Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments United States: Presidents Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

But what does it mean? —RadRafe 13:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume when sorting through a pile of editorials, the newspaper editors were using shorthand nicknames for each letter when deciding which ones to include. This one was referred to as "Mush from the wimp" because, well, they thought the opinions were wimpy, mushy, lacking in passion, what-have-you '''atomicRED''' (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6D8153DF93AA15752C1A961948260
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0D61139F935A3575AC0A966958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FH%2FHussein%2C%20Saddam
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E7DC143FF932A25755C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4D61F3BF937A25756C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06EFDA1E3FF937A25756C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D81E39F935A15750C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD173DF93AA15754C0A964958260

The phrase "wimp" is unamiguous in this case, but the phrase "mush" might mean a few things. They might've been comparing the statement to a shapeless, tasteless gruel; or they might have been referring to driving a team of dogs across the ice, yelling "Mush! Mush!". Most likely it's the first, but it would be nice to hear some further explication about the kind of in-joke it was intended to be. -- Doom (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as a native speaker, i'd say there's NO QUESTION it's the former. not necessarily a comment on Carter's specific speech the night before but, but rather meaning "more babble" or "more useless drivel" as a general commentary. 66.105.218.1 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is some qualifier missing in that lippman quote? surely NONE of these headlines even comes close to the "Dewey Defeats Truman" one! 66.105.218.1 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]