A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Facts, we don't need no stinkin' facts: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman throws a fit for all the world to see, with generalizations and vicious partisan attacks.
[A]ccording to advance reports, George Bush will use tonight's State of the Union speech to portray himself as a visionary leader who stands above the political fray. But that act is losing its effectiveness. Mr. Bush's relentless partisanship has depleted much of the immense good will he enjoyed after 9/11. He is still adored by his base, but he is deeply distrusted by much of the nation.
What president in modern times hasn't been distrusted by "much of the nation?" The same could easily be said of President Clinton -- and even more so for Bush Sr., after all, he raised taxes after promising not to. Bush Sr. was distrusted by Democrats because he was a Republican and he was distrusted by Republicans because he raised taxes.
Bush's latest job approval ratings are still above 50 percent -- ranging from 53 percent to 58 percent depending on which poll you're looking at.
Krugman, the political genius that he is, has determined that George W. Bush's re-election strategy involves solidifying his base and capturing enough independents to get the necessary 271 electoral votes. Of course, when you're Krugman it's never phrased so innocently.
But his political handlers seem to have decided on a go-for-broke strategy: confuse the middle one last time, energize the base and grab enough power that the consequences don't matter.
Oh darn, Krugman's figured it out. The horror.
What's more infuriating is Krugman's dishonest and nasty slam against Judge Charles Pickering -- and those racist Republicans.
The most sinister example was the recess appointment of Charles Pickering Sr., with his segregationist past and questionable record on voting rights, to the federal appeals court — the day after Martin Luther King's actual birthday. Was this careless timing? Don't be silly: it was a deliberate, if subtle, gesture of sympathy with a part of the Republican coalition that never gets mentioned in public.
Pickering's segregationist past? Like Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd's. Nope, when the schools were desegregated in the south who was one of the first whites to send his children to those schools? Charles Pickering. Who testified against the clan in 1967? Charles Pickering. I'm getting sick and tired of the Times slanted coverage in its news pages -- and the slanders from the likes of Krugman really steam me.
The Times continues its downward spiral from the journalistic heights.
12:55 AM
|
|
