Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’
Sometimes you read a story in the newspaper (well, on a news website at least) and just shake your head at the profound stupidity of the reporter.
The New York Times first wrote a breathless story about how Senator Marco Rubio and his wife have had a serious problem with driving infractions – 17 total.
On it’s face, you might think, “that dude’s got a lead foot.” The problem is, of the 17 tickets cited in the story, only four of those tickets were given to Senator Rubio. The other 13 were his wife. That’s four in the last 15 years.
So, that’s a bit of a cheap shot by the New York Times.
Then, a couple days later, you had this story with this headline: Marco Rubio’s Career Bedeviled by Financial Struggles.
My first reaction was, this is good for Rubio, a contrast to millionaire Hillary Clinton. And, taken as a whole, the story is about a 44 year-old father of three who has had some ups and downs financially as he has tried to balance a life in politics and raising a family.
One of the more absurd parts of the story was the Times reporting that following him earning an $800,000 advance on his book, “he splurged on an extravagant purchase: $80,000 for a luxury speedboat, state records show. At the time, Mr. Rubio confided to a friend that it was a potentially inadvisable outlay that he could not resist. The 24-foot boat, he said, fulfilled a dream.”
OK, so I’m a kid from Show Low, AZ and not an expert in watercraft. But, I have had friends who owned boats (bass fishing boats, speed boats, deep sea fishing boats) and I’ve been on a couple “luxury” boats.
When I read “$80,000 luxury speedboat” I just chuckled. A 24-ft boat that costs $80,000 is far from “luxury.” You want a “luxury speedboat?” That’s going to put you out a few hundred thousand to start.
For example, this Tiara is used and is for sale for more than $300,000.
Turns out this is the “luxury speedboat” Marco bought:
It’s a standard deep sea fishing boat. As I commented to someone, “If a luxury speedboat was a Bentley, this is a Hyundai.”
So the New York Times is getting some criticism. Even Politico thinks they’ve crossed the line. Think about that, when even Politico thinks you’ve gone over the line, you can guarantee you have crossed the line a mile back.
Then last night, Jon Stewart jumped into the mix. It’s pretty amazing TV.
The New York Times has lost even more of what little credibility they have remaining. The Gray Lady weeps…
Let the smear campaign against Dr. Ben Carson begin! Today’s New York Times features an article introducing readers to Dr. Carson. From headline, “Neurosurgeon’s Speeches Have Conservatives Dreaming of 2016,” to finish, the piece seeks to discount Carson and the conservatives who love him.
Using words like dream, fantasy, and lofted, the Times paints Carson’s newfound fame as a flash in the pan. Out-of-touch, old, rich, white, conservatives are desperately grasping at straws; Carson is a straw.
Take a look at the opening paragraph:
“Then with a single speech delivered as President Obama looked stonily on, he was lofted into the conservative firmament as its newest star: a renowned neurosurgeon who is black and has the credibility to attack the president on health care.”
It’s the same tired argument that the Left trots out every time a black conservative appears on the national scene: conservatives are attracted to Carson not because he can convincingly and succinctly extoll the virtues of conservative thought, but because he is black. Give me a break. This statement also strangely seems to imply that only those with a medical degree can credibly attack the president’s disastrous health care law. According to this reasoning, only those with a medical degree should be able to argue in favor of the law as well…I forget, where did Obama go to med school?
Carson’s inspiring American success story is a testament to conservative principles of individual responsibility and personal achievement, so the article attempts to degrade that story by framing it as a self-serving political prop:
“In an interview in his office at Johns Hopkins University, he said he had been told for years that he could have a political career. It would be built on his compelling personal story that began in poverty in Detroit, leading to fame through pioneering work separating conjoined twins and his own self-help and inspirational books, including “America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great.”
The Times devotes an entire paragraph to a detailed account of Carson’s office voicemail recording and depicts the doctor as arrogant, writing that Carson is not shy or self-deprecating. The article reveals that Carson attributes much of his success to his mother’s high expectations for him and her insistence that he read. Then, insults Carson’s mother and, in a beautifully executed trick of bias, makes it seem that the condescension comes from Carson, “But his mother insisted that he and an older brother turn off the television and read, writing weekly book reports that she could only feign understanding.”
Next, in describing Carson’s formidable success, the article notes, “He gained fame for a series of operations separating conjoined twins, long and risky procedures that did not always succeed.” A surgeon without a 100% success rate—we knew he was too good to be true!
Carson acknowledges that, like so many misguided youngsters, he was a “flaming liberal in college,” and explains that he became conservative because “One thing I always believed strongly in was personal responsibility and hard work…I found the Democrat Party leaving me behind on that particular issue.” But, the Times characterizes his change in philosophy a bit differently, “[Carson] became conservative through his own climb to success.”
A proponent of a flat tax, Carson famously exclaimed at the prayer breakfast, “You make $10 billion, you put in a billion; you make $10, you put in 1…Now some people say that’s not fair because it doesn’t hurt the guy who made 10 billion as much as the guy who makes 10. Where does it say you’ve got to hurt the guy?” After which the Times notes, “Dr. Carson said that he was in the new top federal bracket for family income above $450,000.”
Yep, he’s just another greedy rich guy.
In reality, Carson is a committed philanthropist. Since 1996, Carson and his wife have been giving scholarships to promising students and promoting reading in schools throughout the country. The Carson Scholars Fund awards 500 scholarships annually and has provided more than $2 million to 5,200 scholars in all 50 states. The Ben Carson Reading Room Project has provided more than $850,000 to establish 85 Reading Rooms at schools in 12 states. How does the Times describe this remarkable undertaking? “With his wife, Candy, Dr. Carson founded the Carson Scholars Fund, which awards $1,000 to students to help pay for college. He has also endowed Ben Carson Reading Rooms at schools that serve disadvantaged students.”
The article closes, “As for politics, [Carson] said, “I would like to have a voice.” The New York Times and those on the Left will try hard to silence that voice, but something tells me they won’t have much luck.
The Obama campaign has repeatedly claimed that they view Arizona as an opportunity to “expand the map” for their electoral strategy.
They are smoking crack.
The last time a Democrat Presidential candidate won Arizona was Bill Clinton (with 47% of the vote, to Dole’s 45% of the vote) in 1996 – and that was only because Ross Perot’s 8% showing siphoned off votes that would largely have otherwise gone to Bob Dole.
This New York Times article breathlessly reports how there are many things that point to the possibility of an Obama victory in Arizona: Sen. Russell Pearce being recalled, Daniel Valenzuela being elected to the Phoenix City Council, a Democrat being elected Mayor of Tucson.
Poor Helene Cooper doesn’t realize how absurd her examples look.
Sen. Russell Pearce’s loss in the recall election had nothing to do with Hispanic voters – in fact, Jerry Lewis’s margin of victory demonstrates that Lewis won among Republicans in that race.
Daniel Valenzuela won… wait for it… “an overwhelmingly Latino district.” It’s like saying that Hispanic support for Democrats is surging because Ed Pastor got re-elected.
And Tucson? Enough said.
Yes, the Hispanic population has grown by big numbers in the last decade – but it isn’t even at its high point, which was about three years ago.
There is something that is really important to understand when it comes to the Hispanic vote in Arizona. They just don’t turnout in large enough numbers to sway a statewide race.
To wit: in 2008, Rep. Ed Pastor won in a landslide with 72% of the vote in Congressional District 4. That 72% consisted of 89,721 votes.
That same year, Democrat candidate Bob Lord only garnered 42% of the vote against Rep. John Shadegg. That 42% consisted of 115,759 votes.
So you have a losing Democrat in CD3 getting 26,000 more votes than Ed Pastor who wins in a landslide in his majority-Hispanic district. That is a turnout problem, and it’s not going to be fixed anytime soon – especially by a President who has not delivered the hope and change that he campaigned on in 2008.
However, I hope and pray they spend millions in Arizona in their futile effort. It means less money will spent in true battleground states.
So, welcome to Arizona! Maybe your campaign spending will help boost our economy!
Opposed to Obamacare? Then You Must Be a Racist03/29/2010
Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing “Cats”. (He liked it, by the way.) This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let’s discuss it. Let’s debate it. Let’s yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?
Frank Rich spent many years as the theater critic for the New York Times, where, at worst, his venom could cause a Broadway production or two to close down.
Now, however, Mr. Rich opines on political and social issues for the Times, and, while the results are usually mildly amusing (even if unintentionally so), his reach has grown a bit, so the damage he causes can travel beyond the footlights. I’m not sure why anyone turns to Rich for political analysis—heck, you might as well read the rantings of a TV game show host—but the Gray Lady continues to pay him for his weekly column, and, at the rate she’s bleeding money, that’s no small sacrifice.
Anyway, Mr. Rich has apparently been able to get to the bottom of the vocal opposition to the “healthcare reform” bill that was recently gently shepherded through Congress.It turns out, according to his well-crafted analysis, that it’s not the bill that’s got people in an uproar; rather, what we’re facing is the death rattle of a dwindling cadre of white, racist, sexist, homophobic males terrified by the ascent of people of color, women and gays.
As the ever-tolerant Rich reasons: “The conjunction of a black President and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”
So that’s it. It’s just a bunch of scared, white males who would yelp about anything this gang came up with. As Rich makes clear, this is merely a replay of the opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. You get it? If you express opposition to the bill, you’re a racist, sexist homophobe.
Mr. Rich is shocked by the level of anger in the land, and he fears for the safety of our elected officials, much as I’m sure he did during the George W. Bush administration. He calls on Republican leaders to distance themselves from the more radical voices among them, echoing the demands I’m sure he made of the Democrats during the last campaign.
Mr. Sajak is the host of “Wheel of Fortune” and PatSajak.com.
Politico does a recap of the hits on Obama from his friendliest newspaper, which leads one to think that not only is the honeymoon over (it has been for a few weeks) but the narrative of the “change” President is actually unraveling.
Obviously, one bad Sunday does not a Presidency undo, but the luster begins to fade with each successive hit from “friendly fire.”