Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Why Did The NY Times Do It?

    Why Did The NY Times Do It?

    If you don’t know what “it” is, then go back to sleep.

    If you do know what “it” is, I’d be interested in your thoughts.

    Because “good journalism” isn’t quite satisfying.

    “Guilty conscience”?

    “Atoning for sins”?

    “Providing cover”?

    Update 5-19-2010 – Here is the punch line to the editorial in The Times today:

    Mr. Blumenthal, who has an exemplary record as attorney general, has only a few months to demonstrate that [his “embellishments”] are an aberration and not a disqualifying character trait.

    Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    If they don't sink Blumenthal(D) now, he might lose later. It's the primary season and there is plenty of time to put up some other lock-step marching tool.

    The story couldn't be ignored, nor could it be spun. Someone was going to break it, so the Times had no choice in the matter. They had to break it no matter how distasteful the thought that it couldn't spun in their favor.

    No matter. They still have the pope they can bash on at will, so they are still getting their jollies.

    I think by doing this they denigrate all veterans. Now people and politicians are less likely to discuss their military history. And they get kudos for doing it. Never underestimate their intelligence.

    Betcha there is more dirt to be found on Blumenthal. Better to take him out now for simple lies than for something worse.

    It appears many in CT have known about this for many years. Filing deadline is Friday. Interesting.

    Allows for Lamont, AG candidate, or other to (heroically) switch races.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend