the New York Times is ticked

Not only do I find this in the opinion section:

At the very best, Mr. Cheney was speaking loosely and carelessly about the area in this campaign that deserves the most careful and serious discussion. It sounds to us more likely that he stepped across a line that the Bush campaign team had flirted with throughout its convention, telling his audience that re-electing the president would be the only way to stay safe from another attack.

There is a danger that we'll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad.

but I find this in their Politics section:

. . .Mr. Cheney's latest assault on Mr. Kerry, which startled Democrats and Republicans alike, raised a central question even in this notably ferocious presidential campaign: Is it possible for a candidate to go too far, and alienate the very voters he is trying to court?

The BC04 campaign must not be doing as well as they would like, to resort to such tactics. I figured they were moving that way - I've read some liberal commentary stating the BC04 slogan is, "If you vote for Kerry, the terrorists win". I thought they were joking, but Cheney's quite serious.

Sheeshkabob.