This is an article that could apply about as well in Australia as it does in the US but it is a question on this occasion addressed to the media in the US and to The New York Times in particular. It’s not as if the last four years have been shining examples of competence for which four more years would be a natural response.

Instead, it has been four years of incredibly bad economic policy resulting in an economy that is dead in the water with an immense level of debt and a president with no idea except to raise taxes on productive business. Just click to enlarge and what possible excuses could be left?

But it is foreign policy that, incredible as it may seem, that has been worse. The US is now a trusted friend to no one and in each area it has tried its hand, the results have been terrifying. Reset with Russia; Iranian nuclear bombs; building closer relations with Britain. Where is the world a safer place or a better place after four years of Obama? But after Libya and Benghazi, who could support Obama now? To that question, here is Pat Cadell’s answer:

[I]f you look at the front page of the New York Times on Monday morning, Libya is nowhere to be found. Yet, the Benghazi attack on 9/11 that killed our ambassador and three others was the topic of every Sunday talk show this weekend.
The New York Times still thinks of itself as “the paper of record”; it’s the one paper every network newscast consults on a daily basis. So why isn’t Libya on the front page Monday morning?

Here’s why: The Times is so in the tank for the Obama administration it’s scary. I’ve never seen anything like it. They are doing everything they can to protect the Obama White House over this disaster.

When are Republicans — and all Americans — going to call on the press to look into this outrage?

The trouble is, we are used to it and everyone makes adjustment as best they can. But the NYT will pull Obama across the line if it can. These people are the lowest form of life.