Liberal New York Times Simply Does Not Care For Obama's Facial Expression (Update: Nevermind!)
What is funnier than a typographical error on the front page of the N Y Times Dot Com, the Tumblr of Record? It's great, because they're like, "Hey, we're the New York Times, we're the best, feed me caviar," and then they screw up and everyone chuckles for two seconds. Today they posted a TimesCast video about how a Super PAC was planning to personally attack Obama, and what could better complement that story than stock footage of Obama "looking slick and cocky"? (UPDATE BELOW -- WE ARE DUMB -- STILL SORTA FUNNY? -- EHH)
Others might say he is "smiling," but his head is sort of tilted up, and he won't show his teeth, and he's blah, so that must be how we get to "slick and cocky."
Don't worry,Timesfront-page slave, we all do this sometimes. Sometimes we at Wonkette post lengthy excerpts of the nastiest parts ofMein Kampfalongside the .gif of Orson Welles clapping and then have to quick scrub it before any of you see it. They were just drafts, we swear!
UPDATE: No, nevermind, the image is a screen grab from that wingnutPLAN TO DEFEAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA storyboard that came out today. Apologies to the wonderful New York Times newspaper, which is free of error here, but took it down anyway. Your Wonkette author is a horrible person.
Meh. Brooks sucks, of course, in major fashion. But your url is blah.<strong>blogs</strong>.nytimes.com, where editorial control is at its weakest.
Brooks appears to be entirely unaware of the meaning of &quot;gotcha&quot;. He also appears to find it impossible to believe that the same individual can be kind sometimes but cruel others, despite voluminous evidence from all walks of life that this isn&#039;t only possible, but true to varying degrees of pretty much every person that ever lived. His core argument is so terribly weak (essentially boiling down to &quot;this story contradicts my preconceived notions of Romney, so I don&#039;t like it&quot;) that he really damages his position more than he advances it. In that regard, Brooks is much more like a Mets reliever than a centerfielder.
Of course, the Times <em>pays</em> for this weakass pablum, along with that of Thom Friedman and Ross Douchehat so screw them.
Yeah that &quot;Reagan&#039;s true nature&quot; thing stuck in the craw. Maybe he should ask the people of Tripoli, or Beirut, or Grenada, or Nicaragua what they thought of Reagan&#039;s true nature? Maybe he should ponder for a moment what kind of person would veto the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act.