Really! The NYTimes says so. And they never lie. They only distort. Which sort of, depending on how you look at it, on a certain level, isn't lying, right...is it?

Michael Bloomberg, newly re-elected Republican mayor of New York, won the city by a 20 point margin because blacks and hispanics don't like ethnic campaigns and prefer popular appeals from Republicans. We know this because the New York Times says that it is so. The "paper of record", to its credit does mention that Bloomberg spent "more than 70 million on his campaign". The Times, however, is polite enough to not mention the amount of money the challenger, Fernando Ferrer had to challenge Bloomberg. To the critical thinker that understands the power of money in political campaigns shouldn't that bear a question?
Isn't the NYTimes curious as to how much money the failed campaign had to work with?
Could be that the NYTimes tried but couldn't find out.
Could be that Sam Roberts, the author's article, didn't find the number pertinent to the telling of this story.
Or could it be that the author doesn't want me to know of that detail when considering the emphasized point of his article, that blacks and hispanics are tired of "ethnic" Democratic politics and prefer broad Republican platforms. An argument that isn't helped by an inconvenient fact like an 8 million vs an 80 million dollar campaign war chest.

Is thinking required or even allowed? When put in the context of the money available for thorough saturation of propaganda, the election results make perfect sense without the NYTimes' purposefully disingenuous interpretation, which when translated from the King's English just means lying.

None of this is to say anything, good or bad, about either of the mayoral candidates, Bloomberg or Ferrer. This is about the no-thinking-allowed propaganda of the NYTimes article.
8 million.
80 million.

The Times or our own common sense. Who do we trust?