Classic example of what the proggs like to call a “concern troll.”
What? I’m being unfair?
Because of teh hypocrisy!!!
Mentions by Day
Posts tagged [she who must not be named] per day for the past 30 days.
Classic example of what the proggs like to call a “concern troll.”
What? I’m being unfair?
Because of teh hypocrisy!!!
Mentions by Day
Posts tagged [she who must not be named] per day for the past 30 days.
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle.
Imagine … a Republican who occasionally panders to the right. What more could a conservative want in a presidential candidate?
Hey, if I want to know what the New York Times thinks, I’ll go to CodePink.org and ask them myself.
Bender, that way you’ll know what the NYT thinks before the NYT does.
No, really? You don’t say.
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president…They are too wedded to discredited economic theories…
Translation: When will the right give up on market capitalism and embrace the warm bosom of Mommy Socialism?
We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
Ya think? The Times’ wet dream: Chief Justice Whoopi Goldberg.
Well, thank God they didn’t endorse anyone who’ll pander to a small angry fringe. Remember kids, Fonzie fringe, OK. Leather Tuscedero fringe, no way.
“Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking.”
The New York Times calling somebody arrogant? NO!
Bad judgment? How’s that stock looking, Pinch?
Is this the NYT’s way of complaining that they have to travel farther for their hookers and drugs?
The NYTimes is one of those types that loved Taxi Driver too much and is bummed that you can’t buy smack and pr0n in Times Square.
Tony Bourdain is, amusingly enough, another member of that crowd.
Can we request that the stimulus package be used to buy out the NYT and then burn it to the ground? Now that’s stimulatin’!
That wasn’t very free-speechy of me. I’d like to take this opportunity to shape-shift, and retract.
“We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.”
If this is the way you think, I’ll take a pass on the McCain thing.
Hey, I heard that McCain is going to start doing ED commercials–you know, just like Bob Dole. Anyone else hear that? lol.
I hear Todd Jenson is a wanker. Anyone else here that?
I don’t care for McCain at all, BTW, but that comment was just… really stupid.
hear! not here. that’s the self-inflicted punishment for noting stupidity in others… the revealing of my own stupidity.
The NYT says it wants McCain to be the GOP candidate. So they endorse McCain, by highlighting all the ways in which he goes against the grain of the GOP, whom the NYT would like to choose McCain as their candidate. But the rank-and-file party supporters who read this endorsement will surely see that the NYT likes McCain because he departs from the party on so many issues, and is wary of McCain because he still votes with the party on other issues. Which means that any party supporters who read the endorsement will be less likely to choose McCain, if only because the NYT has chosen to highlight all the ways in which he behaves like a Democrat. This endorsement will surely be used by McCain’s rivals to hurt his candidacy. Which means that the NYT, by endorsing their preferred sorta-GOP candidate, have hurt his chances. So what is it they really want?
Now, for all his differences with the rank-and-file supporters on the GOP side, McCain still enjoys decent popularity numbers from the overall electorate. Which means that if nominated, he’d have a pretty decent shot at winning (better than most of his rivals, anyway). So, is the NYT endorsing McCain because they figure if they have to live through another Republican administration, a McCain term wouldn’t be too bad, or are they trying to get the rank-and-file to desert him, so that the Republicans will put up a less-electable candidate?
Or is the NYT just stupidly, blindly, and arrogantly spouting off because they’re stupid, blind and arrogant?
Never mind; I think I’ve talked this one through for myself.
Uh…
Sorry; I just didn’t want to suffer alone.
Consider yourself communed, then.
Or is the NYT just stupidly, blindly, and arrogantly spouting off because they’re stupid, blind and arrogant?
What do you call it when a question answers itself ?
Convenient.
But seriously, on behalf of the functionally retarded and the mind-numbingly gullible, this endorsement is quite useful. I was sitting at home in a quandary, wondering whom I should support in the GOP race. There are so many candidates with many strong points and many flaws… so much to consider.
If there was only some news organization I could trust to pick the proper Republican candidate! But who can I turn to who respects my concerns enough to pick the ideal GOPper? That’s a puzzler. Hmmmmmm…..wait a tick…of course! The New York Times!! Who better to pick out a GOP candidate than a gaggle of lefty journalists who despise conservatism and vote 85% straight Democrat ticket?
Hopefully, I can find out who Hugo Chavez and Michael Moore support on the GOP side! Then, I can finally make an informed decision.
Now I must go… I’m calling the advertising department of McDonald’s to ask them which Burger King sandwich I should get for lunch. I hope they endorse the Whopper!
I read it as a Giuliani endorsement.
Michelle has some great stuff here:
http://tinyurl.com/2692ww
And Riehl also:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/01/why-did-mccain.html
particularly the conflict of interest link.
The Reform Institute might be worthy of its own post. (hint, hint, sic ’em Karl!)
McDonald’s has these new Angus things and they’re definitely good but the Burger King chicken sandwich, you just can’t beat that. Not talking about the broiled one … the old one.
If you ignore the header, it could of been “the Onion”. I laughed.
Proving that you can sell anything by shoving the letter ‘g’ in the middle of it.