"Editorial - What is Left of the Latin Left - Latin America has never been more centrist and pragmatic"
"Prisoners and Human Rights - The United States has the worst record in the free world when it comes to stripping convicted felons of the right to vote"
"Still the Wrong Man for the U.N. [Bolton, of course]"
"A Senate Race in Connecticut - The NY Times endorses Ned Lamont in the Democratic Primary"
It's just doesn't get much more knee jerk moonbat left than this. The problem isn't their strong opinions - the problem lies that the Times still represents itself as a NEWSpaper and that requires balance. I can't imagine that the newsroom isn't staffed and deeply influenced by the Editors.
A couple of examples:
"As ambassador, Mr. Bolton’s performance has been more restrained than many of his opponents feared. He has, as far as we know, faithfully carried out any instructions he was given. And on some issues, like this spring’s botched reform of the United Nations’ human-rights monitoring body, Mr. Bolton was right not to accept a bad result."
[But the Times still hates him]
"Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress. "
[Ah. Something wrong with supporting the war's progress.]
Frankly the best part of the Times these days might be the Styles Section