The New York Times doesn't like Sarah Palin

Big news, I know but I thought I'd point that one out for you. It seems that Sarah Palin doesn't like polar bears, that's for sure.

I thought the news paper was supposed to be unbiased and neutral ? Whatever happened to "they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true!"

Here a a few key excerpts from the NY Time article:

"Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials."

"In Wasilla, a builder said he complained to Mayor Palin when the city attorney put a stop-work order on his housing project. She responded, he said, by engineering the attorney’s firing."

"Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said."

Read the full article here: NY Times article Once Elected . . .

I'm not a big fan of Sarah Palin but I'd rather see news papers that had less opinion and more factual news.

If everything in the New York Times article is TRUE, we could be in for one hell of a rough ride as far as the "could be" VP would go.