The New Yorker cover is hilarious, but apparently it strikes too close to home - hence the uproar on the left.
This was predictable.
Very much so.
And the uproar has distracted the MSM and the public - "sucked the air out of the room...": NO ONE IS PAYING MUCH ATTENTION TO THE 15,000 WORD ARTICLE.
So I wonder: did they choose this cover deliberately in order to distract from the article which contains EXPLOSIVE evidence of... Obama's ties to Chicago corruption... and his huge personal ambition... and great facility for tossing people under the bus?
YES.
Why am I so sure!?
Because Remnick is no dummie.
2 comments:
I think the New Yorker should apologize for its cover. As a prominent publication, the New Yorker
has a greater responsibility to the consequences of its art than to
the art itself.
There's a campaign to get the New Yorker to apologize:
www.thepoint.com/campaigns/the-new-yorker-should-apologize-for-the-obama-terrorist-cover
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
HEY STEPH: U R ADMITTING THAT THE ATTACK ON CONSERVATIVES (WHICH THE COVER ATTEMPTED)
HIT TOO CLOSE TO HOME.
BWAHAHAHA!
Post a Comment