This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
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.
Instead they quoted Obama saying:
"If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
