The July 4 New York Times has this editorial, titled “Let Them Run.” It criticizes President Obama and other leading Democrats who are trying to persuade various New York Democrats not to mount a primary challenge in 2010 to appointed incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The editorial says, “An election should offer choices.”
The editorial is a refreshing change from a New York Times editorial of June 30, 2000, which said that Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan should not run for president, so as to make it possible for the two major party candidates to “compete on an uncluttered playing field.”
Well sure, like the San Diego Union Tribune [go, go, go, we love patriotic crook and federal prisoner ‘Puke’ Cunningham] and the Kansas City Star [failed big town mayor and goof Mark Funkhouser (a couple of dozen predetermined blocked signatures from August recall ….) is not all that bad, lay off of our Golden Boy]!
You are faced with extinction from an educated, but unruly, mob, ya FINALLY start to pay attention……
The New York Times should take its own advice. They have already interfered by printing one sided articles favoring Maloney. All publicity pertaining to Gillibrand has been negative to the point that my friends in NYC think Kirsten Gillibrand is another Sarah Palin. Instead of portraying Senator Gillibrand as the progressive she is, the Times has much of the public believing she is a gun toting, tobacco lobbying conservative. Why can’t we depend on the New York Times for both sides of the debate?
The Times will endorse their friend Maloney which is why we see a change from their editorial of June 30,2000. I hope President Obama will back Gillibrand with gusto.
I agree with Lee completely. The times should focus on the facts and stop misrepresenting gillibrand’s record as they have done from the very beginning. In fact I would like to see the times and all other newspapers discontinue editorials and candidate endorsements.
All this does not matter. So-called “Free” elections in America are an illusion. These are contests between billionaire cartels spending endless corrupt union and corporation money to purchase seats. Voters are Sheeple.
Gary: Kansas City [and Wichita, and Omaha, and Chicago] still has the stink of the Pendergast corruption era, [vote early and vote often!] but the short fall [of the insular, corrupt Mark Funkhouser recall effort] would have occurred no matter the gross tally.
[The fix was in, ya know what I mean?]
It is even worse than the Sheeple picking between pre sold Fidley Dee and pre sold Fidley Dumb. It is soooooo brokered a head of time…….
When Gillibrand was described as an “upstate” Democrat, was that code for “upstart”?
“An election should offer choices.” That is, of course, true, except the editorial doesn’t even refer to an election, it refers to a primary, which as anyone who follows this website knows is not the same thing. You’d think the New York Times would understand the difference.
Also, at the end of the editorial they reference “both parties,” not “the two major parties” or something similar, as if no other parties or alternatives existed. Let them run, indeed.
I agree with David. The NYT is happy with competition in the primaries, as long as it’s two candidates. During the 2004 election, they were chomping at the bit to get candidates excluded from the Democratic primary debates. They wanted only the two frontrunners to debate each other.