The New York Times
keeps finding new ways to miss meeting low expectations, don't they? Instapundit
has collected a lot of blogosphere reactions to the Times piece
. The revelation that Republicans are donating to Swift Boat Vets for Truth to make and air their ad seems less than shocking - who else is going to pay for an ad attacking Kerry's record? Trial lawyers? (Well, John O'Neill is a lawyer, but I think you catch my drift.)
It seems clear that the piece was designed to give Kerry and his backers their defensive talking point — "The New York Times looked into all this and concluded all 250 of these men were Karl Rove mind-controlled zombies. There's nothing to their allegations. Please. They're not even wearing Chanel."
Also note how Kaus
deconstructs the Times' house editorial on the Swift Boat Vets - essentially, "speech that the Times disagrees with is not protected by the Constitution."