your view will never penetrate the self-congratulatory haze. But it sure makes me feel better! Thanks, mullinitover
Apr 8, 2008 - 6:48 pm