Re: NY TIMES stops ****lling for McCain

"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:XJednXGjloKEkxrVnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:w8whk.18247$Ri.18013@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:t5WdnTKpXrJXnxvVnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > The Boston Herald ran it, and it was typical of McCain's vacuous,
>> > empty-headed sup****t of Bush's war.  He claimed we had to press on to
>> > "victory" but never defined what "victory" would look like.
>>
>> Moron, it's uprecedented and unbelievably arrogant of the Times to
think
>> they have the right to condensendingly tell McCain what he should write

>> in
>> his response.
>>
>
> No, dummy, it's what newspaper editors do.

Not in a presidential campaign which is why they are in attack-mode,
damage 
control once again attempting to defend their all too obvious liberal 
bias.......

> I write for newspapers.  If
> editors feel an article is unclear, as McSame's vague, amateurish screed
> was, then they are *obligated* to tell the writer to redo it or else 
> reject
> it.
>
> If McSame wants his unedited gibberish read, he can start a blog, if 
> someone
> can show the computer-illiterate codger how to get on to "the
Internets."
>
>