Don’t you love it?
The Poohbahs of the Media have Spoken.
“CONNECTICUT’S MESSAGE” proclaims the editorial page of the
New York Times that endorsed peacenik Ned Lamont over
Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate
primary.
There are two problems here, both ironic and hilarious.
Number One: In their bones, the generational peers of the
editorial writers and videotape editors of the mainstream media get
the game.
Number Two: Those of us who once agreed have seen the
light…and disagree.
Franklin Roosevelt, scion of the Eastern Establishment’s upper
class, was frequently called a “traitor” to his class, his class
being defined at the time as an economic class. One of the reasons
George W. Bush is so hated by the Left is that like FDR he is
perceived as a “traitor” to his class…in this case class being
defined as a class of liberal sensibility.
It is a sensibility for which Bush has a well-recorded contempt.
Rich American sons who go to Yale and Harvard are just not supposed
to think the way Bush does — and if they do…heaven forbid that
they actually say anything!!!!! As FDR sided with working- and
middle-class Americans, so too has Bush. What Bush possesses, as
does anyone who spent time in life as a liberal in the 1960s, is a
genuine knee-slapping laugh at the self-righteousness of those
liberal classmates who just refused to grow up.
Which brings us to the hilarious New York Times
editorial on the results of the Lieberman-Lamont primary.
I know, lobster and champagne doesn’t serve up as well, but try
and control yourself. You, dear Spectator readers, can
surely imagine the editorial staff of the Times sharing a
bite of sushi and white wine at the latest fashionable New York
PLACE TO BE as they scribble their indignation.
Let’s look at this.
The anger that Mr. Lieberman was so surprised to find
at his own back door is real, and actually more important than the
identity of the next senator from Connecticut. It involves the
rarest of breeds, the irate moderate.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the
New York
Times editorial board, they who find themselves perpetually
stunned that lower taxes raise revenues, that every state that gets
to vote on gay marriage opposes same, and that the American public
really does not believe a group of liberals in a closed editorial
board room should have the right to remove national security
decisions from all American voters — these folks are irate
moderates?? They get the Connecticut Message????
They’re a hoot, right?
The Times, which wants to raise your taxes, equalize
heterosexual marriage with any sexual desire anywhere at any time
between those of any sex, age or species, which believes Saddam
Hussein should have been left undisturbed to pursue his quest of
killing Jews at $25,000 a pop but that the starkly anti-Semitic Al
Sharpton’s support of Ned Lamont — or Lamont’s acceptance of that
support while running against a Jew — is not worth a verbal
shrug…the Times is the monitor of all things
moderate?
The Times wouldn’t know a moderate if its editors had
their high heels polished by one. America has long since gotten the
deal here. The Times asks of Lieberman “whether…he
learned that changing is necessary.” It is a question that many are
asking of the Times itself. Many of us are the
generational and educational peers of the Times editors
and writers — and of the publisher. The difference between us is
that some of us learned something from all those Sixties mistakes.
We refuse to hang on to the past. When Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.
— that would be JUNIOR — refuses to state that he will give up
his inheritance of a major American newspaper as some form of
penance to equality that his editorial board demands of family
farmers in the form of forfeiting farms to the estate tax, well,
credibility sinks.
When the Times demands that the Democratic Party state
that the foreign policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S.
Truman, and John F. Kennedy — all Times endorsees — demonstrate
“how far off course things have gone”…well, cue the laugh
track.
One of the unexpected joys of vacation on Eastern Long Island is
reading old books quoting old New York Times editorials.
Catch this one, published in the aftermath of World War
One:
“Not only is their (Germany’s) military
power…destroyed but the military spirit…crushed…Now…their
ships have gone; their foreign trade has vanished and they are
condemned to half a century of unremitting toil to repay the loss
they have caused…The punishment Germany must endure for centuries
will be one of the greatest deterrents to the war
spirit.”
For the record and particularly for
Spectator readers of a
certain age, in contrast to this
New York Times editorial
certainty neither the military spirit or power of Germany was
crushed. Germany’s ships were re-created. Their foreign trade
thrived. Not only was Germany not condemned “to half a century of
unremitting toil to repay the loss they have caused,” within a mere
twenty years it had an army on the march across Europe, had
successfully invaded Poland, France, Holland, Belgium and more, was
daily bombing England and had built concentration camps holding and
quite actively preparing to kill all of the Jews in Europe (relax,
they only killed six million).
So much for the wisdom of the New York Times.
Got the message?
