With Beto O’Rourke all set to lose bigly next week, it seems even the New York Times is taking the opportunity to pour a little salt in his impending wound:
Long before he became a national liberal hero, Beto O'Rourke sided with the moneyed elite — including his investor father-in-law — against angry barrio residents, small business owners and even Jesuit priests in a redevelopment fight. @stefsaul https://t.co/3C9zS1wN7b
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) October 29, 2018
Ruh-roh!
Also, did not know until today that Beto is a billionaire (or rather, is married to one). https://t.co/df4gWp2oTl
— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) October 29, 2018
So Beto’s more of a Man of the Rich People, then. That definitely doesn’t line up with the image he’s so carefully cultivated. Maybe that’s why all these lefties are so ticked at the New York Times:
Seriously?
— debbie DO SOMETHING TO SAVE DEMOCRACY koenig ? ✡️ (@debbieharry) October 29, 2018
Wherein Beto gets Hillaried by the NYT.
— Mel R (@coastalelite22) October 29, 2018
Nice. Just two years almost to the day after you torpedoed Hillary's campaign by amplifying a right wing talking point that proved to be a big fat nothing. pic.twitter.com/S5L42BJBZB
— Soros-funded Deep State operative (@ExGOPer) October 29, 2018
@nytimes Pathetic!! Waiting for the article about her emails. The timing is about right.
— martha abou el ella (@no1marty) October 29, 2018
Genuinely disappointed in your hatchet journalism. But her emails… the timing you chose to release such an inconsequential “story” makes me sick to my stomach….
— ? (@Jenn2017NY) October 29, 2018
Can you explain why the @NYT is hyping a 13yo story that includes no new info a week before election? #FascistPropagandists #VichyJournos #WeSeeYou #4thEstateFail #AccessJournalism #Shame
— Tricoteuse (@TricoteuseToo) October 29, 2018
The NYT thinks it’s 1998 and that people like Beto and Gillum aren’t running against actual Nazis
— Jake Honig (@jakehonig) October 29, 2018
Wow. Actual Nazis, huh?
Clearly @nytimes got the memo that #Beto is a threat to #TedCruz so they’re all in to stop him. Not this time we are on to you #VoteBlueToEndThisNightmare
— Maxine Baptiste (@brownsugar7878) October 29, 2018
Looks like the NY Times is now supporting Ted Cruz by printing this article the week before the election. Seriously, this is right up there with the timing of the erroneous "There's nothing to this Trump and Russia" story. It seems it may be time to cancel my subscription again.
— Carol Livingston (@clivingsbkk) October 29, 2018
Here we go. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Stop it, Dems and other logical people. Just stop it.
— Frankie ??? (@goggans_frankie) October 29, 2018
Seriously disappointed in you, your editors, your paper. We need you to be better and best. We really need you to be best.
— Kitten (@42Lives) October 29, 2018
Knock it off, that was a long time ago, so why the heck does it matter THIS WEEK???
— WMR ????? (@Jinxy_Minxy) October 29, 2018
It’s such a disgrace! Salt in wounds. I’m appalled. WTF
— Hilary R (@whoowhooH) October 29, 2018
You're not good. You hurt people, @peterbakernyt.
— EBlackwell (@lldipity) October 29, 2018
This is so pathetic
— cattywampus (@MrMittensthecat) October 29, 2018
There’s plenty more where that came from, of course.
If anyone needs us, we’ll just be over here eating our popcorn.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member