(Click for full image)
Apparently, the New York Times has decided to take a day off from the exhausting work of alerting our terrorist enemies to our secret plans to stop them from attacking us, and has decided to focus instead on the vital issue of Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Currently, on the front page of the New York Times there are three (THREE!) front page (FRONT PAGE!) stories concerning Bristol Palin's pregnancy. You know, the United States Military handed over control of the Anbar province to the Iraqi military yesterday, there was another hurricane that hit New Orleans, protesters at the RNC are resorting to increasing levels of violence, attacking the Connecticut delegation with bleach, but Bristol Palin being pregnant deserves THREE headlines in the NYTimes. All of the above mentioned stories, apart from Gustav, got ZERO.
It isn't difficult to discern what the Times is getting at, here. When the Times isn't busy committing treason, it's busy doing what it thinks will hurt Republicans. And in this case, it thinks that providing oodles of coverage concerning Bristol Palin's pregnancy will be harmful to Palin's image among Republicans and/or independents.
Fortunately for us, this is the newspaper that was so shocked by the results of the 2004 elections that it actually sent a reporter to visit the red states as though they were some foreign country, or perhaps existed on another planet populated by strange alien creatures. I'm quite certain that most Times reporters do not know a single person who voted for Reagan over Mondale. So their knowledge of what the average Republican/Independent is bothered by is, shall we say, limited at the least.
And so, for the benefit of the reporters of the New York Times, allow me to expose you to some of the strange, alien thinking that exists outside the hallowed soil of Manhattan Island. It turns out, we rubes out here in the sticks don't really think that a teenage pregnancy disqualifies the mother of that teenager from being Vice President. You think your average independent is anything other than horrified with the way Bristol Palin is being treated by you Obama supporters right now (and make no mistake, the average independent knows which side the New York Times is on in this election)? And when it comes to us religion-clingers, the reaction isn't much different. You see (try very hard to follow this, Times reporters), while we would prefer that teenagers not have children out of wedlock, we prefer, as the next best option, that they have the kid and either keep it or give it up for adoption. And furthermore, we all realize - even out here in flyover country - that kids make mistakes no matter who their parents are.
The Times and other assorted liberals are going bonkers today asserting that this means that McCain did a poor job vetting Palin, despite the fact that the McCain camp has said that they knew about this. The thing these people do not realize is that the vetting process turns up dirt on everyone; the second half of the vetting process involves asking, "Will the American people care about this information?" The answer here is clearly no.
So please quit trying to pretend that you have any understanding whatsoever of what's going on in the rest of the country, and that you know that we're all scandalized by the Bristol Palin story. Or better yet for our side, please keep doing it. I'm sure it'll go over marvelously in the long run.