“NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams wrote an op-ed for the New York Times this morning. In a lot of respects, it praised former president Lyndon Baines Johnson, while certainly not flattering George W. Bush. In fact, the purpose of the piece appears to be to chastise president Bush for not going to Texas ahead of Rita by relaying what Johnson did forty years ago when Hurricane Betsy hit Louisiana:

“GIVEN President Bush's final decision not to head to Texas in advance of Hurricane Rita, it's worth noting that American presidents have long found both political riches and peril at the scene of a storm. A listen to the tapes of President Lyndon B. Johnson's White House telephone conversations of 40 years ago reveals that history does indeed repeat itself, even if presidential reactions and motivations have varied widely.”

Yet, the piece went on to show how LBJ didn’t want to go to Louisiana despite the efforts of its Senator, Russell Long. It wasn’t until Long properly conveyed a political benefit for the trip that LBJ acquiesced:



In its September 19 editorial entitled “Taking Full Responsibility” – an altogether too obvious reference to President Bush’s hurricane mea culpa - the New York Times continued what appears to be a full-court press on Congress to raise taxes in order to pay for the future costs of New Orleans reconstruction. In the view of the Times editorial staff, the economic health of the nation is at stake.

To drive the point home, the Times relied heavily on some rather tired cliches about tax cuts only helping the rich and budget deficits causing interest rates to rise, while swirving in and out of sound fiscal reasoning whenever it was necessary or convenient.

On the one hand, the Times is not opposed to the government borrowing money:

“Don't get us wrong. In the main, it makes sense to borrow for huge, vital and unexpected projects (World War II comes to mind). Such borrowing spreads the immense costs over generations, all of which presumably benefit from the extraordinary spending.”



Sigh. The day after Times Watch gave the paper an "attaboy" for delivering a somewhat balanced front-page story on the battle over a proposed left-wing museum at Ground Zero, comes a Friday editorial, "Freedom or Not?" It accuses those who don't want anti-American sentiments enshrined at the site of being "censors."


In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker answered their critics – one of them being the Times itself – concerning voter reforms they have proposed.

As reported by NewsBusters on Tuesday, the Times came out strongly against Carter and Baker’s proposals largely due to a requirement for voters to have proper identification to cast ballots.  The Times’ contention was that this would have a discriminatory impact on the poor, the elderly, and minorities. 

Carter and Baker don’t agree:



Today (22 September) the NY Times has a story from the Associated Press entitled “Afghan Count Reveals Kabul Indifference.” This article demonstrates that the AP and the Times are either mind readers, or are the original definition of the word "bigot."

The story recounts that turnout in Kabul in the midterm election just conducted was slightly over one-third of eligible voters. The writers and editors of this article then conclude:


SPOILER ALERT: For those of you who intend to see the movie, I guess it's only fair to mention the heart of this post is based on a spoiler for the film. You've been warned.

[Hat tip to Rotten Tomatoes]

If your local movie reviewer seems snippier than usual in his/her take on the latest romantic comedy vehicle for Reese Witherspoon, Just Like Heaven, well, it might have a bit to do with the writer's politics.




One kudo for the New York Times today for the front page story by David Dunlap on the important ideological battle over a proposed museum at the site of the Twin Towers ("Freedom Museum Is Headed For Showdown at Ground Zero").

Critics of the International Freedom Center, including many relatives of the victims of 9-11, contend that the proposed museum would slight the victims in favor of liberal history lessons.



The NY Times is thrilled with the idea of reporters being red carpet walking stars.
Much has been written in the news media as of late about the news media and how all of a sudden they've been acting like the news media. Well, color us nostalgic, but it was with great delight that we went to the 26th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards ceremony at the Marriott Marquis on Monday night and witnessed this inspiring sight: reporters walking the red carpet. We saw CNN, for example, interviewing CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR about reporting. This is what journalism is about, ladies and gentlemen. Should be about.
Yes, indeed. That's what journalism should be about; a liberal hack network talking to a liberal politically motivated hack reporter who is married to a liberal hack politician.


As Brent Bozell's latest column mentions, George Stephanopoulos wasn't quite accurate when he claimed "full disclosure" before his Sunday interview with the boss (the one that used to scream at him in "purple rages") that he worked with him in the 1990s. In fact, the day before the interview, he moderated (for cash?



In a recent editorial entitled “Denying Access to the Ballot,” the New York Times came out against some newly proposed voter reforms due to a fear that they might be discriminatory against the poor, the elderly, and minorities:

“It has been clear since 2000 that the election system is in serious need of reform. But the commission led by James Baker III and former President Jimmy Carter has come up with a plan that is worse than no reform at all. Its good ideas are outweighed by one very bad idea: a voter identification requirement that would prevent large numbers of poor, black and elderly people from voting.”

“But the bombshell recommendation is for the states to require voters to have drivers' licenses or a government-issued photo ID. That would not be a great burden for people who have drivers' licenses, but it would be for those who don't, and they are disproportionately poor, elderly or members of minorities.”

Having been a bank manager for six years, I know these statements to be 100% false.



Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, is having a difficult time getting columnist Paul Krugman or his editor to correct a mistake Krugman made in an Aug. 19 column.



A New York Times Sunday editorial, "Penguin Family Values," mocks conservatives for praising "March of the Penguins," a surprise hit documentary about penguin families: "The news that emperor penguins are exemplars of self-sacrifice, marital fidelity and steadfast parenting has brought joy to many religious conservatives, who see the brave birds in the documentary 'March of the Penguins' as little Christian beacons of family and faith."