Mugger Erupts

Russ Smith smacks the Times:

JUDGING BY THE hysteria spilling from the New York Times during the run-up to the Republican convention in the city, you'd think that George W. Bush was thrashing Sen. John Kerry by 10 points in every single snapshot poll, whether national, "battleground," military, pro-abortion voters or German. This is not rational, but then the Times (in almost every section of the paper), is rapidly losing its grip on reality. In fact, the winner of November's election is a mystery today and will likely remain so until after the debates between Bush and Kerry, or if some unanticipated catastrophe should occur.
I'm as jaded about the Times' de facto coordination with the Democratic National Committee as anyone—and liberal pundits are incensed that a Texan Bush supporter gave less than a million bucks to seed the "scurrilous" Swift Boat Veterans?—but the daily's lead editorial on Aug. 29, "Abolish the Electoral College" gave cause for a double-take. This print grenade, lobbed just months before the election, was garbled, condescending, contradictory and, most of all, really nervous. I understand that "every vote counts" is a mantra hummed by both parties, and in Democratic circles simply code for "No More Floridas!" but why did the Times choose this particular time to oppose the most basic rule of presidential politics?
Obviously, the paper's owners and editors are terrified that Bush might be reelected.

...One of the side benefits of a Bush victory in November, admittedly minor compared to his superior positions on foreign policy, tax and Social Security and tax reform as opposed to Kerry, is the prospect of watching the Times unravel, day by day, during a second term. It stretches the imagination to wonder how the onetime "paper of record" can trump the toxic level of Michael Moore-like hatred of this particular president—granted, the daily's editors and reporters are constrained to use rhetoric less inflammatory than the millionaire populist from Flint, MI—but if op-ed columnists Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd are apoplectic now, what mental state will they be in a year from today?

Of course, read the whole thing. He didn't even mention the surging Redsox either. He must be superstitious.