This editorial is either a humor piece, or the Times has failed Politics 101. The fact that the Times is in the bag for Obama is a given
Well, that certainly didn’t take long. On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House. Less than a month later, the results are on full display. The candidate who started out talking about high-minded, civil debate has wholeheartedly adopted Mr. Rove’s low-minded and uncivil playbook.
Oooooh, the Karl Rove boogieman! Besides, how can McCain have a high-minded, civil debate when Obama refuses to debate and rarely talks in anything other then high-minded feelings?
In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to “lose†in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers).
The Times forgets to defend the notion that Barry is not a socialist. In fact, he isn’t: he is a Marxist and Authoritiarian, and his ideas and ideals move beyond the Socialist-Democracy model. And, so far, it looks like Obama decided that working out at the gym was more important then visiting the troops, since he could not use it as a photo-op.
And Obama does want to lose in Iraq. What else could you call a policy that has been calling for pulling all the combat troops out of Iraq before they should be?
Mr. Obama’s politics are hardly far-left, and anyone who has spent time in a socialist country knows how ridiculous that label is for any member of Congress. It would be bad enough if Mr. McCain honestly believed what he said, but we find that hard to imagine.
Wow. Now there is a deep denunciation of the notion that Obama is a socialist! “Hard to imagine.” As Ed Morrisey points out, this is the paper that had no problems with printing the General Betrayus ad. And if Obama’s politics are “hardly far-left,” I shudder to think what they consider to be far-left. In fact, Obama was the most liberal Senator. He favors massive redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don’t. He favors nationalizing the healthcare and health insurance systems. He favors a weak national security policy based on talking without conditions to America’s enemies, with no possibility of military action. He favors open borders and complete and utter legalization of all methods of abortion. And the hit parade goes on and on. Sounds “far-left” to me.
All in all, I wonder if the Times will publish the same thing regarding when Obama and his MoveOn sycophants distort McCain’s record, assault him and his wife personally, and denigrate McCain’s military service and time as a POW? Oh, wait, they already are, and the Times hasn’t had anything negative to say about Barry and his Rat pack.
