New York Times Publishes Names of People Who Died of COVID-19 on Entire Front Page

Saved themselves the embarrassment of filling the front page with stories they'd have to retract in a day or two, I guess!

At the risk of being accused of "whataboutism", I don't recall the NYT filling the front page of their Sunday paper with the names of H1N1 victims? But it reminded me of something else, towards the end of the Bush Administration. The NYT published the names of all the soldiers who had died in Iraq...in Bush's war! It was a terrible thing, the media decried!~ All those soldiers' lives lost! Nightline did a special edition of nothing but Ted Koppel reading the names of those who had died in Iraq.

"Ted Koppel solemnly read aloud the names of 721 U.S. servicemen and women killed in the Iraq war during an unusual edition of "Nightline" Friday. Koppel's recitation - illustrated with corresponding photo, military branch, rank and age of each of the fallen since March 19, 2003 - occupied the expanded 40-minute program. There was no music, no graphic flourishes. Name followed name, photo followed photo..."

Doonesbury in the "funny papers", printed the list of soldiers killed in the Iraqi war. The "anti-war" movement was flourishing. Cindy Shehan camped outside of Bush's ranch in Texas. The media declared the ultimate right of a woman who had lost a son to combat to protest the war! These anti-war types were the genuine article! And really, really concerned about this...

...up until 2009. A new president...a Democrat president was inaugurated, and like the morning mists burned away by the blazing noonday sun...the anti-war liberals all disappeared! Well, Cindy Sheehan tried to extend her 15 minutes of fame by running for office in California, but no one wanted to interview her anymore, and her brief candidacy was swept away by a tsunami of apathy towards the plight of the U.S. soldier.

Obama ramped up activity in Afghanistan, yet saddled the military with near impossible Rules of Engagement, and the casualty count in Afghanistan started to rise precipitously. All with nary a peep from the anti-war Left. It was as if, liberals used the deaths of Americans to try to score points against their political opponents, but as a rule, just didn't give a damn otherwise!

It appears that the exact same thing is happening here. If somehow Trump can be associated with all these deaths, the liberals hope to score points in November. The "Paper of Record" never ran a front page of H1N1 deaths, or mounting casualties in Afghanistan or calling them "grim milestones" because a liberal was in office. Wouldn't want to embarrass him, don'tcha know?

But "Trump is Hitler", so all's fair!

Quote du jour

The plan would not benefit lower-income households that do not pay federal income taxes.

-Binyamin Applebaum, NY Times

Quote du jour

"When Obamacare was developed, one goal was to allow middle-class Americans to use the new marketplaces to buy the same kind of health insurance they had at their jobs. People could retire early, or quit a corporate job and become a freelancer, and still have the great care and financial protection that come with high-end plans.

But six years into the health law, the reality is that a typical Obamacare plan looks more like Medicaid, only with a high deductible…."

-New York Times

Marco Rubio's 'Luxury' Boat by Contrast

Nothing New Under the Sun

Maureen Dowd: "Obama is Bi"

Maureen Dowd doesn't think he's bi-polar. Not sure I'd want to take that bet! But her NYT piece seems to be similar to the theme I noted a little while ago, about Obama being firmly on both sides of the automation issue! Ms. Dowd:

Our president likes to be on both sides at once.

In Afghanistan, he wants to go but he wants to stay. He’s surging and withdrawing simultaneously. He’s leaving fewer troops than are needed for a counterinsurgency strategy and more troops than are needed for a counterterrorism strategy — and he seems to want both strategies at the same time. Our work is done but we have to still be there. Our work isn’t done but we can go.

On Libya, President Obama wants to lead from behind. He’s engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi while telling Congress he’s not engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi.

On the budget, he wants to cut spending and increase spending. On the environment, he wants to increase energy production but is reluctant to drill. On health care, he wants to get everybody covered but will not press for a universal system. On Wall Street, he assails fat cats, but at cocktail parties, he wants to collect some of their fat for his campaign.

On politics, he likes to be friends with the other side but bash ’em at the same time. For others, bipartisanship means transcending their own prior political identities. For President Obama, it means that he participates in all political identities. He does not seem deeply affiliated with any side except his own.

Maureen, we are in rare agreement. But you may not have come out and pinpointed the exact reason that Obama is on both sides of every issue.

On some of the most important issues facing this nation, it is time for the president to come out of the closet.

As just an ordinary, scum sucking, tell the people whatever it is they want to hear, politician.
I'm with you, Maureen!

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.