Click for Main Weblog

   
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Friday, January 30, 2004
   
   

Center for American Progress Not Exactly Coming Clean

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CXLVIII

An educative blog, Jan. 28, at The New Republic Online (ellipsis in original).

+ + + + +

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, NOT EXACTLY COMING CLEAN:

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.' Those were not words we used."
--White House spokesman Scott McClellan, January 27, 2004
"This is about imminent threat."
--White House spokesman Scott McClellan, February 10, 2003

Special thanks to the good folks at the Center for American Progress.

UPDATE: Shame on me for not checking this out more thoroughly. It turns out that the second McClellan quote was taken way out of context. He's refering [sic] to the threat Turkey would face after we invaded Iraq, not the threat Iraq posed to the United States prior to the war. Apologies to McClellan and the White House...

+ + + + +

As far as I can tell, the deceptive quotations were on this page, Jan. 28.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 01/30/04 07:16:21 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media & Political.


   
   

When Will NYT Be Assigning a Reporter to "Examine" Liberal "Forces"?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CXLVII

The folks at the nation's "newspaper of record" are going to try to figure out why the White House isn't taking it's game plan from their editorial pages.

Sridhar Pappu reports at the New York Observer, dated Feb. 2:

The conservative movement, which at various points has felt slighted, ignored, abused, dismissed and otherwise thoroughly adrift in coverage by New York’s "media elites," has finally found a place in The New York Times. Sort of.
For the next year, David Kirkpatrick—formerly the man charged with covering the book publishing industry—will cover conservatives. Not the Republican Party or the Bush administration. No, it’s real conservatives.
In an announcement earlier this month Times national editor Jim Roberts said that Mr. Kirkpatrick "will examine conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media—a job that will take him across the country and make him a frequent presence in Washington.
"His coverage will cut across the political campaigns this season," Mr. Roberts continued, "but we expect that much of what he does will transcend the race itself and delve into the issues and personalities that drive—and sometimes divide—conservatives."
"I winced a little when I read that job announcement," said Times executive editor Bill Keller, "because it was a little like ‘The New York Times discovers this strange, alien species called conservatives,’ and that’s not what this is about." ....

I think "what this is about" is playing up as much as possible — if not more — the differences of opinion among various conservative camps, to make it look like the general conservative movement in the country is weaker than it actually is. They will, concomitantly, downplay or ignore the differences between various liberal factions. (Thus ignoring, at their peril, Core's Law of Old Media.)

If you read the article, you will find that, as far as the Times is concerned, this is about figuring out what conservative forces move the White House:

.... "Everyone knows this is not the most accessible administration in the history of the Beltway," Mr. Keller continued. "And it seems to me their reasoning and their strategies are often clouded in secrecy and spin. And in an election year, that’s likely to be more true than ever." ....

One is tempted to whisper they're looking for conspiracy theories to insinuate, but that would be too... conspiratorial. Anyway, I don't remember that NYT had anybody in the 1990s assigned to discover what liberal forces moved the Clinton White House — despite an assertion like this:

.... When asked why The Times hadn’t dispatched a correspondent to cover the far left, Mr. Keller said: "If the country was governed by a liberal executive branch and a liberal Congress, and the best access to their thinking would be assigning a reporter to cover liberal thinkers and lobbyists, I’d be happy to do that....

Of course, Keller has not been editor for very long. But the very idea that NYT would ever assign a reporter to "examine" liberal "forces" is enough to make one laugh out loud. Do they not see that the very idea they need somebody to cover "conservative" "forces" is an admission that they know nothing about them — that is, that they are completely liberal?

(Thanks, Ryan.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 01/30/04 06:47:53 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media.


   
   

"Faking It"

I don't agree with everything here, but Fred Reed writes a lot that makes sense, Jan. 19:

While the United States is freer and more democratic than many countries, it is not, I think, either as free or as democratic as we are expected to believe, and becomes rapidly less so. Indeed we seem to be specialists in maintaining the appearance without having the substance. Regarding the techniques of which, a few thoughts:
(1) Free speech does not exist in America. We all know what we can’t say and about whom we can’t say it....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 01/30/04 07:45:27 AM
Categorized as Political & Social/Cultural.


   
   

"Leading His Flock"

Robert P. George & Gerard V. Bradley write at NRO yesterday:

The Catholic Church proclaims the principle that every human being — without regard to age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency — is entitled to the protection of the laws. In line with the indisputable facts of human embryogenesis and intrauterine human development, the Church teaches that children "hidden in the womb" are human beings. It is the obligation of legislators and other public officials to honor and protect their inalienable right to life. Yet many Catholic politicians, including the Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress, are staunch supporters of a "right to abortion." What should the leaders of the Church do about such people?
Raymond Burke, who was installed this past Monday as archbishop of St. Louis, has an answer. He has declared that public officials who act to expose the unborn to the violence of abortion may not receive Holy Communion, the sacramental symbolic of Church unity.
Pro-life citizens of every religious persuasion have applauded the bishop's action. Many commented that it is long past time for religious leaders to show that they are serious about their commitment to the sanctity of human life. Believers in "abortion rights," by contrast, were quick to condemn Bishop Burke. They denounced him for "crossing the line" separating church and state. In one of the wire stories we read, the partisans of abortion branded the rather mild-mannered Burke a "fanatic."
The "crossing the line" charge is silly. In acting on his authority as a bishop to discipline members of his flock, Bishop Burke is exercising his own constitutional right to the free exercise of religion; he is not depriving others of their rights. No one is compelled by law to accept his authority. But Bishop Burke has every right to exercise his spiritual authority over anyone who chooses to accept it. There is a name for such people: They are called "Catholics."
By demanding that Catholic legislators honor the rights of all human beings, the unborn not excluded, Bishop Burke may cause them to reconsider implicating themselves in the injustice of abortion. (Surely he hopes to do that.) But not even his harshest critics charge that the bishop said or implied that the law of the state should be used to compel anyone to accept his authority. Catholic legislators remain legally free to vote as they please. Bishop Burke, in turn, enjoys the legal right to exercise his spiritual authority as a bishop to order them to refrain from receiving communion so long as they persist in what the Church teaches are acts of profound injustice against their fellow human beings. Freedom is a two-way street....

I would say, It's about time! Alas, it's decades past time. 1968 was the time for bishops to have started doing this: demanding that people who present themselves as Catholics in public life actually be Catholic. But it is a very, very good turn of events that is finally starting to be done.

(Thanks, Diogenes.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 01/30/04 07:38:46 AM
Categorized as Religious.


   

The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.