The New York Times is clearly thrilled at the defeat of John Howard in Australia: Bush Ally Defeated in Australia. Presumably a harbinger of things to come for the Republican party.
John Howard concedes defeat
(SYDNEY, Australia, Nov. 24) – Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies in Asia, suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of the electorate on Saturday, as his Liberal Party-led coalition lost its majority in Parliament. He will be replaced by Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party leader and a former diplomat. “Today Australia looks to the future,” Mr. Rudd told a cheering crowd in his home state of Queensland. “Today the Australian people have decided that we as a nation will move forward.” Mr. Howard’s defeat, after 11 years in power, follows that of José María Aznar of Spain, who also backed the United States-led invasion of Iraq, and political setbacks for Tony Blair of Britain.
Here are just a few select comments from readers over at LGF (Little Green Football), a politically conservative blog, that speaks to the notoiously biased perspectives of the Times that just about sums it up…
#1 Defector01 11/24/07 11:03:30 am
Pathetic, but what else is new?
#2 bald headed geek 11/24/07 11:04:56
Defector1 is exactly right. If a world leader was pro-American, then the NY Times hated him/her. A defeat for America or its policies is always a good thing, in the Times’ opinion.BHG
#3 JammieWearingFool 11/24/07 11:06:56 am
ABC radio was kvelling over this and celebrating that they’re going to pull their troops and sign on to the Kyoto scam.
#4 X-ray 11/24/07 11:07:02 am
They should know all about defeat. They are rooting for it in Iraq and displaying it in ad revenue at home.
…. More at LGF
Why should anyone be surprised at the reaction over at the Times? As X-Ray indicated they know all about defeat. They relish any opportunity or any event that even remotely diminishes the global influence of the U.S. in any way regardless of its impact.
— [Hat Tip: lgf]