First, before you do anything, check this link [after its annoying commercial], to get close to the heart & soul of my humble blog's nonpartisan aspiration:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/
If it doesn't transmit, then google Steve Hartman, "On the Road," in re: the Mayor of Paoli, Colorado.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, today's theme: Is the NYT as "leftist" as my Republican friends claim? Sample the issue for Jan. 7, 2012:
1. Page A23, "liberal" columnist Joe Nocera argues FOR the Keystone Pipeline. "China's 'thirst' for [Canadian & other] oil is hardly going to be deterred by the Sierra Club."
2. Page A23, "moderate Republican" columnist David Brooks criticizes Obama's decision "to force Catholic social service providers to support contraception and other practices that violate their creed." Actually, Brooks's most original point is this: "Members of the Obama administration aren't forcing religious organizations to vioate their creeds because they are secular fundamentalists [italics mine] who place no value on religious liberty. They are doing it because they operate in a technocracy. Technocrats are in the business of promulgating rules. They seek abstract principles that they can apply in all cases. From their perspective, a rule is fair when it can be imposed uniformly across the nation."
3. Page One, lead story: "Obama to Return Major Donations Tied to Fugitive": "When The New York Times asked the Obama campaign early Monday about the Cardonas [seeking a pardon -- refused -- from drug/fraud charges], officials said they were unaware of the brother in Mexico. Later in the day, the campaign said it was refunding the money raised by the family, which totaled more than $200,000." [Surely all Republican candidates would follow Obama's example, but maybe not Bill "Pardons" Clinton?]
4. Page One, adjacent story: "Obama Yields In Marshaling Of 'Super PAC.' " Obama has consistently criticized Citizens United, and the super PACS' multimillions of dollars which they have helped spawn. But now, he gets sucked into this anti-democracy vortex: [Continued on p. A14] "The decision . . . escalates the money wars and is a milestone in Mr. Obamam's evolving stances on political fund-raising. The lines have increasingly blurred between presidential campaigns and super PACs, which have flourished since a 2010 Supreme Court ruling and other legal and regulatory decisions made it easier for outside groups to raise unlimited donations to promote candidates . . . Mr. Obama said in 2008 that he did not want support from outside groups and took a strong stand against the influence of special-interest money in politics, effectively shutting down independent activity on his behalf."
5. Page A14, Democrats complain about a "racially insensitive" Republican ad in Michigan; page A13/A17, Republicans complain about Chrysler's ad during Super Bowl, narrated by Clint Eastwood, "who usually voted Republican" but "has acknowledged recently having a political change of heart." "In an email, Mr. Eastwood said politics were not in the equation. 'The ad doesn't have a politcal message . . .It is about American spirt, pride and job growth."
6. Page A19: "For Both Parties, a Twisted Path To Financing a Campaign."
7. Finally, lead editorial on p. A22: "The Payroll Tax Fight: With little time before the tax rises, Republicans are again making extraneous demands." [This may slant "liberal," and it may also betray the weakness of being "right."]
No comments:
Post a Comment