I headlined my inclusion of an excerpt from the NYT's scathing 4/19 editorial [ "http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/19/opinion/19SAT1.html?pagewanted=print&position ] "thusly:"

"THERE USED TO BE A TIME WHERE AN NYT EDITORIAL THIS DIRECT WOULD MATTER"

The TV nets and the rest of the lowest common denominator media no longer accept anti-GOP cues from the NYT. Unfortunately, I cannot see NYT eds as meaningful harbingers of Shrubbish doom.

I must agree -- there is plenty to complain about in Bush's domestic programs, but for heaven's sake, Mr. Newman, no one ever thought the Bush haters at the NY Times would extend the man a "honeymoon" at all.

And increasingly, few people outside of the 212 and 310 area codes care. Of rather more interest is what the nation's paper of record (the Washington Post), or a mainstream U.S. paper like the Chicago Tribune, has to say about Bush.

When it comes to Bush's domestic policy, the NYT is just about where the majority of Americans are. Despite the boost in overall popularity Bush has gotten from the war, last time I checked his economic proposals aren't doing very well in the polls.