December 31, 2002
This Week's "What-are-They-Smoking-in-the-Editorial-Board-Meetings-of-the-New-York-Times" Award Goes to the Entire NYT Editorial Board
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
BuzzFlash.com is still following up on our coverage of the recent l'affaire Trent Lott.
As 2002 ends, we thought it fitting to post this quotation from a December 12, New York Times editorial that called for Bush to fire Trent Lott. We meant to post it earlier but were just too busy.
Once again, it's hard to figure out how the New York Times can be considered a "liberal paper" when its editorial board collectively comes to conclusions such as the following (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/opinion/12THU1.html):
"No one has put more effort than George W. Bush into ending the image of the Republican Party as a whites-only haven. For all the disagreement that many African-Americans have with his policies, few can doubt Mr. Bush's commitment to a multiracial America."
Excuse us! Obviously, the New York Times editorial board has been snookered by all those photo-ops of Bush reading books to little black children. Does the New York Times consider the appointment of numerous Neo-confederacy federal judges part of Bush's efforts to be inclusive? Do they consider the dismantling of programs that support minority education part of his positive approach? Do they consider the Draconian cuts in the welfare "reform" program that would cut back on educational and training opportunities for all minority and white women positive? When he campaigned in the South and used code words to support the Neo-confederacy states' rights movement was he "ending the image of the Republican Party as a whites-only haven"? When the GOP regularly engages in efforts to suppress black votes in elections, is Mr. Bush supporting voting rights for everybody? And if you promote persons and implement policies that undercut a multiracial America, how can you be committed to achieving a multiracial America?
We could go on and on, but we think that the New York Times should institute a no-smoking (of the wacky weed) policy for its editorial board. Clearly there must be some explanation for their great imaginative leaps that have no bearing in reality.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
* * *
BUZZFLASH NOTE:
See also http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/2002/12/20-2.html
