The New York Times did a profile of the Tennessee Senatorial candidate. In true Times fashion they missed the point, leading the story with the effect a Ford win would have on the party balance in the Senate, instead of Ford's focus on issues over party loyalty.
To be fair to the Times, "winning back the Senate" or "keeping the Senate" have been the focus of both parties and seemingly all of our major politicians, so it makes sense that they would be stuck on this partisan nonsense. As for me, I am more interested in our politicians governing well, and I honestly believe that is what Harold Ford is all about.
(Hat tip to Instapundit.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm not so sure they "miss the point" as much as they do not emphasize what you think it important. But I think any serious person would have a hard time pretending that changing the party makeup of the Senate is somehow indsignificant.
"In true Times fashion"? Really? This strikes me as kneejerk cheap shot and not reasoned response.
dcat
Changing the party makeup of the Senate is significant, and I never pretended otherwise, but party regulars (including the New York Times, in true Times fashion) have made it more significant than actually governing well.
Post a Comment