NYT: Dems Must Keep At Fruitless Iraq Votes

Looks like the NY Times wants the Democrats to continue looking like total idiots, pushing forward Iraq withdrawal bills that it admits are fruitless.

Courtesy NRO's The Corner (since I refuse to link directly to the NY Times):

News section (Pg. 15): Iraq votes were ‘repeated and fruitless’

… House and Senate Democrats have made some rookie management mistakes in their first year of combined Congressional control. They have angered Republicans with occasional heavy-handed treatment, as well as repeated and fruitless votes on the war.

(“Off for Break, Congress May Still Face Stalemate,” November 17, 2007)

Editorial (Pg. 18): Democrats ‘must keep at it’

Democrats say they will continue to push the president and his Republican allies to concede their failed war policy and change course. They must keep at it.

(“Democrats Find Their Voice,” editorial, November 17, 2007)

So there ya go. The NY Times wants Democrats to "keep at" their "repeated and fruitless votes on the war."

Is Karl Rove running the NY Times now?

NYT Offers Lower Rates to Anti-War Ads

By now, many of you have probably heard about the MoveOn.org ad that ran in the 10 Sept edition of the NY Times, which cost them $65,000--far below the rate quoted on their card. If you haven't, Bob Owens over at Confederate Yankee has been all over it.

However, it now seems that there's another twist to the story:

The full page MoveOn.org ran on September 10, 2007 attacked General David Patreus’ credibility and patriotism. Freedom’s Watch’s full page on September 11, 2007 honored the memory of the victims of 9-11 and reminded your readers that America is engaged in a global war on terror.

According to the published reports, MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its full page ad. This rate was not offered to Freedom’s Watch to run the same size ad with the same placement on September 11, 2007. The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a “standby rate” ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad. At a minimum, it’s clear that MoveOn.org was able to pick the date of their ad or was given preferential treatment on the timing of the ad because it was reported before it was published.

We are at a loss to explain this discriminatory pricing. The only difference between the ads appears to be that Freedom's Watch disagrees with your paper’s editorial policy while MoveOn.org basically agrees with it. Surely it is not the policy of the Times to give discounts to certain advertisers based on this. And surely you do not wish to convey that your newspaper has suspended any patina of objectivity and fairness and is now actively promoting the MoveOn.org worldview in your news pages.

In short, either MoveOn got preferential treatment for their "standby" ad, or they got a heck of a discount. I can't wait to see if the NY Times permits Freedom's Watch to rerun their ad at the same rate that MoveOn paid.

I am betting they won't, to be quite honest with you. Lefties like those in charge of the NY Times are nothing if not shameless.

Mother Sheehan vs. Nancy Pelost

The anticipated announcement from Cindy Sheehan that she is officially entering the race to challenge Her Speakerness Nancy Pelosi for the California Eighth District U. S. House of Representatives seat came August 9, 2007.

Cindy Sheehan, The Absolute Moral Authority^TM on the Iraq War, tearfully announced her candidacy, citing her son, Casey, as her inspiration. Sheehan had threatened to throw her hat in the ring against Pelosi if Her Speakerness did not move to impeach President Bush.

SAN FRANCISCO — A tearful Cindy Sheehan cited her son, killed in Iraq, as her inspiration as she announced her candidacy Thursday for the U.S. House against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Sheehan said last month she intended to run against Pelosi, D-Calif., if the San Francisco congresswoman didn't move to impeach President Bush by July 23.

Sheehan said Thursday that Pelosi had "protected the status quo" of the corporate elite and had lost touch with people in her district, most of whom, she asserted, want American troops out of Iraq.

[...]

In every democrat cloud, there is a silver liberal lining. The New York Times headlines a column explaining how Sheehan's candidacy can help Pelosi:

Sheehan Challenge Could Help Pelosi Dampen GOP’s ‘Leftist’ Portrayal

The Times argument goes that by having a truly liberal anti-war activist challenging SanFranNan, it will make her look less liberal and blunt the GOP's portrayal of her as a far left San Francisco liberal.

Not necessarily true. Nancy Pelosi will still be a San Francisco ultra-liberal; she'll just be challenged by a far left, anti-war whackjob. It will still be easy to portray Pelosi as a San Francisco liberal, we'll just have her lack of accomplishments as House Speaker to add to the campaign to defeat her and the democrat lead House.

Related posts - Mother Sheehan vs. America's Mother-in-law

Times' Story on Fred has No Smoking Gun

As a follow-up to John's post about the NY Slimes' story about the Thompson sons going into lobbying, NRO's Jim Geraghty finds no "smoking gun" paragraph in it. He concludes with:

Basically, the article amounts to a complaint about nepotism, in a race featuring a President's wife (Hillary), an admiral's son (McCain), a governor's son (Romney), at least one son of a senator (Dodd) and maybe another (Gore). All of this to succeed the son of a President. We can lament how having well-connected parents can help someone get started in a competitve business, but that train left the station a long time ago.

Indeed.

Fred! 'Fluence

At DRUDGE REPORT :

NYT plans Monday splash on how Fred Thompson's two eldest sons, who are both lobbyists, have benefited from their father's influence... Developing..

I wonder if the paper of record will do a companion piece on Dingy Harry Reid's extensive lobbying connections in his own family? (from a June 2003 LA Times article via NoAgenda)

[...] But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.

Possibly the NYTimes is just waiting to publish a blockbuster story on all the Congressional family lobbying ties:

At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who count on the related lawmaker for support.

I'm still waiting for the driveby media to burst into an uproar over Her Speakerness's son being hired by a firm for $180,000/year for a job he apparently doesn't need to show up for:

Several days ago, Newsmax.com disclosed that in February, shortly after his mother became the first woman speaker, Paul Pelosi Jr., was hired by InfoUSA for $180,000 a year as its vice president for Strategic Planning. Pelosi also kept his other full-time day job as a mortgage loan officer for Countrywide Loans in California. And, unlike all of the other InfoUSA employees, he did not report to work at the company's headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska.I

Wasn't SanFranNan proclaiming she would: Restore Accountability - Break the link between legislation and lobbyists by passing lobby reform? It appears she can't, or won't, even break the link between Congressmen and their lobbying family members.

InfoUSA is the same company that has provided former president Bill Clinton with a sweetheart consulting deal.

And InfoUSA is also the same company that Bill Clinton works for as a consultant, and for which the former president was paid $3.3 million over the past five years. In addition, the Clintons got $900,000 worth of free travel.

That doesn't even include the use of Gupta Airlines to ferry Hillary around.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a private citizen earning a living, not even Bill Clinton. But come on, his wife is a sitting Senator and presidential candidate. If that's not an attempt to buy influence, then there is no such thing.

Finally, let us not forget the questionable ties between Mad Jack Murtha and his lobbyist brother's (at that time) firm KSA: (NoAgenda)

[...] According to a June 13 article in The Los Angeles Times, the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill included more than $20 million in funding for at least 10 companies for whom KSA lobbied. Carmen Scialabba, a longtime Murtha aide, works at KSA as well.

KSA directly lobbied Murtha’s office on behalf of seven companies, and a Murtha aide told a defense contractor that it should retain KSA to represent it, according to the LA Times.

and: Murtha Earmarks Trail Reminiscent of ABSCAM Scandal

[...] Murtha has obtained millions of dollars in earmarks for firms in his district, many of them clients of PMA and KSA.

[...]

A good guide to the patterns of Murtha's largesse is the client list of KSA Consulting, a lobbying firm that employs a former Murtha staffer and used to employ Murtha's brother, Kit Murtha.

Admittedly, I'm a partisan, but by no stretch of the imagination do I believe this is an issue restricted to only one party, and I'd like to see this practice of elected officials being lobbied by paid lobbyist family members curtailed.

All I'm asking is if the NY Times is going to do what is probably a hit piece on Fred! Thompson about lobbying ties, then when are they going to do the same for all of the elected officials with such ties.

Despite the Times sinking credibility and fortunes. it is still an influential source and other media follow it's lead in news and reporting. A front page splash has to be contended with, and expect other media outlets to follow the lead.

Fred! isn't a candidate (yet). He hasn't been an elected representative for over four years. Does the NY Times have a problem with his sons earning a living? Or is it only the type of living these particular sons are engaged? Maybe it's as simple as they are worried about Fred! running and this is an early shot across the bow.

This post is just a preemptive strike at the forthcoming article from the Times. We'll see tomorrow exactly what they have to say. I may have some more comments at that time, as long as I can find a secondary source to avoid linking directly to the NY Times.

NY Slimes Admits Anti-Military Bias

Computer issues have kept me away from blogging for a bit, but here's one I just had to struggle through the difficulties to post about.

OpinionJournal.com (whom the link above points to... I refuse to link directly to the NY Slimes) points out that a Times story admits their bias:

James Glanz, a Baghdad correspondent who will become bureau chief for The New York Times next month, said that although he and others had many great experiences working with the rank-and-file soldiers, some military leaders seem determined to protect something besides the privacy of their troops."

As the number of reporters there dwindles further and further because of the difficult conditions we work under, the kind of work they are able to publish becomes very important," Mr. Glanz said. "This tiny remaining corps of reporters becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told."

(emphasis added by OpinionJournal, but retained by me, cause I thought it highlights the point so very well.)

Whatever happened to "All The News That's Fit to Print?" I guess the military's own story isn't "fit to print," according to the leftists at the NY Slimes.

And they wonder why their circulation is taking a nose-dive.

Pro-American Sarkozy Wins French Election

Foxnews.com is reporting that Nicolas Sarkozy has won the French election, handing Socialists yet another defeat.

Newsbusters.org is reporting that the NY Times is already calling him names.

I guess sometimes you really can judge someone by his enemies.