To judge from yesterday's profile, The New York Times thinks Rick Santorum is a swell guy.

Will it surprise you if I point out that the feeling isn't mutual?

Go here and watch the second clip, in which Santorum says that the Times is paving the way for history's next Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam. No lie -- that's what he says. Here's a transcript of the clip, for the bandwidth-challenged:

If you look at the other alternative to religious pluralism, and that is radical secularism, there are many in our society -- some of them happen to be at The New York Times -- who believe in that, who believe that a more peaceful -- who believe that we need to suppress religion, that religion is a harmful and divisive thing, and we need to get it out of the public square and we need to make it a very private issue. We shouldn't have any faith or any God or anything that smacks of any religion, and that we should be a secular society and that would be the best. I just want to remind people of the societies over the last couple of centuries that have been secular in nature, and see what the results of that, starting with the French Revolution, moving on to the last century, to the Fascists, and, yes, the Nazis, and then the Communists, and the Baathists. All of those purely secularist. Hated religion. Tried to crush religion. That's the kind of peaceful public square that The New York Times would advocate for.

You can also watch the full speech here.

Well, that's the Times, isn't it? If you accuse it of embodying a degree of evil that warrants death, it'll punish you ... by running a softball profile that presents you just about exactly the way you want to be seen. After all, didn't Ann Coulter get just such a profile (yes, with a soupcon of snark, but the kind of snark that burnishes her carefully cultivated image as the toughest, hottest chick on the right) mere months after she told The New York Observer that Tim McVeigh should have killed everyone in a blast zone around the Times building?