Tag Archives: new-york-times

Who Can Ignore and Downplay Democrat’s Racist Statement? The Establishment Media Can

To refresh, as posted at NewsBusters and Eyeblast.tv , Pennsylvania Congressman Paul Kanjorski said the following on Wednesday while he was defending what Investors Business Daily has called “Financial Deform” : We’re giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people — and they’re not minorities and they’re not defective and they’re not all the things you’d like to insinuate that these programs are about — these are average, good American people. This isn’t too tough to decipher, no matter how many House Democrats try to give him defensive cover — If the people Kanjorski “deal(s) with in my office everyday” are “average, good American people” because “they’re not minorities and they’re not defective,” then those who are minorities and “defective” in some way are not “average, good American people.” Kanjorski uttered an objectively racist (embodying “the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others”) statement. According to this report , Kanjorski is not apologizing. Therefore, one must conclude that the congressman is comfortable with his objectively racist statement. So how is the press handling this? The mostly Democrat-defending establishment press that generally sets the narrative for radio and TV news mostly understands the aforementioned elementary exercise in logic. This explains why Kanjorski’s statement, while occasionally being framed with the usual “Republicans attack poor misunderstood Democrat” approach, is mostly getting ignored. A search at the Associated Press’s main web site on the Congressman’s last name comes up with one seemingly relevant item , an article headlined “McMahon: Wrestling was soap opera.” Yeah, you read that right. But the article is really a collection of four short items and two “Quick Hits.” AP writer Philip Elliott (or perhaps his editors) thought that Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon’s description of her Word Wrestling Entertainment enterprise was more important than Kanjorski’s racist remark, the coverage of which came second. Naturally, Elliott’s item used the “Republicans attack” technique: Republicans criticized Rep. Paul Kanjorski for what they said were remarks suggesting minorities are not “average, good American people.” The 13-term Pennsylvania Democrat vigorously denied the charge, saying Republicans were taking his words out of context to score political points. … A Kanjorski spokeswoman said the congressman was defending people who get government help from those who unfairly criticize them. Sure he was. But in the process, he uttered an objectively racist remark. Alleged “context” is irrelevant. Well, at least the AP has covered it in its own quirky way. The New York Times hasn’t . The Washington Post restricted coverage of Kanjorski’s statement to its “44” blog , and has apparently kept the matter out of its print edition. Matt DeLong’s post is funny, in a reality-denying, sickening sort of way (bolds are mine): A Democratic congressman has found himself the target of conservative criticism after an inartful description of who will be helped by the financial reform bill currently working its way through Congress. The conservative website Human Events reported that Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-Pa.) appeared to say during Wednesday’s financial reform conference committee meeting that the financial overhaul will help “average, good American people” — but not minorities or “the defective.” It’s amazing how often the word “inartful” — which isn’t even a recognized word in the dictionary ( here or here ) — has appeared since candidate Barack Obama and others frequently employed it in 2008 to defend him and others after verbal gaffes and worse utterances. As to DeLong’s use of “appeared” — Matt, stop insulting our intelligence. Finally, it’s also quite predictable to see DeLong tag Human Events (accurately) as “conservative,” while, as Tim Graham at NewsBusters noted earlier this week , magazines like Rolling Stone almost never get the “liberal” or “radical left” tag from the establishment press. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View original post here:
Who Can Ignore and Downplay Democrat’s Racist Statement? The Establishment Media Can

NYT Reporter Desperately Searches for Signs of Economic Progress to Prevent Republican Victories

Please don’t let it be Big Bob! Please don’t let it be Big Bob! That fervent prayer by Harold of “Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” as he desperately hopes that sound of the approaching footsteps don’t belong to a sadistic guard named Big Bob comes to mind when reading a New York Times article by Michael Luo . In Luo’s case he is hoping that the Republicans won’t gain significant victories in this November’s elections. He bases his glimmers of hope on what he perceives to be signs of economic progress. It isn’t a very strong peg upon which he hangs these hopes but it is pretty much all he has: The economy is slowly recovering but remains on its sickbed, and most signs still point to a rough cycle for the party. Political analysts expect Republicans to make gains — possibly significant ones — in Congress in November, threatening to retake the House and maybe even the Senate. But digging deeper, beyond the national numbers, reveals at least a few glimmers of hope for Democrats — still fairly distant and faint, but bright enough to get campaign strategists scanning the horizon and weighing the odds. Please don’t let it be Big Bob! Please don’t let it be Big Bob! That is because different parts of the country are recovering at different rates — and, in a bit of electoral good luck for the Democrats, some of the areas that are beginning to edge upward more quickly, like parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, happen to be in important battlegrounds for the House and the Senate.  Whew! So that means that Big Bob, uh, I mean electoral disaster won’t be arriving in November?  And here Luo sounds a bit too anxious in his ardent desire to find economic upticks to counter the big bad Republicans: A detailed examination of House and Senate seats in play, alongside state and local economic data compiled by Moody’s Analytics for The New York Times, yields some surprising bits of encouragement for Democrats but also adds color to the overall daunting picture confronting the party. At the very least, any such signs of hope are certain to affect the strategies being worked out now in campaigns.  As for the unemployment rate, eh, it should have no effect on the election results. Or so Luo hopes so don’t mention the year 1930 midterm elections results to him: While much attention has been paid to the nation’s stubbornly high unemployment rate, political scientists have found little correlation between that measure and midterm elections results. Instead, they have found more broad-based indicators, particularly real personal disposable per capita income, which measures the amount of money a household has after taxes and inflation, to be better gauges.  Another hope is that voters have short memories: Historically, political scientists have found that voters’ memories tend to be short. Larry M. Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton, has studied the impact of economic conditions on presidential elections and found that it is the second and third quarters of the election year that matter most.  And if the economy is still in the tank come November? Not to worry. Reality doesn’t really count. Only imaginary perceptions: In the end, however, the ultimate deciding factor will be voters’ perceptions — not how well the economy is actually doing, but how well voters believe it is doing.  In the end, Michael Luo still doesn’t sound all that confident about keeping the Republicans from big gains in November. Despite his brave front, one can still picture him with eyes squeezed shut as he hears the ominous economic reports approaching and fervently reciting the political equivalent of: Please don’t let it be Big Bob! Please don’t let it be Big Bob!

Go here to read the rest:
NYT Reporter Desperately Searches for Signs of Economic Progress to Prevent Republican Victories

MoveOn.org Removes ‘General Betray Us’ Ad From Website

In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial “General Betray Us” ad from its website. For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March’s troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn. Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune. With that in mind, the ad , which has been at MoveOn’s website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday as reported by our friends at Weasel Zippers: It was there the last time Google cache took a screen shot of it (June 18th), so it was scrubbed sometime between then and today. If you try the link now (http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.htm) it goes to MoveOn’s default page.  I guess MoveOn couldn’t possibly bash this General now that he’s working for Obama. To give readers an idea of the firestorm this created at the time, here are some NewsBusters articles published after this ad hit: CBS and NBC Morning Shows Ignore Dem Embarrassment Over MoveOn Ad Parroting MoveOn, Matthews Accuses Bush of ‘Betrayal’   Keith Olbermann Coined General ‘Betray Us’ Not MoveOn Senator Hatch Lashes Out at MoveOn and ‘Nutroots’ MRC’s Bozell Slams NYT’s MoveOn.org ‘Betray Us’ Ad Discount NYT Shares Plunge While It Deeply Discounts MoveOn’s Ad Space NYT-MoveOn.org’s ‘Petraeus — Betray Us’ Ad Cited NYT’s Own Reporting Wrongly NYT Rejected Advocacy Ads Like MoveOn’s From Conservative Groups How Will Media Report Senate Vote Condemning MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad? Michael Kinsley Defends MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad Senate Condemnation of MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad Receives Mixed Coverage NYT’s Public Editor Says Paper Made Mistake Running MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad Russert Lets Hillary Off Hook Concerning MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad New York Times Admits Discount Rate for Moveon.Org (Blogosphere Roundup) NYT Confesses: Mistake to Grant MoveOn.org Deep Discount With Petraeus now part of the Obama administration, it’s going to be fascinating watching all of the media members and outlets that supported MoveOn’s ad now backtrack and gush over the General they once despised.   Stay tuned. 

Read the original post:
MoveOn.org Removes ‘General Betray Us’ Ad From Website

Meet the Conservative Intellectual Elite: Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Hitchens?

There’s one big problem with the presentation of “ The Party, In Exile ,” Pamela Paul’s snobby but interesting front-page Sunday Styles section piece on so-called conservatism in exile. As Karol Sheinin noted on her Twitter feed  — it doesn’t feature many actual conservatives. The caption under John Cuneo’s illustration made the disparity clear: “Insiders On The Outside: Members of the conservative intellectual elite at a party include, clockwise from left, David Frum, Michael Oren, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens, Laura Ingraham and Kathleen Parker.” Of those six names, only one (Laura Ingraham) would be unanimously waved in to a garden party strictly for “conservatives.” The prolific, peripatetic, atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, is a long-time socialist who allied with conservatives on the Iraq War and some other issues (Paul noted he is a member “of the disenchanted left”). Former Bush speechwriter David Frum’s main interest of late is lamenting the popularity of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker is an inconsistent conservative ally at best. Ayaan Hirsi Ali — in whose name the party was held — may qualify as conservative in some respects. Yet the brave feminist apostate from Islam, who currently works with the American Enterprise Institute, has only been in America for four years after being forced to flee Holland. Michael Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Otherwise, the ambience at this intimate cocktail and buffet in honor of the Somalian-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a woman who faced death threats even before she wrote a film that led to the murder of its director, Theo van Gogh — was one of ease. Wearing a Michelle Obama-esque sleeveless emerald dress and sipping wine, Ms. Hirsi Ali, who has spent recent weeks traveling to Britain, Denmark and her former country of refuge, the Netherlands, while on tour for her new book “Nomad,” warmly met guests as they circled in admiration. “Nice to see you,” total strangers said upon introduction, as if fearing the failure to recognize someone possibly met on a previous occasion. Or perhaps in certain Washington circles people assume they already know everyone else. Either way, here at the stately Wesley Heights home of the former Bush speechwriter, David (“axis of evil”) Frum, and his wife, the writer Ms. Frum, nearly everyone did. Far from the typical New York book party, this was more a bunkering of the conservative intellectual elite, a group that domineered its way through the Bush years but is now sidelined, a somewhat baffled shadow of its former blustery self. Whither the conservative establishment in today’s bilious political landscape? Certainly the typical Tea Party denizen, with his “I Wanna Party Like It’s 1773” T-shirt and “You Lie!” trucker hat, would seem out of place on the Frums’ well-tended grounds, nibbling chicken skewers and mini-B.L.T.’s. In the presence of Ms. Hirsi Ali, at least, there was a sense of shared purpose. Paul addressed the controversies surrounding Frum, who “lost his salaried post at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, in March, after calling the passage of health care legislation the Republican party’s ‘Waterloo.'” Also present was The Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, prom-girl pretty and winner of a Pulitzer this spring for “gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead her to unpredictable conclusions,” including a rebuke of Sarah Palin. “Like all the best conservatives, I started off as a liberal,” she trilled. In a similar display of the intellectual right’s discomfort with Wasilla-brand populism, Ms. Frum mocked a speech by Ms. Palin in April on The Huffington Post. (“There was not a single memorable line, not a single new political idea, not a single proffered solution beyond the cliché.”) And lending a poignant immediacy to the rejiggered state of affairs was the Republican Senator Robert Bennett, ousted last month in the Utah primary for his votes on health care and Wall Street reform. A certain kind of nomad, all. If you can get past the knee-jerk “ick, Palin!” snobbery and mockery of the Tea Party movement, the latter half of Paul’s party piece contained some interesting anecdotes about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Islamist turned crusader for women and her shunning by her supposed liberal allies. Paul, to her credit, illuminated an issue Times Watch has discussed — the prickly response from the liberal media to Hirsi Ali’s crusade for women’s rights and against Islam: Not surprisingly, though she favors both gay and abortion rights, Ms. Hirsi Ali has alienated what might otherwise be fellow liberal travelers in her crusade against religious oppression. In The New Yorker, Pankaj Mishra dismissed Ms. Hirsi Ali’s “simple oppositions” and “growing familiarity with right-wing touchstones.” The Los Angeles Times called “Nomad,” which is dedicated to the former president of A.E.I., an “anti-Islamic screed” and “a tough jeremiad to read.” The historian Timothy Garton Ash and the Dutch-born academic Ian Buruma have both written dismissively of Ms. Hirsi Ali to the point that the N.Y.U. professor Paul Berman devoted much of his new book, “The Flight of the Intellectuals,” to mounting a defense. The Times review of Berman’s tome is here.

Original post:
Meet the Conservative Intellectual Elite: Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Hitchens?

NYT Reports Whitman’s 2007 ‘Shove’, Ignores Brown Calling Her Nazi Last Week

Americans learned something interesting about the priorities of the New York Times Tuesday: its editors believe a political candidate pushing an employee three years ago is more important than a candidate calling his campaign rival a Nazi last week. Such seems apparent from the Times’ choice to report  California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s alleged employee shoving incident in 2007. By contrast, the Gray Lady has still not informed readers that Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown last Tuesday likened Whitman to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. As NewsBusters reported Saturday, Brown said the following to KCBS radio’s Doug Sovern: Brown boasted about his legendary frugality. “I’ve only spent $200,000 so far. I have 20 million in the bank. I’m saving up for her.” It’s true – his stay-on-the-sidelines, bare-bones primary run cost him almost nothing, at least in California political terms. But he also fretted about the impact of all those eBay dollars in Whitman’s very deep pockets. “You know, by the time she’s done with me, two months from now, I’ll be a child-molesting…” He let the line trail off. “She’ll have people believing whatever she wants about me.” Then he went off on a riff I didn’t expect. “It’s like Goebbels,” referring to Hitler’s notorious Minister of Propaganda. “Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That’s her ambition, the first woman president. That’s what this is all about.”  Although a week has passed since this incident, and Brown has admitted having the conversation with Sovern, the Times has STILL not reported his remarks. Yet, as NewsBusters reported Tuesday, Whitman allegedly pushing an eBay employee THREE YEARS AGO — an incident that “no one else appears to have witnessed” — was something the Times devoted almost 1,000 words to citing exclusively unnamed sources:  In addition to noting that the incident involved has no identified witnesses, The Times report specifically tells us that the matter was settled through mediation, and that “the authorities were not involved.” Former eBay CEO Whitman has no criminal exposure. The report is a gratuitous, politically-motivated dredge-up of a long-forgotten matter. The Times’s Brad Stone and likely other reporters clearly put many hours of work into the Whitman report. In the process, he or they encouraged and ultimately convinced eBay employees to breach ethics and to violate confidentiality agreements. The incident’s alleged victim still works at eBay and has clearly moved on. Yes, everyone involved has likely moved on EXCEPT the Times which felt this three-year-old issue was important to share with its readers. Yet something that just happened last week involving Whitman — her being compared to a Nazi by Brown — is STILL not something Times editors feel readers should be aware of. On a related note, the Times also found Republican Senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina’s comments about Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) hair quite newsworthy filing reports on the open mike quip Friday and Sunday. As such, a Republican allegedly pushing an employee three years ago or commenting about a campaign rival’s hair is more important to the Times than a Democrat calling his political foe a Nazi. Honestly, this is the kind of media bias one would expect in Cuba and Venezuela – NOT America. 

Go here to see the original:
NYT Reports Whitman’s 2007 ‘Shove’, Ignores Brown Calling Her Nazi Last Week

NY Times Leaves Mao’s Atrocities Out of Obituary for Physicist Turned Maoist Joan Hinton

The New York Times’s obituary Saturday for Manhattan Project physicist turned Maoist Joan Hinton by William Grimes left out her Maoist beliefs in both the headline — ” Joan Hinton, 88, Physicist Who Chose China Over Bomb ” — and a text box: “A Manhattan Project member whose desire for peace led her to a Chinese farm.” And the obituary itself completely omitted the deadly nature of Mao Zedong’s totalitarian regime: Joan Hinton, a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, which developed the atom bomb, but spent most of her life as a committed Maoist working on dairy farms in China, died on Tuesday in Beijing. She was 88. …. In 1948, alarmed at the emerging cold war, she gave up physics and left the United States for China, then in the throes of a Communist revolution she wholeheartedly admired. “I did not want to spend my life figuring out how to kill people,” she told National Public Radio in 2002. “I wanted to figure out how to let people have a better life, not a worse life.” Grimes concluded without any reference to Mao’s atrocities during the Cultural Revolution: She and her husband remained true believers in the Maoist cause. “It would have been terrific if Mao had lived,” Ms. Hinton told The Weekend Australian in 2008 during a trip to Japan. “Of course I was 100 percent behind everything that happened in the Cultural Revolution — it was a terrific experience.” By contrast, the Washington Post’s obituary Friday from Matt Schudel mentioned Hinton’s Maoism in the online headline: “Joan Hinton, worked on Manhattan Project and became devoted Mao follower, dies at 88.” A middle paragraph also made clear the murderous nature of the regime: “Nonetheless, Ms. Hinton remained an ardent supporter of Mao, the Chinese Communist leader who controlled the country from 1949 until he died in 1976. Even after Mao’s Cultural Revolution reshaped Chinese society by force, leaving tens of millions of people dead in ideological purges, Ms. Hinton’s loyalty was undiminished .”

Continue reading here:
NY Times Leaves Mao’s Atrocities Out of Obituary for Physicist Turned Maoist Joan Hinton

NYT Rips Obama: It Shouldn’t Have Taken So Long To Get Involved In Oil Spill

The New York Times editorial board on Sunday absolutely tore Barack Obama apart for his handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  “The president cannot plug the leak or magically clean up the fouled Gulf of Mexico. But he and his administration need to do a lot more to show they are on top of this mess, and not perpetually behind the curve,” wrote the Times.  “It certainly should not have taken days for Mr. Obama to get publicly involved in the oil spill, or even longer for his administration to start putting the heat on BP for its inadequate response and failure to inform the public about the size of the spill.”  Quite surprisingly, the Times was just getting warmed up:  If ever there was a test of President Obama’s vision of government – one that cannot solve all problems, but does what people cannot do for themselves – it is this nerve-racking early summer of 2010, with oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and far too many Americans out of work for far too long. The country is frustrated and apprehensive and still waiting for Mr. Obama to put his vision into action. Americans need to know that Mr. Obama, whose coolness can seem like detachment, is engaged. This is not a mere question of presentation or stagecraft, although the White House could do better at both. (We cringed when he told the “Today” show that he had spent important time figuring out “whose ass to kick” about the spill. Everyone knew that answer on Day 2.) But a year and a half into this presidency, the contemplative nature that was so appealing in a candidate can seem indecisive in a president. His promise of bipartisanship seems naïve. His inclination to hold back, then ride to the rescue, has sometimes made problems worse. It took too long for Mr. Obama to say that the Coast Guard and not BP was in charge of operations in the gulf and it’s still not clear that is true. Readers should keep in mind this editorial was likely being produced at around the same time the paper’s Washington correspondent Helene Cooper was telling Chris Matthews Obama’s presidency “will go the way of Jimmy Carter’s” if he doesn’t get control of this spill. Adding insult to injury, Times columnist Maureen Dowd also went after Obama in her piece  published Sunday: The press traveling with Obama on the campaign never had a lovey-dovey relationship with him. He treated us with aloof correctness, and occasional spurts of irritation. Like many Democrats, he thinks the press is supposed to be on his side. The former constitutional lawyer now in the White House understands that the press has a role in the democracy. But he is an elitist, too, as well as thin-skinned and controlling. So he ends up regarding scribes as intrusive, conveying a distaste for what he sees as the fundamental unseriousness of a press driven by blog-around-the-clock deadlines. Sometimes on the campaign plane, I would watch Obama venture back to make small talk with the press, discussing food at an event or something light. Then I would see him literally back away a few moments later as a blast of questions and flipcams hit him. But that’s the world we live in. It hurts Obama to be a crybaby about it, and to blame the press and the “old Washington game” for his own communication failures. Now that Obama has been hit with negative press, he’s even more contemptuous. “He’s never needed to woo the press,” says the NBC White House reporter Chuck Todd. “He’s never really needed us.” So, as The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz writes, the more press-friendly, emotionally accessible, if gaffe-prone Biden has become “the administration’s top on-air spokesman.” How ironic. Instead of The One, they’re sending out The Two. This means that in one weekend, the Times editorial board, its White House correspondent, and one of its top liberal columnists made harshly negative comments about the president they all helped get elected. This led Commentary magazine’s Jennifer Rubin to write Sunday: It’s one more sign that the bottom is dropping out on Obama’s support, and the unraveling of his presidency is picking up steam. Unless he gets a grip and finds some grown-ups from whom he is willing to take advice, this is not going to improve.  Indeed. 

Original post:
NYT Rips Obama: It Shouldn’t Have Taken So Long To Get Involved In Oil Spill

Two NYT Reporters Tar Nevada GOP Candidate Sharron Angle: "Far-Right," "Extreme"

Meet the “so extreme,” “far-right conservative” Sharron Angle, who won the Nevada Senate primary on Tuesday and will face Democrat Harry Reid in the fall. Those quotes aren’t from Daily Kos or even a New York Times columnist, but from two of the Times’s political reporters, Jennifer Steinhauer and Jackie Calmes. (This post is based on two items previously posted on Times Watch .) Reporter Jennifer Steinhauer first took aim at Sharron Angle in Thursday’s ” Results of Nevada Primary Set Up Senate Race of Sharp Contrasts .” Notice a pattern in Steinhauer’s labeling? Further, Ms. Angle — the Tea Party-blessed candidate who bested her two better-financed competitors in Tuesday’s primary — is an untested statewide candidate whose positions as a lawmaker put her firmly to the right of most mainstream Nevada voters . The hot lights of national exposure can be a liability for new — and overly loquacious — candidates, as Rand Paul, the Republican Senate nominee from Kentucky, quickly found. …. Among her detractors and her supporters she is known as a far-right conservative and a thorn in the side of both parties, routinely voting no on almost everything that came before the Legislature. She is also a tireless campaigner. When a 2002 redistricting forced her to face off with a wildly popular Republican incumbent, Greg Brower, she went door to door nightly, won and ended his political career. The Times rarely if ever identifies Democratic candidates as far-left. Also on Thursday, Washington-based reporter Jackie Calmes twice called Angle “extreme” in a Times ” Political Points ” podcast, available at nytimes.com. Here’s Calmes telling host Sam Roberts about the primary elections, about 16 minutes from the end: The interesting thing about the number of women we had in here is that so many of them were Republican. But I guess that’s not so surprising when you think that of all the candidates out there in some very crowded fields, most of it’s on the Republican side because they see a chance here where they didn’t in the last two election cycles to really get elected. It’s a Republican year, it stands to be. But on the other hand some of these women are, like in Nevada, against Harry Reid, Sharron Angle has, she’s a Tea Party candidate who’s given Democrats renewed hope of saving Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, from what was looking to be near certain defeat, because she is so extreme . So much so that some of the Republicans in the immediate aftermath have started distancing themselves from her. Calmes again, 12 minutes 40 seconds from the end: The Democrats generally at first blush on Wednesday morning when the results were in were happy that both Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, looks newly secure because the Nevada Republicans had nominated such an extreme, Tea Party-type member ; and that Blanche Lincoln had survived against an insurgent rival backed by the party’s left.

Originally posted here:
Two NYT Reporters Tar Nevada GOP Candidate Sharron Angle: "Far-Right," "Extreme"

November Election Already ‘Mightily Out of Control’ for G.O.P., Says Front-Page Blurb in NY Times

One of the New York Times’s favorite themes is the ever-impending Republican civil war that will ruin the party’s chances in whatever election that’s coming up. Former chief political reporter Adam Nagourne y is a past master, but he’s now covering the West Coast. Luckily, Times contributor Matt Bai was there to fill the gap Thursday, explaining how the Republicans may blow a great opportunity through ruinous infighting in the primaries. The assumption behind Bai’s “Political Times” piece ” For Republicans, Sorting Out Candidates Gets a Bit Messy ” is that a crowded field of candidates in the Republican primaries is a bad thing. A front-page, above-the-fold teaser distorted one of Bai’s already premature judgements, leaving out his qualifier to suggest Republican prospects are already sunk: ” Some critics are already asking Republican leaders how they managed to let a promising election season get so mightily out of control .” Bai wrote: Primaries are a wonderful thing — or at least that’s the standard line among Republican leaders these days. “Primary campaigns can be healthy,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, “because they prepare the eventual nominee for how to aggressively campaign in November and provide the candidate with an opportunity to familiarize himself or herself with the electorate.” What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger! Let democracy flower! Of course, Republicans have little choice but to see it this way, since nearly every nonincumbent Republican running for Congress this year has had to endure a primary, often with enough candidates to field a softball team. This disorderly sorting out of candidates, a process that in many cases features establishment types with good hair against ideologues in search of a Bastille to storm, will not matter much if Republicans can regain a majority in at least one chamber in November. If they do not, however, Republican leaders will have to answer the question some critics are already asking, which is how they managed to let a promising election season get so mightily out of control . A front-page, above-the-fold teaser distorted Bai’s already premature judgement by leaving out his qualifier: ” Some critics are already asking Republican leaders how they managed to let a promising election season get so mightily out of control .” By last summer, though, public meetings on health care were erupting in fury and the phrase “Tea Party” was entering the political lexicon. Suddenly, more conservatives were jostling for a chance to challenge incumbent Democrats and their own party, and to promote ideological purity. Stunned Republicans in Washington were reluctant to rescind their tacit endorsements of what they saw as electable candidates, but the last thing they wanted was to square off against newly energized Tea Party types. Instead, the party basically tried to slink off to the sidelines, which only emboldened more primary challengers. A lot of establishment candidates, meanwhile, ended up in the worst of all worlds, branded as instruments of the party but running without much practical help from Washington. Focused on potential Republican problems, Bai didn’t even mention the  bloodbath in Tuesday’s Arkansas Senate primary pitting supporters of center-left sitting Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter, backed by the far-left and national unions.

More:
November Election Already ‘Mightily Out of Control’ for G.O.P., Says Front-Page Blurb in NY Times

M.I.A: Framed by a French Fry [Feuds]

M.I.A. was so pissed about her New York Times Magazine profile that she tweeted writer Lynn Hirschberg’s phone number and then made a diss track about her. What a baby , right? Well. She had a good reason to be mad. More