-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
In keeping with its roots in finding fault with virtually every conservative or Republican candidate running for statwide office this year the L.A. Times shocked the establishment by not endorsing Sen. Barbara Boxer in teh Democrat primary.
From the L.A. Times
On the Democratic side, we find that we’re no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer. She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could. We appreciate the challenge brought by Robert “Mickey” Kaus, even though he’s not a realistic contender, because he asks pertinent questions about Boxer’s “lockstep liberalism” on labor, immigration and other matters. But we can’t endorse him, because he gives no indication that he would step up to the job and away from his Democratic-gadfly persona.
The fast-growing population of California voters who no longer affiliate with a party are seeking a dynamic and creative representative to help direct national policy. But the substantive debate about whether Boxer or the Republican nominee is the best person must wait until after the primary. Then, we hope, it will be possible to endorse a candidate.
We take the two races together because they are united by the same issues that keep us from being able to endorse in either: the usurpation of voter prerogative by party and by money, and our disappointment in how the candidates measure up to their promise.
No doubt that the Times is biting its collective tongue in refusing to endorse any candidate for the Senate. But do they actually think that just because Boxer is facing a primary challenge as well as a potentially tough general election that she is going to adjust her positions just to get the paper’s endorsement?
I certainly don’t think so. Boxer is a long time liberal and even if she is bothered and maybe even a little worries about the Tea Party Movement’s potential effect on her race she won’t be able to change her stance and remain a credible candidate.
For now the Times is throwing up a moral smokescreen but when the dust settles after the primary I expect that they will go back to their liberal roots and endorse Boxer and her ilk.
Share This
About the author
Don Irvine is Chairman of Accuracy in Media. He is active on Facebook and Twitter. You can follow him @donirvine to read his latest thoughts.
They’re more afraid of having egg on their face. Consider their own black columnist who penned the “Barack the Magic Negro” column everyone likes to throw onto Rush’s back. Then consider how Andrew Breitbart put them through the wringer in their LA ACORN (lack of) coverage and the truths they ‘conveniently’ left in the Recycle Bin on the server, out of print (whether actual or ‘cyber’).
The LA Times has become more and more irrelevant to LA and California. Check out their ‘sister’ up in San Francisco, the Chronicle, for even more depressing circulation figures. Think that’s because of just internet usage and no ad revenues? Not by a long shot—once again, content.
Californians could care less about these newspaper endorsements. They see the real world every day, and see the lack of coverage their “press” gives them. Liberalism has run amok in California, with Boxer, Waters and Pelosi (the estrogen-deficient trifecta) leading the way, and the people can SEE what it’s brought them. What other convincing do they need? A “news”paper’s slanted perception of the truth?
Why the Tribune Company doesn’t shut this money loser, since they’re in bankruptcy already, is someone else’s guess. Their former customers have basically given that verdict already.