To: Neocon who wrote (163997 ) 7/24/2001 2:43:58 PM From: Zoltan! Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667 Right, which isn't what you characterized it as. THe NYTimes has a parochial, Manhattanite, Socialist viewpoint that it impresses on its readers. Heck, the natives see it: EMAIL OF THE DAY: "Couldn't agree with you more on your comments regarding the Times being on the "razor's edge of credibility." I would label myself as a fiscally conservative, culturally moderate, Southern White Male. I'm comforted and encouraged by what seems to me to be George W. Bush's over-arching decency, and shudder deeply at the thought of Al Gore in the White House. I've lived in Westchester, New York for the last 5 years, and have subscribed to the NYT for that entire time; it has always seemed an "important" paper to me, perhaps THE important US paper--and, even when I disagreed with it, I at least felt challenged by the thought and hard work that had obviously gone into the editorial product. I've tried to never be a knee-jerk conservative, I don't mind having my beliefs challenged, and I always felt I could at least count on the Times for a well-done, coherent and . . . responsible statement of its beliefs and positions. Not anymore. The current editorial page seems mindless, knee-jerk (Bush "bad," anti-Bush "good), and frankly contortionist in its efforts to slant everything . . . EVERYTHING . . . against Bush and all Republicans. And, more than ever, this slant has moved full-scale into its reporting. It's no longer even camouflaged. It's sad . . . but will almost certainly mean good things for other honest, balanced voices, as interested citizens like me look for meaningful, useful content and comment about the things that interest us." - 7/17/2001 02:28:00 PMandrewsullivan.com