That wacky liberal New York Times

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:13 pm

From a NYT A1 story about Florida's role in the presidential election:Both parties will be fighting for moderate unaffiliated suburban voters, a group that generally went for Gore four years ago. Because that group is patriotic and somewhat fiscally conservative, some experts said Mr. Kerry, a New Englander, would not appeal to them.***Find every copy editor who worked on this story and fire them, now.***

jmcg · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:32 am

Not sure the problem here is bias, if indeed that's what you're suggesting. The problem is ignorance of the current state of politics. Kerry will get damn near every vote Gore received. It's nonsense to suggest there'll be a significant switch from Gore voters in 2000 to Bush voters in 2004, especially in Florida.

Jackie · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:54 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
Because that group is patriotic ... some experts said Mr. Kerry....would not appeal to them.
<hr></blockquote>Looks pretty biased to me. In that construction, yet another comma is needed, after "said."[ March 09, 2004: Message edited by: Jackie ]

Rio · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:16 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jmcg:
Not sure the problem here is bias, if indeed that's what you're suggesting. The problem is ignorance of the current state of politics. Kerry will get damn near every vote Gore received. It's nonsense to suggest there'll be a significant switch from Gore voters in 2000 to Bush voters in 2004, especially in Florida.<hr></blockquote>The author seems to be suggesting that 9/11 and the Bush tax cuts will swing all those "moderate unaffiliated suburban voters" to the GOP camp this time around. The point is, it's a different world than it was four years ago, so votes could change. I disagree that the idea is "nonsense." Questionable, certainly. As we all know, you can find "some experts" to support just about anything.Matthew, your reaction is interesting. I think that's what they used to call "shooting the messenger."[ March 09, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:44 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
From a NYT A1 story about Florida's role in the presidential election:Both parties will be fighting for moderate unaffiliated suburban voters, a group that generally went for Gore four years ago. Because that group is patriotic and somewhat fiscally conservative, some experts said Mr. Kerry, a New Englander, would not appeal to them.<hr></blockquote>At the very least, you need a comma after "said." I hope the story explained why these experts are saying people regard a New Englander as less than patriotic and not fiscally conservative.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:28 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
The author seems to be suggesting that 9/11 and the Bush tax cuts will swing all those "moderate unaffiliated suburban voters" to the GOP camp this time around. The point is, it's a different world than it was four years ago, so votes could change. I disagree that the idea is "nonsense." Questionable, certainly. As we all know, you can find "some experts" to support just about anything.Matthew, your reaction is interesting. I think that's what they used to call "shooting the messenger."[ March 09, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]<hr></blockquote>No, the problem is suggesting that either party is more patriotic than the other.

jmcg · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:07 pm

Kerry still gets the Gore vote, commas or not.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:34 pm

That is, unless some of those Gore voters were actually just "incumbent party" voters. Then things get tricky.

jmcg · **Posted:** Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:26 pm

Trust me.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:28 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
No, the problem is suggesting that either party is more patriotic than the other.<hr></blockquote>The article didn't say that, though. It said that moderate unaffiliated suburbanites are "patriotic" and therefore more likely to vote for Bush.Without reading the whole article, I can only guess how the author came to that conclusion. And my best guess is, he or she believes they'll stick with the incumbent commander-in-chief during wartime.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:14 am

The war ended in May. I remember, they made a big deal about it.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:28 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:
The war ended in May. I remember, they made a big deal about it.<hr></blockquote>
They were careful to point out in May that "combat" was ending. You can still make a valid point, however, that combat isn't over.I heard a comedian criticize the war on terrorism by comparing it to a war on jealousy. How does one win such a war?

Jackie · **Posted:** Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:54 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:
The war ended in May. I remember, they made a big deal about it.<hr></blockquote>"Mission Accomplished." And it had to be an aircraft carrier normally parked outside the rear of our newspaper office. Thanks, George.

Testy Copy Editors

That wacky liberal New York Times

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links