Republicans are doomed, once again, this time on the front of Thursday’s New York Times: Split in Party After Remarks on Racial Past -- Political Class Recoils; Voter Base Cheers.” The online headline is blunter: “Trump’s Embrace of Racially Charged Past Puts Republicans in Crisis,” reported by Jeremy Peters, Jonathan Martin, and Jack Healy. None of those reporters are renowned for giving Republicans an even break, and they take glee in shoveling dirt on a party that their paper has consigned to the ashbin so many times before (including before the last election), using some of the same Republican voices that were wrong then to do the work.



Illegal immigrants (or rather, “undocumented immigrants”) remain safe under the rhetorical protection of the New York Times, if not the legal protection of American law. The top of Sunday’s Times front page featured a 3,000-word sympathetic tale, complete with huge photos, of an illegal immigrant family in Hampton, Iowa, choosing to self-deport after the husband was arrested. Reporter Jack Healy unfolded his long tale under the headline “Loving and Leaving America -- Stay, Hide, ‘Self-Deport’? Facing Hard Choices in the Heartland.”



Following the trail of angry liberals on social media, Jack Healy in Sunday’s New York Times attacked a comment by Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah suggesting people should invest in their own health care instead of buying the new IPhone. Healy defended the necessity of having a cell in “Having No Insurance Is Hard, Families Say. No Phone? Unthinkable.” Healy even found a racial angle, even though President Barack Obama has used the same cell phone talking point in the past. Needless to say, the president wasn’t accused of anti-black racism.



NewsBusters has chronicled a slew of media reactions both on-air and print in the hours and days since Donald Trump’s stunning presidential election upset of Hillary Clinton, but stories like one posted late Friday for Saturday’s print edition of The New York Times about West Coast liberals proved that such meltdowns will be here to stay for the near future.



The front of the National section of Monday’s New York Times featured two race-and-ethnicity-charged reports from Minnesota and Virginia, one trying to corrode confidence in three Islamic terrorist convictions of Somalis in Minnesota, the other on a “Racially Charged Fight” over granting blanket voting rights to felons in Virginia, a move expected to benefit the Democratic nominee in November. Reporting from Minneapolis, reporters Jack Healy and Matt Furber’s story gave credence to far-left conspiracy theories right in the headline in “Fair or ‘Conspiracy’? Trial Divides Somalis in Minneapolis," while Sheryl Gay Stolberg happily followed a felon-turned-voting rights activist around Virginia helping enroll Democrats to vote.



Two Colorado senators have been recalled, and either already are not serving their former constituents or won't be shortly. Yet according to today's Democratic Party talking points, their recalls, the first-ever in state history spurred by the ousted senators' support of gun-control measures passed earlier this year, are only "symbolic" — despite all the money that poured in from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun-control group to save them.

I have found no visible press pushback against this nonsensical claim. How many press members would remain silent if, say, a conservative or Republican special election loser in a congressional race said that his or her loss was "symbolic" because it didn't change who controls the House? (Answer: Zero.) Three reports containing the Dem meme follow the jump.



Only some social issues are divisive in the Plains states, or so implies the New York Times. A sour tone permeated Wednesday's front-page story by John Eligon and Erik Eckholm from Fargo on North Dakota's strict new abortion laws, which ban abortions based on sex or disability and forbid abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detectable: "New Laws Ban Most Abortions in North Dakota." Yet Colorado's passage of civil unions legislation for gay couples was celebrated with no dissenting voices.

And alhough the quotes from sources pro and con were balanced, with two people quoted in favor, two against, and one classified as neutral, the two pro-life sources were the last two quoted, in paragraphs 26 and 29-30 of the 31-paragraph story.



Here are the key numbers (in red) in Uncle Sam's November Personal Income and Outlays report (the July :

BEApersonalIncomeOutlays1108.jpg

Common sense says that the chart's results after adjusting for inflation are more important (identified as "Chained [2000] dollars") than those in current dollars. Consmers' disposable income went up 1.0% in real (after-inflation) terms in November after a 0.7% increase in October.

It took a month for real consumer spending ("Personal consumption expenditures") to catch up to the increased disposable income, but it did so in a big way in November. The 0.6% real increase is the highest in over three years. Both improvements are objectively good news, and are largely due to sharply declining gas prices.

This is pretty fundamental Econ 101 stuff, isn't it? As you can see from the headlines and the treatment of the real spending increase that follow, the business press mostly flunked, and badly: