Patronizing NYT Style

When it comes to credibility, no one has less in the world of the mainstream media lately than the New York Times (I'd have said MSNBC, but those sycophantic Pampers butt lickers are so over the edge for him that integrity left their buidling months ago). Whether it's kissing the Red Baron's ass after endorsing Clinton, playing fast and loose with the facts, or just being flat out patronizing, no one flushes journalistic integrity faster and farther than the so-called paper of record. The motto, "All the news that's fit to print," ought to be replaced with the legend that graced the guys' bathroom stall at my camp's mess hall, "Flush twice, it's a long way to the kitchen."


Case in point, an article that ran regarding The Denver Group's latest ads. Referring to the group's founders, Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin, as "political novices" and "frustrated" allows the Times to continue the meme that PUMAs are merely bitter about the fact that Clinton lost, and have no real acumen when it comes to the supposedly intricate interworkings of American politics. This characterization allows the Times to pass off our movement, the most powerful political force operating on the stage at present (if you doubt that then I gladly site CNN's polling which indicates that since May the percentage of Democrats that want Hillary at the top of the ticket is growing, as is the Just Say No Deal coalition--at last count it was surpassing 2.5 million after only 4 weeks of existence) as childish and insignificant; a grave miscalculation on the part of the Times considering that Republican pols in Washington have made it quite clear to myself and my associates that we are the most sought after prize in the general election.

We are not novices. We know what happened on May 31, 2008, and that the race was gamed for Hindenburg since 2004 by Dean and Grendel Brazile. We won't support the coup. We will not vote for Pampers. We will take on every elected politician who endorsed him though their states and/or Congressional Districts went to Clinton, despite their bullshit that they would endorse the "will of the people." Attempting to belittle two of our most eloquent, dedicated, and thoughtful voices may help feed the Times' sanctimonious narcissism, but it also feeds our wholly justified anger and righteous indignation.

Thanks NYT for giving us yet another reason to strengthen our resolve.