The New York Times is ecstatic over the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a candidate who is largely a creation of the mainstream media, The Times included.
In this euphoric state, it both misrepresents the past campaign and, like its hero, offers exactly the wrong prescription for an ailing economy.
In an editorial in today’s paper, The Times claims Obama won, in part, because John McCain “forsook his principles for a campaign built on anger and fear.”
The media has been feeding us this line since the nominating conventions: mean old John McCain is cruelly campaigning on Obama’s connection to ex-terrorist William Ayers and the Democrat’s promise to spread the wealth.
How are these not legitimate issues? The fact that Obama worked closely with a man who hates America, who planted bombs, and whose only regret is that he didn’t blow up more buildings, speaks volumes about the judgment of our next president.
Besides his response to Joe the Plumber, Obama has been talking about income redistribution for years. With Obama in the White House and his party in control of Congress, taxpayers should be afraid – very afraid.
Finally, The Times maintains, “Mr. Obama spoke candidly of the failure of Republican economic policies that promised to lift all Americans but left so many millions far behind.”
Am I mistaken, or has Mr. Obama’s party not controlled Congress for the last two years?
As the editorial reveals, The New York Times fervently believes that the way help “many millions” left far behind is to drive more corporations overseas, to take from the wealthy the income they’d otherwise invest to create jobs and to regulate the economy into another depression.
When President Obama and a Democratic Congress take a wrecking ball to the economy over the next two years, who will The New York Times then blame for the resulting debacle? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin?
@nytimes.com
