On Friday, October 8, 2004, on page B11, the Los Angeles Times published a commentary by Jonathan Chait called, "He's So Bad, He Might Be Perfect." The condemnation of Bush is so harsh, it almost redefines anti-Bush rhetoric. The article states,

"To say that I consider Bush a 'bad' president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word 'bad.' I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my 'bad' category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as 'good.' There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns." (emphasis added)

        It gets worse from there. But here's the kicker: The commentary begins with the sentence, "An editor at the paper suggested that I use this week's column to try to make the most honest and persuasive case I could for President Bush's reelection." (emphasis added)

        Hold on. Let's get this straight. The Times wanted an "honest and persuasive" case for President Bush, and they chose this guy?!?!  There are several conservative, pro-Bush voices in Los Angeles that the Times could have chosen to make the case for the President. Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, for example ... Instead, they published Chait's piece of trash.

 

TheMediaReport.com asks ... So when are we going to see a true "honest and persuasive case" for Bush in the Times?