Who Do You Trust

I invite those readers who refuse to accept the grim truth that the New York Times is a slanted liberal rag--just as biased, if not more biased than FOX News allegedly is in the opposite direction--to turn to page 1 of today's Sunday Review section and feast your eyes on the gargantuan pile of liberal pap disguised as "analysis." Author Gail Collins writes about Newt Gingrich's tawdry past, postulating that he will go down in history as "the politician who conclusively proved that voters don't care about a candidate's sexual misbehavior."

Huh, Gail? Were you in a coma during the Clinton administration? Do the words "blue dress" or "cigar" mean anything to you? Does the name Gennifer Flowers ring a bell? Remember how Bill Clinton and his wife appeared on TV before he was even nominated, wherein he admitted to a lengthy affair with...and how about Paula... and then there was Kathleen...and finally came Monica...but of course you know all this. But Clinton was not only elected but re-elected president, and subsequently canonized to Godlike stature among the left, where he remains to this day. And yet Gail writes, "the far right seems to be particularly indifferent to bad-behavior issues." Gail? WTF? (And let's not forget, Clinton was a sitting president at the time, not just one of 435 congressman but the lone leader of the free world.)

At the very least, one can say that Newt ended his indiscretions a dozen years ago and has since become a grandfather, converted to Catholicism, and vowed fidelity in writing to his current wife, admitting his past behavior was poor. (He's also gotten quite flabby and unappealing, leading one to assume he's lost that lovin' feeling.) The man he is today--a snooty, intellectual know-it-all who knows a lot-- is not some pervert posting pictures of his penis on the Internet. And while he's not who I want to see win the nomination, it's for reasons other than his past transgressions.

The staff and editors of the Times have gone to great lengths to get this in front of your face, just in case you missed it on TV this week. The decision to place this rehash of old news on the front page of their core section, complete with a huge --almost full-page illustration--and that's gotta cost them-- of a flirty, sexy redhead and an equally huge headline, "Newt's Real Legacy," is that paper's blatant attempt to smear a candidate on the eve of a critical election. It makes me sad and sick and tired of it all. Read the article, and be sure to wear loose clothing; you'll need it in order to perform the twisted, convoluted contortions necessary to agree with their bizarre premise.

Now, where are my pills....