Media shows just how crazy these times are

Comments? E-mail: "mailto:dlagarde@suite101.com"

I know us Americans have elections going on soon, but...

First of all, I, Deborah Lagarde, CE of Media Issues, am not endorsing anyone for President. Second of all, why do major or minor news organs do such stuff as endorse Presidential Candidates of anyone else politically? Do those that run the New York Times at "http://www.nytimes.com/", for instance (yeah, I know...you are asking why am I picking on the NY Times again?) really think that their endorsement of Hillary Clinton for Senator makes any difference--ESPECIALLY when their endorsement editorial reeks of anti-Hillary, saying that "they realize" that she has been corrupt, has lied, has done dirty deeds and the like, but they are endorseing her anyway, despite the fact that her opponent, Lazio, has done right for New York?

Now I ask you--JUST WHAT KIND OF 'ENDORSEMENT' IS THAT???

When I read such stuff (in a WorldNetDaily at "http://www.worldnetdaily.com/" article by FoxNews commentator Bill O'Rielly) it really makes me think the world (especially the Times) has been turned upside down. Just to make sure I am not crazy, I actually went to the Times editorial endosement article and sure enough, the NY Times is endorsing Ms. Clinton despite her political shennanigans. Logically, there can only be one reason for the Times to admit, basically, that they prefer a political charlatan to a serious candidate--the New York Times must do the politically correct thing, not the right thing (and, BTW, I am not a Lazio fan and I don't live in New York--anymore, that is).

Before I move on to the craziness of the conservative types, let me get a shot in on one more liberal, Molly Ivins--who, BTW, is speaking at my Writer's Group Conference this coming February! In a recent commentary in the Austin American-Statesman, republished in Alexander Cockburn's ultra-leftist Common Dreams at "http://www.commondreams.org/", Ivins reveals that while Dubya plans to "increase military spending" (which she disagrees with, since that is already the largest part of the US budget), "Gore plans to spend even more." Nevertheless, she still unwaveringly supports Gore for President. Again, it seems that it doesn't matter whether a candidate does the right thing as long as he does the partisan thing or the politically correct thing in other areas, like education, for instance (that is, I assume Ivins goes with Gore's position on education--more money-throwing at a failed public school system. Since I taught in it for seven years, I know what I'm talking about, and I now homeschool my kids).

Go To Page: 1 2