'But that's different'! No, NYT, you don't get to call out Trump's Putin praise after THIS

.@alexburnsNYT @jmartNYT @amychozick I will transmit this information to Vladimir

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) September 9, 2016

The New York Times is absolutely shocked and horrified at Donald Trump’s praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin. And why shouldn’t they be? After all, Putin is a vicious, psychopathic little dictator with blood on his hands.

Read @jmartNYT & @amychozick on Trump's pro-Russia advocacy: Most Kremlin-admiring candidate since Henry Wallace! https://t.co/NNgkwwOjOo

— Alex Burns (@alexburnsNYT) September 9, 2016

Jonathan Martin and Amy Chozick write:

WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s campaign on Thursday reaffirmed its extraordinary embrace of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, signaling a preference for the leadership of an authoritarian adversary over that of America’s own president, despite a cascade of criticism from Democrats and expressions of discomfort among Republicans.

…

Such talk is a remarkable break from the traditional boundaries of American political speech. And, as with his past provocations, Mr. Trump once again left his fellow Republicans scrambling to defend what many effectively conceded was indefensible.

…

In a fashion that would have been unheard-of for a Republican during or immediately after the Cold War, Mr. Trump has made improved relations with the Kremlin a centerpiece of his candidacy. And Russia has been a subplot of the campaign that Tom Clancy and John le Carre together may have been unable to conjure, complete with the apparent Russian hack of one of America’s political parties, a threat that Russian hackers may try to tamper with electronic voting machines, and Mr. Putin’s unsubtle preference for Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.

Recommended

Gavin Newsom, Abdul El-Sayed, Adam Schiff Scold DHS for Racist Post Featuring ‘Mr. Singh’

Brett T.

Advertisement

But we have to wonder: Where was The Times before now? Were they calling out Putin’s shameless defenders and apologists?

Not quite:

https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/774287539008045056

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/774274833098088452

https://twitter.com/RobProvince/status/774308456417398785

Oh my. Could it be that the Gray Lady’s suffering from amnesia?

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/774310148760281088

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/774311011503448064

Literally:

But Trump’s praise for Putin is a bridge too far?

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/774309660178391040

Sorry, NYT, but that’s not how this works.

Remember, the New York Times wouldn't print John McCain in 2008, but Putin in 2013 was fine. https://t.co/7UV3UB7pA7

— David Rutz (@DavidRutz) September 9, 2016

NYT has got a good record of 50 years of "Kremlin-admiring" too. https://t.co/NtGpOt2VWJ

— David Reaboi (@davereaboi) September 9, 2016

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/774312042551541760

More food for thought for The New York Times:

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/774307219726794752

Hillary Clinton’s State Department signed off on that one. Oddly enough, Martin and Chozick give dedicate plenty of space to Hillary’s criticism of Trump’s Putin remarks, but they failed to mention Hillary’s own cozy relationship with the Russians.

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/774307765560942592

Gosh. It’s almost as if there’s a double standard at play or something!

.@seanmdav @RobProvince The New York Times has achieved almost the platonic ideal of Orwell's Doublethink.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) September 9, 2016