Some Democrats have concluded that their decision earlier this summer to thwart votes on alternatives left them open to criticism that they were being intransigent.It's true that when the Times says "some Democrats" it usually means something like "this one conservative Democrat we always call for a 'some Democrats' line in a process-of-politics piece." Nevertheless. Intransigent? Good god At this point, I think we'd all settle for passive-aggressive.
-"Democrats Newly Willing to Compromise on Iraq"
Otherwise the only question raised by the article is what, precisely, about the Democrats' willingness to deal with the devil is new?
2 comments:
The press really is incredible. Or the Democrats are. Or both.
"Some Democrats, after spending the last seven months eagerly allowing Bush to mount them repeatedly from behind, are concerned that their reluctance to engage in ass-to-mouth fellatio of the President has left them open to criticism that they have been intransigent. Going forward, these Democrats have resolved to gobble the President's dirty knob with ample amounts of bipartisanship and slobber."
I was at a coffee shop the other day that buys newspapers and leaves them around. I got there at 10am. On a table sat a copy of the NYTimes perfectly folded.
It had two different stains on the front. It was clear multiple patrons had picked it up, spilled something, put the paper down without even bothering to break the fold. For the upscale young crowd that frequents that cafe, the paper appeared to be like the silent movies made after the advent of talkies. Just a pathetic artifact.
This particular article seems to be aimed at the semi-senile of the NYTimes' dwindling readership. ie: well-crafted, in that some of these worthies might be titillated by the word 'intransigent', over tea and crumpets (or whatever).
Post a Comment