The NY Times Hates W
The lead NY Times analysis piece today.
From beginning to end, this election was about George W. Bush
, and he can claim that an apparently insurmountable lead in the popular vote vindicated his policies, his persistence, his personal qualities and his political strategy. He bet that voters who had shared a traumatic terrorist attack and two wars on his watch would stand by him, and they appeared to.
Appeared to!? There was no appearance of a victory. It was an outright win by the president even Kerry admitted it.The Hate Remains
It was no surprise to see that the NY Times Op-Ed page was not affected by the election.
In much the same way Sen. John Kerry said the Sept. 11 attacks did not change much about life for him, the Times staffers have decided to stay the course.
Today’s Maureen Down and Thomas Friedman NY Times columns indicate that paper’s on-going ideological struggle with the current administration and the American people is still in full swing, despite the fact that it is now obvious not everyone shares their viewpoint.
Friedman quotes describing how America is being changed for the worse is particularly telling:
“Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?
What Friedman refuses to see is that “his” America sickens many people, enough it seems to keep someone who feels like Friedman, Sen. Kerry, out of the White House.
For many, and not just the religious, abortion equals murder. It equals not living up to your personal responsibilities as a human being, it equals taking the easy way out. He cannot understand why people hang onto religion as if it were there only lifeline in a raging storm. He insists that the president’s campaign strategy of reaching out to these people was divisive, yet a record number of people voted for W, not John Kerry. That sounds pretty inclusive to me.
Dowd’s daily screed was much harsher. She simply cannot accept that a person she considers her intellectual inferior is in the White House for another four years. At least Kerry had the good graces to accept the situation at face value and move on. Her eye-rolling contempt for Bush and his administration can be seen on this comment about Dick Cheney:
“Just listen to Dick (Oh, lordy, is this cuckoo clock still vice president?)”
What Friedman, Dowd and the rest do not realize is the NY Times newsroom is not representative of America, despite its desperate attempts to include people from all walks of life. Neither are the Hollywood celebrity packed parties where people spit vindictive remarks against the president. The sense of moral superiority that flows from their pores is obvious and repugnant to millions.
Compared to the average person the people in these locales have few problems. They earn a better then average living, have jobs they enjoy and get to do what they want.
The reality for most of us is we worry about whether our job will be around next week, even if we hate it, live paycheck to paycheck and have to juggle a thousands things simply to get through the week. We understand the responsibilities that come with life, such as if you get pregnant deal with it properly.
We don’t believe the U.S. is to blame for the world’s problems. We worry about our nation’s security and we are not interested when France, Germany and foreign billionaires tell use we are wrong and led by religious fanatics.
If the Times and its liberal media brethren wish to live with blinders that is up to them, but they should realize their actions are marginalizing and leading them down a path to irrelevancy.