Rosenthal must be the last person in the USA not to know Maureen's politics, if he really believes what he's saying. Clearly, a number of us would welcome his defiance regarding Ms. Dowd with gales of laughter...

As for his "authoritiarian behavior by the Federal government" comment, I'm going to try to give him the benefit of the doubt... Maybe he believes that they only support authoritarian measures by the NY state government? Because it's beyond-obvious to any casual observer that the Times editorial board supports a wide variety of authoritarian rules/regulations/laws -- and with a passion! 
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

...to put down the crack pipe and back away from the computer.

"I would defy anyone to label Maureen Dowd by party affiliation or
ideology. I've known her and worked closely with her for 20 years and I
can't tell you the answer to either one"

Wow. I know the powers of self-delusion in those on the Left is legendary, but this sets the bar at a new high! For him to think that he can just say that and we'll accept it as truth is a perfect example of their arrogance and disdain for the general public.

He can't laber her party affiliation or ideology after 20 years? Let's see...we've had a good cross-section of political ideologies in the office of President of the United States over 20 years: George W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and I'm sure she has shared her opinions of Ronald W. Reagan a time or two. He can't figure out from what she's said where her political attitudes lie?

Is THIS the man that the shareholders of Time, Inc. want heading the editorial staff of their editorial page? Someone this clueless?

Were I a major shareholder, I'd be more mad than ever!

There are persons...who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy...will be merciful.

Thomas Paine, Dec. 23, 1776

We're against "authoritarian behavior by the Federal government".

Hmm...

Like, for example: Confiscatory and punitive tax rates? Punishing people for "thought" crimes? Requiring businesses to have "diverse" workforces? Taking property without fair compensation?

And on and on and on....

I guess that's "good" authoritarianism, one done in the name of "progressive" values or policies. The other kind is "bad" authoritarianism.

Frankly, I'm not sure I want someone who doesn't know the political leanings of Maureen Dowd telling me about the proper role of government.

Well, forget the "I'm not sure". I'm sure.

SMG 

You simply cannot reason with the self-deluded.

"That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!"

I think maybe he's inhaled a few too many fumes from whatever glue he's using to hold his hairpiece in place.  Please don't tell me he really thinks that thing looks real.

when Times editorial page editor Rosenthal claims not to know Maureen Dowd's politics he's not being honest -- or that he is?

-Dumber than a bucket of rocks?

LOL-C'mon, nobody is that stupid, now are they? If he really believes that, then perhaps he should get out more.

A lot more.

When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

After reading only Rosenthal's quote in the first paragraph, and before reading any of the posts, allow me to try to do what Rosenthal "defies" anyone to do: Maureen Dowd's political affiliation is Democrat, and her politics are far left.

Hey, Rosie, do I get a kewpie doll for doing what you thought can't be done? 

Now I'll read the rest of the article and the comments. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

On Friday NYT's stock closed under $20.

That is almost an eleven year low.

The SP-500 rose 150% during the same period.

Gosh, everyone knows Dowd's political affiliation is "Bitchocrat".

Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!

You would think that after getting caught with its pants down with Move-On.Org that the New York Times would finally undergo internal house cleaning. But no, we trot out Andrew Rosenthal to pompously proclaim that the paper is still the paragon of unbaised journalistic integrity (just like in his daddy's days). Kind of makes me remember the laughable "Bagdad Bob." You know, the infamous Iraq spokesman who laughably proclaimed the Sadam regime was winning the war as U.S. troops marched past him.

In the Times case, it's not troops marching past, but its own plunging stock.