Your liberal friends are probably salving their worries over Hillary’s health with a recent NYT hit piece on Scott Walker.
Have no fear. In what is becoming a Berg’s Law-worthy pattern, the Times’ piece is pretty much a NYPost article in a tweed sportcoat. Christian Schneider notes in the conclusion:
Christopher Hitchens once wrote, “It is a frequent vice of radical polemic to assert, and even to believe, that once you have found the lowest motive for an antagonist, you have identified the correct one.” In this case, the New York Times started with a motive and worked backwards, rather than letting the facts lead them to an honest conclusion.
Read the whole thing. Refer it to your liberal friends. Ask if it’s ever been different.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.