Scoundrel Media Support for Obama
Supporting a war criminal multiple times over.
by Stephen Lendman
Months before November's election, New York Times editors made their choice: Obama in 2012. Expect an official endorsement to follow.
Editorial support signals it. On June 14, The Times headlined "The Political Contrast," saying:
Obama's recent Cleveland community college speech "contrast(ed) his goals and the failed Bush-era policies that Mitt Romney is trying to resurrect."
He claimed "no meaningful difference between the trickle-down economics of George W. Bush, rejected (and) the plans supported by Mr. Romney and his Republican allies in Congress."
"All the elements are there, from the slavish devotion to tax cuts for the rich, to a contempt for government regulation, to savage cutbacks in programs for those at the bottom."
Earlier, Times editors supported Bush era politics they now call "failed." They endorsed the fraudulent 2000 election results.
They downplayed Bush's National Guard record, his alcoholism and drug abuse, his explosive temper, and unimpressive academic record.
They ignored his family ties, his record as Texas governor, and unbridled pro-business support.
Ten months after he took office, they claimed recount totals showed he won Florida when he lost. They said the Supreme Court "did not cast the deciding vote" when, in fact, it annulled popular and electoral totals to anoint their choice.
They reported a litany of misinformation. Kernels of truth were buried multiple paragraphs into texts. Few readers saw them.
What Times editors supported earlier they now oppose. Why they'll have to explain. Both parties are in lockstep on major issues mattering most. Not a dime's worth of difference separates them. Times editors know but won't say.