If a story on conservatives or Republicans appears in the New York Times, you must first verify it with a more reliable source before you can determine its accuracy. No wonder a blogress who voted for Obama in 2008 had a bit of fun with a Times article about centrist women’s supposed disenchantment with the GOP.
The old gray lady quoted some woman claiming to have voted for McCain the year Ann Althouse voted for Obama who was so offended by how busy Republicans were telling us how we should act in our bedrooms, that it appears writer Susan Saulny had to whip out the smelling salts to prevent her from fainting. This supposed McCain supporter getting her news about the GOP not from the candidates themselves, but from the candidates as filtered through such sources as the Times or CNN.
As Althouse reminds us, it’s not the Republicans who started the “ridiculous talk” about contraception:
Of course, Democrats started the conversation, but it was a good conversation to start if the goal was to get some Republicans to say some things that could be used against them. Fortunately, Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate who is going to be the nominee, had the sense not to say much. He was “tepid.” Good! We don’t want the government in our bedroom, so we don’t need a passionate President. Let him stay in his office and coolly and calmly do his job, which shouldn’t have anything to do with sex. He’s not our boyfriend.
Exactly. Read the whole thing. Althouse sounds skeptical (about the political affiliation of the women quoted). And she’s right to be; the Times article does little more than repeat a Democratic talking point.
(If “some” of these women were, as Miss Saulny claimed, “critical of Mr. Romney’s tepid response,” wonder how they feel about Mr. Obama’s non-response to the misogynistic language used by a man who gave $1 million to his Super PAC.)
OH, AND, ONE MORE THING: I’m skeptical of any individual who claims he’s upset by a Republican’s tepid response to Mr. Limbaugh’s ugly language (for which he has since apologized). I’ve encountered liberals out here (in LA) who don’t think Republicans need respond apologize for Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks. It’s only the completely politicized lefties who are still upset about it.
And do note once again how writers for the Times raise such a ruckus about Republicans failing to, to borrow an expression, “differentiate themselves” from harsh rhetoric on their side of the aisle, but never make much of Democrats failing to engage in similar differentiation. Where were the finger-waving editorials during the George W. Bush era? Did they ever run articles on upset Republican women when Mr. Maher insulted Governor Palin?
FROM THE COMMENTS: Rick67 explores the liberal notion that Republicans must distinguish themselves from hate-speech on the right:
Even more insidious than the hypocrisy or at least double-standards buried in the “you Republicans must distance yourself from this hateful rhetoric” rhetoric is the assumption that someone else can decide what my priorities should be (what I spend my time saying and doing) just by saying so.
Ironically President Obama was correct. It’s not his job to police everything everyone says about every issue. Nor is it Romney’s. Or mine.
This is not to deny that if someone who is truly a member of my “group” (defined how strictly? my actual organization? someone over whom I have authority?) says or does something outrageous I might have to respond to it.