The Wall Street Journal is a great paper, one of the few that even attempts to keep the editorials out of the news columns, and I hope Gigot can maintain that tradition. My wife refused to believe me when I tried to tell her how far the Times had fallen, but was forced to reconsider when I read her contrasting headlines from the two papers during the Florida election mess.
When I lived on the Upper West Side there were more Trotskyites than Republicans on the block and somehow I think things have just gotten worse. If you don't mind shooting a fish in a barrel, you might try writing about Paul Krugman. I can't even bear to read his columns anymore; he's become too hysterical, like a low-IQ version of Alan Dershowitz. The most extreme manifestation of the new regime, though, is the Times' conversion of its Letters section to a replica of its editorial and op-ed pages.
It is extremely rare to read a letter expressing a conservative point of view in the Times, and on the rare occasions when they feel compelled to print one it's usually from some prominent conservative as opposed to the ordinary folks who pen letters to the editor. I suppose, though, that it's possible only liberals write to the Times. Keep up the good work, I always enjoy your columns. The Journal's ferocity in attacking the Clinton administration was really unlike anything in my experience as a reader.
Clear as The New York Times' prejudices are, that paper is more pompous than predatory. You'd have to go to a sheet like the Village Voice to match the Journal's attack frenzy. Clearly, Bartley set out to destroy that administration virtually before it took office.
Even the Democrats' obnoxious threats to veto Bush's judges doesn't quite match these attacks on various political advisers and functionaries. As much as we can justifiably criticize Clinton, the people elected him. There is something very wrong with immediately trying to sabotage and stop an administration that has been put in place democratically, by the clear will of the electorate.
