While celebrities and politicians from all ends of the political spectrum pay tribute to the late, great Nancy Reagan the New York Times decided instead to include a mini hit piece on her husband with its coverage.
For three paragraphs the Times decided it was appropriate, on the day Mrs. Reagan passed, to take shots at the beloved conservative icon former President Ronald Reagan and the Iran Contra affair.
Mrs. Reagan helped hire and fire the political consultants who ran her husband’s near-miss campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976 and his successful campaign for the presidency in 1980. She played a seminal role in the 1987 ouster of the White House chief of staff, Donald T. Regan, whom Mrs. Reagan blamed for ineptness after it was disclosed that Mr. Reagan had secretly approved arms sales to Iran.
Behind the scenes, Mrs. Reagan was the prime mover in Mr. Reagan’s efforts to recover from the scandal, which was known as Iran-contra because some of the proceeds from the sale had been diverted to the contras opposing the leftist government of Nicaragua. While trying to persuade her stubborn husband to apologize for the arms deal, Mrs. Reagan brought political figures into the White House, among them the Democratic power broker Robert S. Strauss, to argue her case to the president.
Mr. Reagan eventually conceded that she was right. On March 4, 1987, the president made a distanced apology for the arms sale in a nationally televised address that dramatically improved his slumping public approval ratings.
It’s been a rough week for the Times, with criticism hitting it for its refusal to investigate how an off the record conversation with Donald Trump on illegal immigration was leaked.
Social media excoriated the left-wing beacon on Sunday for its skewed coverage of the former first lady’s passing.
Would not have guessed that 3 of first 7 paragraphs of NYT Nancy Reagan obit would be about Iran-contra. https://t.co/WBolghp3gY
— Byron York (@ByronYork) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork Of course~expected. THE @nytimes has only ONE use for women & that is to drag our wombs through mud every election season!
— T Fergie (@FergOSU) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork @TheVoiceOfPaulR my dog finds the NY Times very absorbing. Biased rag struggling to survive.
— Roger Herman (@RogerLHerman) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork I would have been surprised if it was anything else. They’re predictable. Not accurate, but predictable.
— Stephen Cook (@cookphotoworks) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork @TheMadHessian .typical NYT. They just can’t help showing their colors.
— suzanne54 (@suzanne54) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork They just cannot give up the hatred of the Reagans. It is absolutely pathetic. Growing up is hard.
— Rob Roskowiak (@nILFeed) March 6, 2016
@ByronYork They have no class
— Steve B (@SteveBellow) March 6, 2016
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Britney Spears shows off her rockin’ new bod, but had to spoil it with a liberal message about ‘Dreamers’ - December 24, 2017
- Border patrol forget they’re supposed to be heartless, deliver beautiful baby at the border - December 24, 2017
- After scoring tax cut victory, Trump sees ‘tremendous Democrat support’ for his next big initiative - December 24, 2017
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
