A difference between me and the editorial staff of the New York Times

If you've been reading here for any length of time you've probably found yourself wondering: why should I even bother with this, when I can get the exact same viewpoint from the editorial page of the New York Times?  Is there any meaningful difference between the two, or does he just crib his stuff directly from them?  If I wanted to see mindless mimicry I'd have bought a macaw!  A macaw!  I'd have bought a MACAW!

Well, I can prove that you're wrong.  My response to Barack Obama's response to Jeremiah Wright's response to American hegemony was:

This could easily be Obama's entry in "Profiles in Cowardice."

But the Times' response was:

Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage

So see?  There's at least one difference.

I'm glad we've got that settled.  Now I can go back to extolling the myriad virtues of free trade, mulling how we can persuade the Iraqis to take responsibility for ensuring their own freedoms, and advising the government to craft a taxpayer-financed bailout of Wall Street financial firms.

Comments

[SteveB]

And I'm sure. just like your doppelgangers at the Times, if you had to choose nine "experts" to look back on the past five years of the war, you would have decided to have all nine be people who supported the invasion.

So when is Bill Kristol joining you as a guest blogger?

[John Caruso]

Joining? He's been guest-blogging a third of the postings on here for almost a year.