The editors of the NY Times begin their July 4 editorial with:
The NY Times then reviews Sen. Obama's changing positions on federal funding of campaigns, "grass-roots"-based fundraising, electronic eavesdropping, "warrantless wiretapping," and federal funding of faith-based charities. The Times finds these flip-flops "perplexing." Of course, they are not "perplexing" except to those who try to delude themselves into thinking that Sen. Obama is something other than the usual say-anything-to-get-elected politician. Not "perplexing" at all.
Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, .... Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings.Sen. Obama's campaign promises have ranged from the unrealistic (such as his claim to be able to overcome his partisanship) to bizarre (his claim to stop the oceans from rising). Are the editors at the New York Times be so naive as to believe it all enough that Sen. Obama "raised [their] hopes"? Or, are they just pretending to be naive?
The NY Times then reviews Sen. Obama's changing positions on federal funding of campaigns, "grass-roots"-based fundraising, electronic eavesdropping, "warrantless wiretapping," and federal funding of faith-based charities. The Times finds these flip-flops "perplexing." Of course, they are not "perplexing" except to those who try to delude themselves into thinking that Sen. Obama is something other than the usual say-anything-to-get-elected politician. Not "perplexing" at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment