Do't we all just love the way the NY Times uses loaded language to influence the audience in their poliitcal "news" reporting. For exmple, when dealing with the Bush AWOL scandal, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/politics/campaign/01CND-CAMP.htmlwe get this:
Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, caustically attacked President Bush today on his military record, as the party's presidential candidates campaigned in most of the seven states that will hold primaries or caucuses on Tuesday.
But, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/politics/campaign/TEXT-MCAULLIFE.html?pagewanted=2 , we get the actual words of the suposedly caustic "attack" by McAuliffe:
I don't know if John Kerry will be the nominee. I have to be neutral towards all of them. But if he is the nominee, let me tell you this, George, I look forward to that debate, when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard.
George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up. And there's John Kerry, on the stage with a chest full of medals that he earned by saving lives of American soldiers.
....
The facts are what they are, George. George Bush got out of college in 1968, the height of the draft. He used his father's contacts to get a spot in the Texas Guard. He then wanted to go work on an Alabama Senate race. He went to Alabama for one year. He didn't show up.
Call it whatever you want, AWOL, doesn't matter. But if this is the way the Republicans are going, you bet, bring it on, legitimate debate.
When the electoral revolution cometh, I say we slice up whatever MegaCorp owns the Times.....