Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

3rd December
2011
written by Sean Noble

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!

 

 

 

30th March
2010
written by Sean Noble

This Human Events column by Wheel of Fortune host Pat Sajak, in response to New York Times columnist Frank Rich’s recent rant, is worthy of a full read.  The entire column below:

Opposed to Obamacare? Then You Must Be a Racist

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.
23rd March
2009
written by Sean Noble

You know you are having a tough day if you are a Democrat President and the New York Times editorial pages hit you from three different angles on the same day. (Friedman, Dowd and the Editorial)

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.”