Sensitive Times? Reporter Katharine Seelye live-blogged the Republican presidential [1] debate Sunday morning [1]for the Times political blog "The Caucus" and got a bit huffy when Rudy Giuliani tweaked her paper.
Giuliani: "The reality is that you do not achieve peace through weakness and appeasement. Weakness and appeasement should not be a policy of the American government. We should seek a victory in Iraq and in Baghdad, and we should define the victory.
"And I thought the piece by O'Hanlon [2]and Pollack [2]last week in the New York Times, which, I have to frankly tell you, when I read it in the morning, I read it twice, and I checked - New York Times? But it was the New York Times. It was."
(Laughter)
"And it said, 'We just might win in Iraq.'
Seelye didn't seem to appreciate that crack, although she didn't mention it directly in her live-blog, summarizing: "Hmm, in just half an hour, Mr. Giuliani has hit two of the G.O.P.'s favorite targets - The New York Times and Michael Moore. Anyone out there want to guess who will be next?"
Campaign reporter Adam Nagourney [3] also poor-mouthed the Times as a "favorite conservative target."
"If Mr. Giuliani had a leitmotif during this debate, it was appealing to his conservative audience by slapping some favorite conservative targets, including The New York Times and Michael Moore."