Screw The New York Times

12:05 am EST May 23rd, 2006 | Politics | 10 Comments

The “paper of record”, once again, chooses to go sniffing in the Clinton’s private family affairs. Is it affecting public policy? Is there any relevance to the important issues at hand right now? No. But the New York Times – continuing the pattern of activity they legitimized in the ’90s – is again invading the privacy of the Clinton’s marriage. Where’s the big splash story on Rudolph Giuliani’s bedhopping, or Newt Gingrich leaving his dying wife? Where are the stories on how Laura Bush crashed into and killed a teenager?

Oh, right, the “liberal” paper has different rules when the politicians are Republicans.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

10 Responses to “Screw The New York Times”

  1. Jay C says:
    May 23, 2006 at 8:05 am

    What’s your gripe exactly? You guys slam Drudge all the time, but apparently, you took your cue from him since he has a link that says the NY Times is going to discuss “the state of their marriage” I read it and it was a pretty positive article, revealing how they balance their married life with their professional lives. You made it seem like I was going to click on it and read something like I’d see in the Natl Enquirer.

    I swear, if everything isn’t puppy dogs and ice cream with regards to reporting on Democrats, you people are blubbering about biased the media is. Give it a rest.

  2. SaveFarris says:
    May 23, 2006 at 8:05 am

    Are Newt and Rudy drawing a government salary as we speak? Is Hillary? There’s your difference.

    Once the dynamic duo start their Presidential campaigns up, these stories will make their return. Guaranteed.

  3. DCPanic says:
    May 23, 2006 at 9:05 am

    Laura Bush was involved in an accident that resulted in a tragic death, on the other hand, Teddy “One More Martini” Kennedy actually KILLED a woman. Why didn’t you reference that minor accident?

  4. Rheinhard says:
    May 23, 2006 at 9:05 am

    Will infidelity stories regarding St. Rudy and Newt make the front pages of the NYT if these guys join the Presidential race? Maybe, but I doubt it (back page at best).

    But one thing you can be sure of, if such stories do in fact manage to get written, you will have the entire right wing Mighty Wurlitzer, from Limbaugh to Hannity to O’Reilly and on down the line (all the way to some commenters in this forum I suspect), loudly lamenting the viciousness of the callous librul media and their vile invasion of the private lives of decent upstanding men of honor. Such laments conspicuously absent, of course, for men of honor who happen to have a (D) after their name.

  5. lexalexander says:
    May 23, 2006 at 10:05 am

    Tiny technical detail: Newt’s first wife was recovering from cancer surgery, but not dying. Indeed, she’s alive and well today, last I heard. (Their older daughter is a friend from college.)

  6. BD says:
    May 23, 2006 at 11:05 am

    I’m glad for the clarification, but it certainly doesn’t make him any less of a jerk. I find it disingenuous for such a man to assert we “stay the course” in Iraq when he couldn’t even stay the course during a difficult part of his own marriage.

    And to think that in the same world that lionized Gingrich for his “conservative principles,” gay people would continue to have trouble getting into a hospital room to see their own ailing loved ones.

  7. Mike says:
    May 23, 2006 at 11:05 am

    BD,

    Interesting comments.

    Funny though, I thought that a politician’s marriage and sex life should have absolutely no impact on their leadership abilities. (Unless, of course, you are a black conservative who is nominated for the Supreme Court.)

    Or did I miss something during the entire decade of the 1990′s?

  8. Oliver Willis says:
    May 23, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    Well, except that was an allegation of workplace sexual harrasment against Clarence Thomas. Certainly not about marital privacy.

  9. Frank_D says:
    May 23, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Is it affecting public policy? Is there any relevance to the important issues at hand right now? No.
    Sez you.
    I say otherwise.
    And I say inquiring minds want to know.
    And your oh – so – current link on Laura Bush refers to a 6 year old story about a 43 year old car accident.
    Way relevant.

  10. Roni says:
    May 23, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    Frank_D Says:
    May 23rd, 2006 at 5:30 pm
    And your oh – so – current link on Laura Bush refers to a 6 year old story about a 43 year old car accident.
    Way relevant.

    YOU reference information that is years old. Why can’t other posters do the same?