Today, The New York Times editorial board published the most one-sided, biased, and unfair attack on the leading Republican contender. It was so partisan that it presented a textbook case of why conservatives must rely increasingly on foreign newspapers like The Economist to get objective news.
Now, before people point out that editorials are, by definition, opinions, I would counter that those who write them usually base their arguments on fact, or at least they present an informed point of view.
This editorial did neither.
Furthermore, opinion editorial writers tend to be individual citizens, and tend not to wrap themselves under the august mantle of an American institution.
So what was wrong with this editorial? Well, I simply do not know where to begin. For one, the opening line was rife with pure progressive snark:
“The more Mitt Romney pretends to empathize with the millions of Americans who are struggling in this economy, the less he seems to understand their despair.”
Pretends to empathize? Really? Does The New York Times editorial board have evidence for this assertion?
The more the liberal “elite” media pretend to speak for the American people, the more they betray their true colors. I expect overweening snark from Paul Krugman. At least I know where he stands. But The New York Times editorial board?
Really?
The editorial then maintains that more than a fifth of the “flailing” companies Mitt Romney purchased later went bankrupt. If the editorial board had done its homework or had bothered to speak with anyone who knew anything about the private equity industry, it would have learned that the average buyout fund has a failure rate in this range. The fact that it was not higher is a testament to the value that buyouts provide to the American economy in both saving companies and making them more efficient. Had Bain Capital not intervened, chances are that even more of these companies would have gone under, leading to even more job losses.
In its argument against voting for Romney (and its implicit endorsement for Obama), the editorial board cited only one Bain Capital transaction — an investment in which the company laid off 1,700 employees. Of course, the editorial board ignored a host of other Bain Capital transactions like Staples (a gain of 89,000 jobs), The Sports Authority (15,000 jobs), and Domino’s (7,900 jobs). While many have disputed the absolute numbers of jobs these companies may have created on Romney’s watch, it is indisputable that Romney’s investments in these companies ultimately resulted in the creation of successful and sustainable businesses.
But balance apparently matters little to The New York Times editorial board. In fact, the only thing this article lacked was the following statement:
“I am President Barack Obama, and I approved this message.”
Reflections of a Rational Republican 