"You VILL vote for Bush or Gore and you VILL
by The Cranky Media Guy
|New York Times
If the New York Times were an ice cream store chain,
they'd offer two flavors, vanilla and vanilla. None of this
wacky Rocky Road stuff for them. Hey, vanilla is the most
popular flavor, right? Why confuse people by offering other
Too bad they're not in the ice cream business. With
an attitude (and selection) like that, they'd go out of business
quickly. As it is, the Times is one of the most
influential newspapers in America. Too bad.
The other day, the Times ran an editorial that said in
part, "In running for president as the nominee of the Green
Party, [Ralph Nader] is engaging in a self-indulgent exercise that
will distract voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the
major party candidates." Huh? Clear-cut choice
represented by George W. Bush and Al Gore? P.T.
Barnum's Siamese twins, Chang and Eng, were less alike than those
two joined-at-the-ego, charisma-challenged assholes.
Despite the fact that millions of Americans are repulsed by the
thought of either of those empty suits occupying the Oval Office,
that's not the issue, according to the Times. "The
public deserves to see the major party candidates compete on an
uncluttered playing field," says the Gray Lady. Get it
If anyone has the temerity to think that they just might have a
better approach to governing than the crème de la crap offered by
the Republicans and Democrats, they're "clutter" according
to the Newspaper Of Record. To the Times' way of
thinking, Ralph Nader is the drunken yahoo who wins a $50 bet with
his friend by running onto the outfield at Yankee Stadium in the
middle of the sixth inning. Somebody call security! Get
that guy out of here! The fans deserve an uncluttered playing
Funny, the Times didn't seem to feel this way in '92 and
'96 when Nader made half-assed token runs at the White House.
Now, when he's acting serious about the race and getting anywhere
from 7 to 10 percent of the vote (depending on the state), suddenly
he's "cluttering things up." If accusing Nader of
self-indulgence ever made any sense, it would have been in
'92 and '96, not now.
The Real Deal, methinks, is that outsiders like Nader represent
something the Times can't deal with: deviation from the
norm. The mainstream press uses politicians and gets used by
them. That's how this game is played. Along comes a
passionate outsider and the whole applecart is threatened. Not
that Nader has any real chance of winning, of course, but he's a
monkey wrench in the works and who needs that? How dare
the unwashed not say "Yummy!" to the stale crumbs the Big
Two parties offer them? What do they think this is, a democracy?
Now that you know how things really are on 43rd Street,
you may feel free to laugh in the face of anyone who tells you how
"liberal" the Times editorial staff is.
They're corporo-political shills all the way, Baby, rock-solid
citizens of Status Quoville. Their "choice would only be
confusing" attitude would be bad in the ice cream business, but
it's even worse in (what's supposed to be) journalism. And
that, my Distracted Voter Friend, is why they are the Weasel(s) Of