The ink is not dry on the nomination, not a single brief has been submitted, yet the NY Times has already decided Alito is a bad Candidate.  Why?

 this nomination is yet another occasion to bemoan lost opportunities. Mr. Bush could have signaled that he was prepared to move on to a more expansive presidency by nominating a qualified moderate who could have garnered a nearly unanimous Senate vote rather than another party-line standoff.

So in essence, what they are saying is that if Bush had betrayed the people who elected him, to cater to the people that vilify him, that would have been better?

And these people are running a major corporation?

Let me give some advice to the NY Times.  Not that they would take it as like their party symbol, they are too stubborn to listen to anyone but their own sycophantic sheeple.

When you and your ilk can start a constructive dialog with the president that does not start off with calling him a Liar and the worst thing since Hitler (or Hitler himself), and can then agree to discuss the differences instead of railing about your own impotence.  When you can be civil and civilized, then maybe - maybe - he will start listening to you.

But why should he now?  Anyone right of Ruth Buzzi is too conservative for you and he will continue to be vilified by you and your sheeple.  So why not satisfy the people who voted for him and tell him every once in a while "Good Job Mr. President".

Now Mr. NY Times, do you feel any smarter?  Doubtful.  You are not listening anyway.  Just covering your ears and yelling "lalalalalalalala...." like the petulant little children you are.