![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
So I'm reading my morning paper and I see this article from Howard Kurtz http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61623-2002Dec1.html that the Op-ed page of the Washington Times doesn't exclusively bash Democrats. Title of "Right, but Not 100 Percent Right".
He comments that Times editorials recently made statements about John McCain and Jim Jeffords that were contested by the two Senators. Thing is, McCain is a maverick who was in this case was being a pain to the Republican leadership by opposing the porked up homeland security bill and Jeffords had, sadly only briefly, cost Republicans the Senate.
So the Washington Times editorial page is a flunky of the Republican leadership. A role which sometimes necessitates criticizing Republicans or former Republicans. This is news why?
He comments that Times editorials recently made statements about John McCain and Jim Jeffords that were contested by the two Senators. Thing is, McCain is a maverick who was in this case was being a pain to the Republican leadership by opposing the porked up homeland security bill and Jeffords had, sadly only briefly, cost Republicans the Senate.
So the Washington Times editorial page is a flunky of the Republican leadership. A role which sometimes necessitates criticizing Republicans or former Republicans. This is news why?