Archive for New York Times

Paterson v. Kennedy: The Inside Story

This article in today’s Times offers a fascinating look at the efforts made by (accidental) Governor David Paterson to “discredit” Caroline Kennedy in the days surrounding her withdrawal from consideration for the state’s vacant Senate seat.

The article reveals just how little has changed in Albany, noting that it is all reminiscent of the Spitzer administration’s efforts against political foes.

Do these guys ever learn?

Of course, Fred Dicker of the New York Post had been all over this a while ago, and called Paterson a flat-out “liar” for claiming he had no idea who was leaking anti-Kennedy information to the press. The Manhattan elite will never embrace the Post, but you will not find a better reporter on state politics than Fred Dicker.

Comments

Kristof: Obama Will Be Less Supportive of Israel

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof’s forte is foreign policy, and most would agree that he is a lot less shrill and a lot less partisan than his fellow columnist Paul Krugman. Because he has a more measured, and in my opinion a fairer, tone than Krugman, I find his column a worthwhile read.

Today he turns his attention to the Middle East, and compares President Bush’s approach to the expected approach of President Obama. First, he gives his assessment of President Bush’s view:

President Bush’s problem was that he loved Israel too much. He embraced Israeli leaders even when they responded to provocations by killing more than 1,300 people in Gaza, according to Gaza health officials — in retaliation for shelling that had killed fewer than 30 Israelis since it began in 2001.

Then by contrast, he makes the following observation about the emerging Obama policy by noting the apparent enthusiasm towards the new administration at the recent conference in Davos:

[There was] a much more positive undercurrent here — enthusiasm for more American engagement in the region, in a more evenhanded way.

So in his view, Bush loved Israel too much, and Obama is more “evenhanded.” In other words, Kristof and the leaders at Davos are all fired up because Obama won’t be backing Israel as strongly.

And what are the specific policy implications of that? Kristof spells out exactly what he hopes to see happen:

Israel must lift the siege of Gaza, completely opening the crossings. If Hamas resumes its unconscionable rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, then bomb the tunnels or strike Hamas targets in a proportional way, but don’t escalate.

This is moronic. He expects Israel to allow Hamas to totally re-arm. Just like that. And then he says Israel should respond if Hamas resumes attacks, as if there is any doubt at all that this is exactly what would happen. And then he adds that when the inevitable attacks come, Israel should only respond “in a proportional way”, notwithstanding that this would do absolultely nothing to deter further attacks.

This is foolishness and naivete, driven by idealism that has no basis in reality.

Now ordinarily, I would say “who cares” in response to a foolish and naive post from a New York Times columnist. But as is clear from the column, Kristof is under the impression that Barack Obama shares his “even-handed” vision. And he is probably right.

And you know, we’ve been down this path before. After all, Bill Clinton was fool enough to trust Yasser Arafat. How’d that work out?

Comments

Is the Times Toast?

The entire newspaper industry currently is suffering, but this article paints an incredibly bleak picture of the financial situation at the New York Times.

Here are the highlights:

Moody’s is clearly worried about the company’s liquidity, giving it a Speculative Grade Liquidity rating SGL-3. The company faces some substantial debts coming due through 2011. Moody’s believes the [Carlos] Slim Money and other sources of cash will cover the 2009 debts, and the majority of a $250 million note coming due in March, 2010. But it has a $400 million debt rollover coming due in June, 2011. To pay that note off, the company will have to scrape together whatever cash it can drag out of its operations, and add money the company hopes to generate by selling (and leasing back) its interest in its headquarters building, and selling its interest in the Boston Red Sox, the New England newspapers, and perhaps — its last salable asset — the About.com group. Plainly, the game is survival now.

How cool would it be if Rupert Murdoch swooped in and purchased the Times and then cleaned house? Okay, that will never happen. But it’s a nice thought.

Comments

Or Did She?

Amazing.

As I type this, the AP is reporting here that Caroline Kennedy has not withdrawn her name for consideration at the same time that the New York Times is reporting here that she has withdrawn. And both stories have been posted in the last hour.

Whatever the outcome, this is a total circus and a national embarassment. Blame our accidental governor.

Comments

She’s A Joke

One would expect the New York Times to be a sympathetic outlet for Caroline Kennedy’s “candidacy”. Guess again. This article paints her as utterly clueless.

But the best part by far is when she insults the reporters:

But when asked Saturday morning to describe the moment she decided to seek the Senate seat, Ms. Kennedy seemed irritated by the question and said she couldn’t recall. “Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman’s magazine or something?” she asked the reporters. “I thought you were the crack political team.”

Smart move.

Comments

No on Eric Holder

For years, the New York Times and others of its ilk have been complaining that President Bush’s Attorneys-General have been too loyal to the White House, and not sufficiently independent.

How ironic then that some of the Administration’s angriest critics are supportive of the nomination of Eric Holder, a man best known for his inexcusable acquiescence to Bill Clinton’s inexcusable granting (or should I say selling?) of a pardon to fugitive Marc Rich. Even the Times called the pardon “indefensible.”

In a letter published this week, the prosecutor who pursued Rich, former U.S. Attorney James Comey actually expressed support for Holder’s nomination. Here is how he addressed Holder’s actions in the Rich matter:

“I was stunned when President Clinton pardoned [Rich in 2001]. I have come to believe that Mr. Holder’s role…was a huge misjudgment, one for which he has, appropriately, paid dearly in reputation…Yet I hope very much he is confirmed.”

A huge misjudgment? Well, there we agree. But given that Holder has been making millions since then, and has been nominated for Attorney General, it seems to me he has not “paid dearly”, or at all.

With a “huge misjudgment” already under his belt, Mr. Holder can’t possibly be the best we can find.

Comments

Frank Rich: Blagojevich Scandal is Bush’s Fault

Seriously. Frank Rich found a way to blame the Rod Blagojevich scandal on George W. Bush.

Now I understand that it is difficult for a partisan Democrat like Frank Rich when, for an entire week, the news is dominated by a major scandal involving a fellow Democrat, and not just any Democrat, rather the governor of a large state and a one-time ally of the incoming Democratic President. And it’s quite clear Rich has a serious case of BDS.

But blaming George W. Bush for the misdeeds of Rod Blagojevich is seriously impressive. To spare you some time, I will walk you through his amazing alchemy:
1. Blagojevich was arrested and is up to his ears in corruption.
2. A couple of years ago, a member of the White House staff was convicted of a crime (a crime in no way, shape or form connected to, or resembling, the alleged crimes of Blagojevich, but that’s beside the point).
3. Events 1 and 2 took place during what Rich calls the “Bush Era.”
4. Hence, it’s all Bush’s fault.

See? All makes sense, right?

Now I was under the impression that corruption in Illinois politics dates back to 1869- at least that’s what Frank Rich’s own newspaper told me.

And while I don’t, at this juncture, blame Barack Obama for the crimes of Blagojevich, it would seem to me that since Obama endorsed and actively campaigned for Blagojevich’s election, Obama ranks higher on the culpability list than George W. Bush, n’est-ce-pas?

I leave you to ponder this: at what point does a columnist become so utterly predictable that he is just irrelevant?

Comments

From the Inbox

Several friends of StillRight have been kind enough to email on a variety of issues…

Regarding my recent missive blasting the New York Times, a friend takes me to task for being too harsh. He writes:

Of course, the odds of terrorist in Mumbai hitting the Chabbad House by accident and/or thinking that an identifiably Jewish building was an “unlikely” target displays both stupidity and naiveté. Nonetheless, I think you and Hitchens are a bit unfair here. The article you and Hitchens cite was written early in the Mumbai crisis when things were still very unclear. The Times’ subsequent coverage never denied, and in fact asserted, that the Chabbad House was a deliberate target of a vicious terrorist attack. The Times’ coverage re: the Chabbad House was extremely sympathetic. I have a LOT of problems with the Times’ coverage of Israel, the Arab world, Iran, Venezuela, and much of the rest of the world and here at home. But in this instance I think your criticism is a bit unfair. It just seems to me that fair criticism should at least place the timing of the Times’ article in context (I know you gave the date) and mention the Times’ subsequent coverage.

Another friend and regular contributor, in response to my post about my recent visit to England, asks if I noticed a more receptive environment during my visit, to wit:

You forgot to mention the reception you got in England as it relates to the recent election outcome. Were the British buying you drinks, shaking your hand, and congratulating you? Did you disappoint them by revealing that you supported the confused and cranky old rightist and his eye candy sidekick? I hope not. Here’s what Stanley Bing had to say about England and the election results after his trip to Europe:

I will report to you that I believe it is FAR more pleasant to have visited Europe after the election of Barack Obama than it is before. There are two headlines that leapt out at me from the vast newsstands covered with Obamamania of one sort or another. One was from a British paper, and simply said: “THANKS, YANKS.” The other was also in English, but looked local. It said: “Welcome back, America.” During the conference, at which there were but two other Americans among a crowd of some 1,500, a number of folks came up to me and congratulated me on our new president. The only one who expressed serious reservations, quite interestingly, I think, was a pleasant, very thin, very gray Russian fellow. Shades of the Cold War. I don’t think they like us very much. Again.

I know, you likely view European ecstasy at the casting off of one of the most unpopular regimes in the history of the United States, both here and abroad, as proof that we made the wrong choice, since in your view the rest of the world are crazy, socialist, terrorist coddling wimps. And it is indeed true that a huge outpouring of domestic and international support does not always into a successful administration. But surely you must concede that, as we move forward in this hour of desperate need for international cooperation to combat the global economic crisis and the international terrorist threat, we will be on far stronger footing when Obama asks our allies for help than were we to continue Bush and McCain’s “my way or the highway” republican strategies of the past eight years.

Another friend shares his thoughts about the recent news that President-Elect Obama plans to offer Israel a kind of “nuclear umbrella” against a nuclear Iran. He writes:

A nuclear umbrella. How wonderful Israeli’s must feel, knowing that they will all be posthumously avenged – and they don’t need to waste anything from their own nuclear arsenal because it’s on us, their good buddies in the good ‘ole US of A.

Let’s all applaud the President elect, not only for his unwavering support for Israel (well for its charred remains at least), but for the new efficiency he is bringing to Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon. With this wonderful nuclear umbrella, our diplomats and military leaders no longer need to worry about preventing Iran from finishing up their nukes. With that nagging issue off their plates, they can turn to matters more important to the Obama administration and its grateful nation.

Thanks, and keep ‘em coming.

You can share your thoughts by posting a comment or emailing me at stillrightblog@yahoo.com

Comments

The Times: Maybe It Was An Accident

How naive can people be?

As Christopher Hitchens notes, when it comes to recognizing the true nature of Islamic terrorists, naivete is boundless, at least at the New York Times. He writes about the Times coverage of the recent attacks in Mumbai:

The obvious is sometimes the most difficult thing to discern…An all-time achiever in this category is Fernanda Santos of the New York Times, who managed to write from Bombay on Nov. 27 that the Chabad Jewish center in that city was “an unlikely target of the terrorist gunmen who unleashed a series of bloody coordinated attacks at locations in and around Mumbai’s commercial center.” Continuing to keep her brow heavily furrowed with the wrinkles of doubt and uncertainty, Santos went on to say that “[i]t is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

An “accident”?? Forgive my language, but a f—ing “accident”?

Comments

On That “Godless” Ad

A reader writes in about that Elizabeth Dole “Godless” ad which you can watch here. It is without question the most controversial and discussed ad of this cycle.

First, I will share the reader’s email:

I just saw the [Dole "Godless"] spot …and I find it pretty offensive. Why should belief in god be a qualification to serve in the US Senate? Dole defends herself by saying that she’s not calling her opponent “godless” but actually critiquing her opponent for hanging out with “godless” folks. This whole idea of “since you have, at one time or another, associated with [insert controversial person or group here] you are therefore [insert whichever scary label fits]” is just stupid. But, what Dole is doing is worse. Injecting such a polarizing subject as religion and belief in God into this election is just wrong. Forget that our constitution has that whole separation of church and state thing, why the hell is someone’s belief relevant? How would that affect her votes on foreign policy, budgets, economic policy?

The reader raises several important issues, and I am happy to share my thoughts, one issue at a time.

First, it should go without saying that Dole has every right to run this ad, and the reader similarly has every right to be offended. Or to agree with it. I mean, it’s democracy, folks. What would the alternative be? Set up some commission to decide which ads are fair and which ads are unfair? Not only would that be impossible to fairly administer, it likely also would be unconstitutional.

The next issue the reader raises is whether the candidate’s faith should be an issue. Well, I myself would have no trouble supporting a Christian or Jew or Muslim or Sikh or Buddhist or Atheist provided that person shares my views on the issues which are most important to me. Again, that whole democracy thing- we each get to make up our own minds. Dole is insinuating that her opponent will line up with people who want to take “In God We Trust” off the dollar bill and “one nation under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Putting aside the question of whether Dole has any basis for that insinuation, as a general matter if those issues are important to a voter, whichever side the voter is on, he or she has a right to take that into account when voting.

As for guilt by association, well that is a game which everybody plays. And again, so be it. Barack Obama is probably going to win this election in large part due to his successful attempt to associate John McCain with George Bush. And if I were Obama, I would have done the exact same thing. Bush is incredibly unpopular, McCain has often (but not always) supported Bush, so it’s perfectly fair for Obama to do this. In 1994, Republicans won both houses of Congress by running ads all over America associating Democratic candidates with the then-unpopular Bill Clinton.

Guilt by association does not always work. But everyone tries to do it. Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for his association with (in her words) “that slumlord Rezko.” In some senate races now, Democrats are attacking Republicans for their association with the recently-convicted Ted Stevens. It cuts both ways– unless you’re a hypocrite like Frank Rich of the New York Times, who savaged Mitt Romney for his association with the Mormon Church, then sang a rather different tune when the Jeremiah Wright tapes came out.

I can remember Mario Cuomo’s unsuccessful 1994 re-election bid, when his whole campaign was based on trying to link his then-largely-unknown opponent George Pataki to the unpopular Al D’Amato. And I’m old enough to remember Walter Mondale’s vain attempt to link Ronald Reagan to Jerry Falwell. “Guilt by association” always was, and always will be. A liberal voter might reject a candidate for his association with the NRA, a conservative voter might reject a candidate for her association with the ACLU- and as Stuart Smalley would say, “that’s okay.”

The reader ends by asking how the whole religion issue would affect a candidate’s policy positions on things like the economy or foreign affairs. Well, a person’s religious views might not impact how they vote on tax cuts or free trade. But they could impact how the candidate votes on social issues like school prayer, abortion, or gay marriage, and if those issues matter to a person, that person has every right to consider where the candidates stand.

I’m not in North Carolina, and have no idea how the Dole thing will play out. To me, for what it’s worth, it looks like a desperation play that could well backfire, because the link between the candidate and the “Godless American Pac” is at best a tenuous one, and the ad makes Dole look nasty. The winning candidates know how to attack while still finding a way to seem likable.

In the end, the people get to decide. Is there any other way?

Comments

Bob Herbert: Now You’re All Smart!!

Elitism? At the New York Times? I know, it’s shocking.

Bob Herbert has decided that this year, since the voters appear to be supporting his candidate, they must be substantive and informed. Implying of course that in the past, when they have rejected his candidate, they all were stupid sheep.

In his latest loveletter to Barack Obama, Herbert opines that since polls show that Barack Obama is ahead, ipso facto, the voters all have become like totally intelligent.

You see how that works, gang? Vote for my guy, you must be smart; vote against my guy, then you’re stooooopid.

Did he really say that they are smarter? Oh yes- here is the quote:

But it was clear that the message, style and strategy of [Obama's] campaign pointed to a new direction for American politics, and that a new generation of voters — younger, smarter, more diverse, more open-minded — was anxious to follow his lead.

What exactly is his evidence that the preference for Obama is proof of deeper reflection by the voters? One quote from a random voter (who maybe actually exists, but in light of the Times’ track record here, maybe does not really exist at all):

I remember talking with a voter named Debra Gable…”I dislike politics,” she told me, “because we focus on our differences even though we have so many more commonalities. That’s what I think I’m hearing from Obama, so I want to see how he is in person.”

Based on that (alleged) quote, Herbert is amazingly able to draw the following conclusion about the electorate as a whole:

With the country facing enormous problems (even before the meltdown of the credit and financial markets in recent months), the voters wanted more substance from their candidates.

Substance? Is he kidding? Barack Obama, with his thinnest of resumes, with his minimal track record, with his ambiguous talk of “hope” and “change” is all about substance and not all about style??

I know a great many Obama supporters- many of whom are extremely smart and extremely well-informed. But when I ask them to name Senator Obama’s most significant accomplishment as a Senator, most can’t name any at all. When I ask them what specifically they like about his economic policies, most are aware only that he wants to raise taxes “on the wealthy”, but can offer little more.

Heck, even elected officials who are involved in the Obama campaign seem to have trouble naming a specific thing he has done as a Senator.

But this is how it works in Bob Herbert’s world. Agree with him, you’re smart and open-minded. Disagree, you’re ignorant and closed-minded. Ahh, the Times.

Comments

Dissent of the Day

In response to my earlier post alleging partisanship on the part of Frank Rich and the New York Times, a reader offers this response, which I post in its entirety. I am grateful for his contribution to this site, and hope he will continue to share his insight. Here it is:

Yes, there are racists and bomb-throwers on both sides of the political
spectrum, although I have little doubt that if you piled up all of the
bigoted right-wing venom floating around the internet and the airwaves
it would dwarf whatever liberal nastiness StillRight can extract from
the Daily Kos and wherever else he trolls (Michelle Malkin? The author
of “In Defense of Internment,” a book claiming Japanese citizens
voluntarily moved into the WWII internment camps? Some source!).

Anyway, StillRight argues that Liberal commentators are “partisan” and
unfair to McCain, because they use a double standard to evaluate his
righty wackos vs. the lefty wackos. StillRight complains that Frank
Rich has written a column which points “to a few nutty people who said
offensive things at McCain rallies, and (surprise!) [he] blame[s] the
McCain campaign for these nutjobs.” According to StillRight “it is
absurd to blame John McCain for the comments of some of his wacko
supporters. I think John McCain’s record speaks for itself.”

StillRight might have a point if Rich’s article actually blamed McCain
for the remarks of his supporters, but he didn’t. Here’s what Rich
really wrote:

“what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the
violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by
Palin
. Obama “launched his political career in the living room
of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note
the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs
him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s
no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical
conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete . . .

What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory
talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when
someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe
Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a
leading American politician who might be vice president of the United
States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To
stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated
himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when
introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with
tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets
second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after
ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a
Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally
while in full uniform.”

So Rich is actually complaining about what McCain and his lightweight
attack dog VP candidate Sarah Palin say, and about what they countenance
being shouted in their presence during their rallies. Yet, according to
StillRight this is “partisanship” because Rich is not also holding Obama
responsible for some internet blogger’s rants or nasty anonymous emails sent to a racist right wing fringe author. But obviously the two
situations are poles apart. Rich is not suggesting that McCain must
disavow every lunatic post on the Drudge Report or every braying right
wing radio talk show host who makes racially tinged attacks on Obama.
(Although asking McCain to disavow the statement, made in a newspaper
article written by the McCain County Chairman in Buchanan County
Virginia, that Obama’s platform includes “Mandatory Black Liberation
Theology courses taught in all churches” and sending $845 billion to
Africa “so the Obama family there can skim off enough to allow them to
free their goats,” or the statement of the Chairman of the Virginia
Republican Party that there is a connection between Bin Laden and Obama
- because “both have friends who bombed the Pentagon,” wouldn’t seem
unreasonable.)

Put simply, it is certainly true that neither the left nor the right has
a monopoly on wackos. But the right sure seems to welcome the worst of
theirs with open arms, and manages to make them feel right at home, in a
way that responsible leaders on the left simply do not. In this late
stage of the campaign, with McCain facing almost certain defeat due to
his complete inability to convince voters that he has a clue about the
economy, or that he has been anything but Bush’s lapdog for the past 8
years, it appears that whipping up the “base” with inflammatory rhetoric
and turning a blind eye when things get really ugly is part of the
strategy of desperation employed by the McCain campaign. McCain’s
record would “speak for itself” if his current behavior was consistent
with the record, but sadly it is not. It is quite disappointing to see
a once honorable man debased so completely by unabashed ambition. To
point that fact out is not partisanship, it is honesty.

Comments

Typical Partisanship at the Times

One of the true marks of a partisan is the employment of double-standards. You apply one rule to the candidate you oppose, and apply a different rule to the one you support. The Sensible Right-Winger (that’s me, folks) takes pride in the fact that he applies the same standards to all. That’s why, for example, I can admit that Sarah Palin has a very thin resume, whereas many of my friends who support Obama can’t concede the same about him. Another typical example: liberals who want to blame John McCain for his fleeting link to some crazy pastor who endorsed him, while minimizing the 20-year connection between Barack Obama and his way crazier pastor.

But today’s example of partisanship comes from (surprise!) the New York Times. Both Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have just penned columns which point to a few nutty people who said offensive things at McCain rallies, and (surprise!) they blame the McCain campaign for these nutjobs.

The partisanship is demonstrated by the failure of Rich and Dowd et al to ever denounce the crazy and vulgar rantings that are so often heard on the left. You will never ever hear Rich or Dowd denounce all the hate-filled vulgar postings at DailyKos, for example. That’s a website where Barack Obama himself has posted items; Obama also went to their annual convention. For several days in August, the featured posters at Kos were claiming that Sarah Palin was not the true mother of her newborn baby. Kos is filled with anti-semitic rantings, and the host of the site himself famously posted an item that said “Screw Them” about American contractors who were murdered by terrorists in Iraq.

Here’s a celebrity Obama supporter saying Sarah Palin will be gang-raped if she should ever visit New York. If you think these sort of comments are unusual, well I urge you to spend some time perusing the frequently anti-semitic comments on DailyKos. Or you can peruse Michelle Malkin’s book where she amasses the many racist emails she regularly receives from liberals who disagree with her.

Someone please tell me why John McCain or George Bush deserve blame for every crazy right-winger in any audience, but for some reason no liberal leader is to blame when, for example, conservative speakers get physically attacked (regularly) by liberals on college campuses.

A good friend of mine who is an ardent liberal recently emailed me and blamed President Bush for “stifling debate” in America- yet I can find no examples of liberal speakers getting shouted down or physically attacked while attempting to speak anywhere in America…. whereas above, with about five minutes of research, I found several examples of conservative speakers getting attacked in attempts by liberals to prevent them from speaking. This type of selective outrage is yet another example of partisanship.

My point is not that Barack Obama is responsible for the hate-filled comments of his supporters. If I were a partisan like Frank Rich, it would be quite easy for me to amass all the vulgar things that people on the left have said about Sarah Palin or John McCain, and then say that such comments are the fault of the Democratic Party.

But unlike the partisans at the Times, I do not blame Obama for the nutty comments of some of his nutty supporters. And for the same reason, it is absurd to blame John McCain for the comments of some of his wacko supporters. I think John McCain’s record speaks for itself.

Comments

Republican Dirty Tricks! Oh, wait….

A federal grand jury in Tennessee has indicted a man for hacking into Sarah Palin’s personal email account. He happens to be the son of a Democratic state legislator.

Can you imagine the reaction on the left if the son of a Republican lawmaker had done a similar deed? All the conspiracy whackos would be out in full swing (Rove is behind it!).

MSNBC interrupted their programming and declared it “Breaking News” back in the spring when they learned that someone had snooped into Barack Obama’s passport files, a far less invasive act. MSNBC of course was seeking to make Obama appear to be the victim of dirty tricks. It later turned out, however, that all the candidates had been similarly snooped upon, and the snooping was by some contract employees with no apparent political connections.

The New York Times ran three (!!) front page stories on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter. Let’s wait and see how much coverage is given to this criminal act against Sarah Palin.

Comments

New York Times Gettin’ Smaller

In the face of shrinking revenues, the New York Times itself will be shrinking, by combining various sections. Much as I would love to think that the Times’ is losing readers as a result of its liberal bias, the sensible side of this sensible right-winger thinks it is more likely the result of the general downturn that has hit the entire newspaper business since we all decided we would rather get our news online where it comes faster and it comes for free.

Comments