Itz News to Me

The New York Times has had enough 9/11. Today’s edition contains an article with complaint after complaint from locals who just wish the whole thing would go away. How fitting…and how politically convenient…

First, let’s dispense with the basic point: that six years is far too long to commemorate 9/11. Hey guys, ever heard of Pearl Harbor Day? It’s closing on 70 years later and it’s still on the calendar. So where’s the article about Pearl Harbor Day fatigue? Answer: you’ll never see one. Ever. Why? Because Democratic victories in upcoming elections don’t depend on people forgetting Pearl Harbor Day.

It’s a measure of just how far the NYT is willing to sink that they are resorting to this sort of propaganda. For that’s what this article is: an attempt to neutralize the Democratic weakness on national security issues by trying to erase 9/11 from the public consciousness. Nothing more and nothing less. Move along. There’s nothing to see here. So what if Democrats have a long history of weak-kneed appeasement of threats to this country, dictators and thugs both at home and abroad. There are no threats on the horizon to worry about, right? Right? 9/11? What 9/11?

Just another reminder of who’s side they’re really on….It’s not yours or mine or even this country’s. It’s all about naked political power. They want it, and they’re willing to do anything to achieve it. I don’t question their patriotism, because there’s no question that they have none.

UPDATE: Over at Classical Values, Eric has found an even more embarrassing divide between what the NY Times is and isn’t willing to commemorate: Princess Diana’s death. Hey guys: she wasn’t American, she wasn’t even in line for the British throne….She was just a foreign celebrity, but the NYT goes wall-to-wall for the anniversary of her death while the more recent deaths of nearly 3,000 of their neighbors is just “annoying.”

Popularity: 16%

If you had any illusions that the Democrats actually meant what they said about “cleaning up Congress,” you should be ashamed of yourself. The political party that virtually invented the local party machine and is in bed with mafia-controlled unions across the country disingenuously claimed that they were dedicating themselves to changing the Washington culture which virtually ensures that only the friends of those in power benefit from the actions of Congress.

If you need proof, look no further than the corrupt activities of Dianne Feinstein, who has funneled millions of dollars in contracts to herself via her position overseeing appropriations. Is it surprising that corruption on this scale isn’t leading the evening newscasts or splashed on front pages across the country? Not if you know anything about how the major media protect their own - and the Democrats are just that…

Popularity: 31%

Mickey Kaus posted today about new polls that show the “generic” ballot polling question showing a much smaller Democratic advantage than in previous polls. Does that mean that the race is tightening or does it mean something else?

The answer: It means that the polls were intentionally slanted all along, and now they’re moving closer to where they should have been all along.

I’ve watched this phenomenon in 2002, in 2004 and now again we have it in 2006: the “late Republican surge” which suddenly tightens races which were previously advertised as sure-bets for Democrats. It defies logic that three elections in a row would suddenly and inexplicably have the exact same phenomenon occur at the exact same time in the election cycle.

Except that it’s not so inexplicable. Polling firms are commissioned by media organizations which are inarguably liberal bastions who want to put forth a certain point of view in the months leading up to an election. They want the Republican base demoralized and the Democratic base optimistic, and producing polls that show the popularity of the Democratic talking points is a sure way to achieve that goal (along with slanting coverage of stories, etc.). So in order to keep the paychecks coming, the polling firms dutifully produce the polls - and the results - that their employers request.

But then it comes to election time. If the polls were consistently way off on Election Day, who would ever again pay attention to them during the interim periods? The desired effect of simultaneously attempting to suppress Republican turnout and increase that of Democrats would disappear overnight. So how do you go about reconciling the knowingly inaccurate results leading up to the elections with the actual polling results?

It’s simple: Just say that there was a “late Republican surge!” Since polls are always snapshots in the rearview mirror, then they can never be expected to accurately keep up with the surge as it continues through Election Day. So pollsters can always argue that Republicans magically picked up momentum that their most recent poll couldn’t pick up because it hadn’t happened yet!

Voila! Everything is explained and no one is the wiser for the game that they played all along, and everyone gets to keep collecting their paychecks….Except they’ve gone to this well so often that you could have bet money in Vegas that this was going to happen this year too…

I’m not buying it, and neither should you…

Popularity: 25%

In an blatantly political attempt to slam the Bush administration days before the mid-term election, the NY Times has made the screw-up of all time (at least from their side of the political aisle): in the course of an article so slanted it practically lies down sideways, they inadvertantly made the case that the Iraq had the know-how to build a nuclear weapon and were in a position to disseminate it to others.

Every Democrat in the country (except Joe Lieberman) has made a living preaching that there was no WMD threat from Iraq, and that Bush made up the war for some kind of blood-for-oil scheme that involved Halliburton, big corporations, and Satan himself. But now comes news that the Iraqis’ nuclear knowledge was so advanced that it might have been used to propel Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Kind of blows the whole “no WMDs” argument out of the water just a few days before the election, doesn’t it? Makes Joe Wilson out to be both a fool and liar, doesn’t it? Makes the Democrats look awfully foolish for making political hay out of what they have always known was a house of cards in an attempt to score some short-term political points at the expense of national security…

Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people…

Popularity: 40%

For all the recent talk about conservative anger at Republicans, the media hasn’t uttered a peep about the civil war breaking out in the Democratic ranks over the Ned Lamont candidacy in Connecticut.

As evidenced by postings of this kind, the failure of the Democratic party elite to back Lamont in a meaningful way is creating a backlash amongst the party faithful which may have implications for voter turnout not only during the upcoming mid-term elections but into 2008 and beyond.

For years the media have turned a  blind eye to these sorts of internecine conflicts between special interest groups within the Democratic Party, but if these conflicts result in Republicans being able to eke out wins in this year’s elections would you say that the lack of media attention to these growing problems have been a net positive or negative for the party they are trying to protect with their silence?

Popularity: 37%

To hear Democrats (and their media cohorts) talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, you’d think we’re getting our butts kicked. But evidently nobody gave Al-Qaeda the party talking points.

The guys at Powerline don’t have any special access to classified documents the way that the New York Times does. They’re just looking at publicly available documents, and they found yet another nugget in the treasure trove recovered from Zarqawi’s headquarters which any reporter interested in the real truth would (and should) have discovered long ago if they were interested in anything other than playing politics with the war.

It’s plainly evident from this letter that: a) our operations in Afghanistan are succeeding at tying down Al-Qaeda leadership, b) our operations in Iraq are succeeding in alienating Al-Qaeda from any popular support in Iraq, and c) the Democratic party is conspiring with its media allies to keep this information from the American public.

There is no way that reporters who have repeatedly put classified information on the front pages of newspapers and at the top of news broadcasts don’t have access to the same information that a couple of pretty regular Joes were able to dig up. But they won’t publish it because were it widely known then George Bush specifically and Republicans generally would be walking to a landslide victory in the upcoming elections.

Thank God the days of Democratic party operatives at the helms of major media corporations controlling the news cycle are coming to an end with the continuing rise of bloggers. For the last couple of decades, they decided what made the headlines and what Americans were told about the state of their country and the world at large. But the explosion of citizen media on the internet is changing that, and they couldn’t be more unhappy about it…

Popularity: 23%

You would think that after the latest photoshopping scandal casting doubt on the ability of the media to report the news honestly that CBS would want to start off their “new era” without the cloud of incredulity….or not…

TV Newser has caught them doing a little photoshopping of Katie Couric in their publicity photos to make her appear to have a much slimmer waistline than she in fact possesses.

It’s not “shake the walls” kind of stuff like Rathergate was, but CBS doesn’t exactly have a great track record of playing it straight with its audience and this isn’t going to help…

Popularity: 5%

Not surprisingly, in the midst of the recent upturn in violence between the terrorist group and Israel the media was all abuzz with the consensus thinking that Israel had blundered badly in its response to the kidnapping of its soldiers. Now that the smoke has cleared, it looks like the media and all its talking heads got it precisely backwards.

The truth is that no matter how Israel responded, it would have been criticized by the media. They tried to crucify Sharon over the wall, yet it has been amazingly effective at preventing terrorist acts inside Israel - and it’s not even completely finished yet. The international media is full of leftists and anti-Semites from the AP and Reuters to such “impartial” sources as Al-Jazeera. The default editiorial slant on every story is that Israel is wrong until it can be conclusively proved otherwise. Even the proof of Hezbollah playing them for stooges by utilizing people like “Green Helmet Man,” isn’t enough to shame them into playing a story straight…

Popularity: 12%