Monday, November 08, 2004

New York Times: Assassinations, the good old days

And I thought Howell Raines was bad? I used to find it amusing when the Times displayed it's bias on the obituary page. I got used to it when they had opinions infused throughout their news coverage. When they spun like crazy for Kerry during the campaign, who was surprised?

A typical smear of the President by the New York Times goes something like this,
White House reporter Elisabeth Bumiller twice treated a
left-wing Internet-based conspiracy theory as legitimate news.

What was that bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket at the presidential debate in Miami last week? According to rumors racing across the Internet this week, the rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio
receiver, getting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential
earpiece. The prime suspect was Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political
adviser. When the online magazine Salon published an article about the rumors on
Friday, the speculation reached such a pitch that White House and campaign
officials were inundated with calls.

She followed up a week later in her October 18 "White House Letter,"
after the last presidential debate: "There are also two story lines from the
presidential debates that to the exasperation of President Bush's advisers won't
go away: the bubble and the bulge."
The paper of record engaging in tawdry gossip mongering. This week, The Hill newspaper broke the story of Bush’s Bulge,

Call off the conspiracy freaks. Now it can be told: That mysterious bulge on
President Bush’s back during the first presidential debate was not an electronic
device feeding him answers, but a strap holding his bulletproof vest in
place.

But sources in the Secret Service told The Hill that Bush
was wearing a bulletproof vest, as he does most of the time when appearing in
public. The president’s handlers did not want to admit as much during the
campaign, for fear of disclosing information related to his personal security
while he was on the campaign trail.

However, the latest example of hostility toward George W. Bush is really disturbing and I hope people notice and take action. I'm going to call and re-cancel my subscription.

Blog Lone Star Realtity sets the stage,

Unbelievably, in this article entitled "Can History Save The Democrats", the New York Times compares the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln and McKinley to
"Acts of God." They then compare Bush to Lincoln and McKinley, and end up in a
barely veiled request for another assassination.

John Hinderacker at Powerline is wondering,

are Murphy and the Times suggesting that the assassination of President Bush is a possible solution to the Democrats' problems? Normally I would assume not. But Murphy's piece begins with the assassination of Lincoln, discusses the political impact of the assassination of McKinley, and concludes:


Professor Wilentz of Princeton said that even if the 2004 victory was an
incremental one, that should not comfort the Democrats. He said Mr. Rove and Mr.
Bush now have a chance to do what Hanna and McKinley never did: Lay the
foundation for lasting Republican dominance. "The Republicans are basically unchecked," Professor Wilentz said. "There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field."

Until the next act of God, that is.

I don't know, maybe he was talking about a really big hurricane.

Dean Esmay says,


Well. It appears that we've gone from "an illegitimate moron in the White House"
to “half of America is stupid and evil and we hope Chimpboy gets his head blown
off.”