November 20, 2006
Here's A Telling Slip

Now that the election is over, the Seattle Times is beginning to tell us more about the Democrats they helped elect.  They are even beginning to criticize those Democrats from time to time, as they did in this editorial on speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi.

But the reason they give for their criticism is telling:

Even if somehow it wasn't technically Pelosi's venom dating back to a 2001 leadership battle between Hoyer and her, her decision to aggressively back Murtha sure looked like childish payback.  Her job is to put petty fights behind her and make a decision about what is best for the party.

Catch that?  Not what is best for the country, but what is best for the party.   That isn't the first time I have seen that slip in the Seattle Times, and in other "mainstream" newspapers, and I don't think it will be the last.

Posted by Jim Miller at November 20, 2006 01:56 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Big woop... it's an Editorial.... from the same paper that endorsed Reichert over Burner (for good reason I would add).

I've heard the same kind of "what's good for the party, not the country" comments coming from the authors of this blog, so I really don't see why I should be surprised or outraged.

Posted by: Splinter on November 20, 2006 02:04 PM
2. Maybe because the authors of this blog aren't pretending to be objective media sources.

Posted by: jimg on November 20, 2006 02:17 PM
3. jimg: "Maybe because the authors of this blog aren't pretending to be objective media sources"

It's an EDITORIAL. Since when are editorials supposed to be objective?

Posted by: Splinter on November 20, 2006 02:20 PM
4. Not only was this an editorial, but in context the comment makes perfect sense. The discussion is about what she's doing in a *Democratic party* leadership campaign.

Is Nancy Pelosi not allowed to think about what's best for the Democratic party in its own leadership campaign? Isn't that part of her job as leader of the Democratic party in the house?

In other words, do your selective searching for liberal bias elsewhere in the paper-that-endorsed--Reichert-and-Bush-in-2000.

Posted by: Vonnegut on November 20, 2006 02:28 PM
5. Wow--good bust on them, Jim!

Posted by: Michele on November 20, 2006 02:35 PM
6. I'm aware it's an EDITORIAL. It was you who was trying to excuse them by drawing comparisons to a partisan blog.

Now, please provide links to where The Times has chosen to carry the Republican Party's water in an EDITORIAL ... not an individual endorsement ... unless you want to continue to use the 'broken clock' theory to prove the objectiveness of the Puget Sound media.

Posted by: jimg on November 20, 2006 02:54 PM
7. Party positions are always done for the party, policy and cabinet should be made for the good of the county. Not that Democrats would do either for the good of the county.

Posted by: G Jiggy on November 20, 2006 02:56 PM
8. the paper that endorsed Reichert and Bush in 2000

Really? Interesting that Reichert didn't run until 2004, and they endorsed Dave Ross. And who did The Times endorse for Pres. in 2004? Sure wasn't Bush.

Geez. Do you even bother to check facts before running off at the mouth? Or is it easier to simply pull things out of your butt and think nobody's paying attention?

Posted by: jimg on November 20, 2006 03:01 PM
9. And was anyone expecting anything different...?

Posted by: Steve (was Steve_Dog) on November 20, 2006 03:12 PM
10. "Alcee Hastings," need I say more. If these clowns would consider this guy for a position that awards him "Top Secret" security clearance then the good of the country isn't even on their radar screen, much less their intention.

Posted by: JDH on November 20, 2006 03:14 PM
11. jimg: "It was you who was trying to excuse them by drawing comparisons to a partisan blog"

I really do not see the difference between the editorial page of a newspaper, and the opinions expressed on a partisan blog. They are both just opinions expressed by the editors, not a reflection of "mainstream media".

And how was the Editorial "carrying the water" for the Democrats? The entire editorial was about the Democratic party and the "party" elections... not about any actual policy decision.

The underlying theme of the article (to me at least) is that the Democrats need to do what is necessary to move the country forward with effective change, and not spend time with in-party fighting.

This, on the other hand, would be an example of post election sour-grape partisanship, written by someone less interested in welfare of our nation, and more interested in party politics: "This limited-government conservative is not all that disappointed by the prospect of a Democrat-controlled Congress, provided it continues to be led by ineffectuals whose accomplishments are likely to be modest"

Posted by: Splinter on November 20, 2006 03:16 PM
12. The Times just editorialized for another gob of $$ for education.

I guess the estate tax defeat is their just punishment for not 'getting it' about 'mo money fixes everything. Maybe for clueless elites who like getting ripped off by shady contractors, half-legal lawn services and a host of others they use. Maybe it's their way of getting revenge against US for the crappy home remodel they wanted to do "on the cheap."

And sensible education reforms like those of Evergreen F.Found.? Ignored by all in power. Too scary. Too responsible. Despite all their grandiose "mission statements." WALK THE TALK.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 20, 2006 03:19 PM
13. The only ones in the Pelosi "lovefest" camp are the mainstream media. She is not all the popular, with her approval rating in the mid 20s about election time. And the backing of Murtha and Hastings is just plain stupid. If the loony left wants to take the Oval Office in 2008, they are going to have to rein in Miss Nancy. It also doesn't help that her good buddy Rangel is calling for a draft. The Times could have just written a two word editorial about Pelosi's leadership: "Well, DUH!!!!!" Looks like the moonbats are once again surprised at how their "leadership" really works.

Posted by: Burdabee on November 20, 2006 03:24 PM
14. Burdabee: "It also doesn't help that her good buddy Rangel is calling for a draft."

What a fantastic idea... probably political suicide... but a fantastic idea.

Imagine how motivated our youth would be to vote in the next election. :-D

Posted by: Splinter on November 20, 2006 03:30 PM
15. Splinter @11 ...Democrats need to do what is necessary to move the country forward with effective change...

From The Patriot Post
...the Democrats dream of endless hearings and liberal legislation. Carl Levin, chosen as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says a new strategy for Iraq (read: "retreat") will be at the center of his committee's activity, as well as scrutiny of military contracting (read: "Cheney's war profiteering via Halliburton"). The Senate Judiciary Committee, likely under Patrick Leahy (VT), will resurrect Abu Ghraib. "I think the accountability for Abu Ghraib has not yet been accomplished in terms of finding out who was involved, at what level," a colleague notes.
Acting at the behest of incoming Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller (WV) has at the top of his agenda for the Senate Intelligence Committee a new investigation of prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction--a conclusion reached not only by the U.S. intelligence community, but by several European intelligence communities and the United Nations, as well.
In the House, David Obey (WI) will be chairman of the all-powerful Appropriations Committee, where he intends to revisit supplementary spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. Oddly, it seems throwing money at a problem is Democrats' answer for everything but national security. Next, Rep. Henry Waxman (CA), entering chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, is having trouble deciding what to hold hearings on first--Katrina, Iraq, homeland security, EPA and FDA oversight, or corporate profiteering. "I'm going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything," Waxman mused. "The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose."
With so many witch-hunts, the Demos would do well to move the nation's capital to Salem. It goes without saying that such antics will only embolden our enemies and further endanger our troops serving in harm's way--but then, TRAITOR isn't a moniker that John Kerry should keep all to himself.

Rep. James Oberstar, who will head the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is looking forward to tearing apart FEMA and looking deeper into port security. John Dingell, future head of Energy and Commerce, has a dreaded reputation for investigations, which is worrisome considering the wide scope his committee holds: telecommunications, energy, air quality and food-and-drug safety. George Miller, who will run the Committee on Education and the Work Force, said that there has not been "even mildly aggressive oversight" and is looking forward to investigating regulatory policy at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The outcomes of all these investigations are foreordained--increased regulation and labor-friendly practices that will harm American business. In the liberal universe all employers are bad and all employees are good. We can expect overly burdensome proposals aimed at reducing industrial pollution, which will have the effect of driving companies overseas and forcing consumer prices to rise. When President Bush wanted to remove protections that prevented incompetent workers from ever being fired, liberals balked. Now that liberals have power, they plan to reinstate those protections. This will clog our already bloated bureaucracy. It will also have a detrimental effect on our national security by allowing sub-par employees in the defense infrastructure to keep their jobs.

God help us all

Posted by: Needs Tweezers on November 20, 2006 03:34 PM
16. Needs:

If the Democratic party makes their first priority a bunch of investigations in the misdeeds of the GOP (and there have been plenty in my opinion), then I would say they are bound to get booted out of congress in the next election. They were not elected to investigate, impeach, and play power games with the opposing team. They were elected, in my opinion, to give the American people a new direction in Iraq.

Personally, I don't think that direction is going to be an immediate withdrawl. I think there have been many plans suggested by very reasonable people, that actually want to leave Iraq in some semblance of order.

I am not a fan of either political party, and certainly have never beeen a fan of Nancy Pelosi. But I honestly do hope she is successful in working out a good plan with the Bush Administration and her GOP colleagues. Honestly, shouldn't we all be hoping for that?

Posted by: Splinter on November 20, 2006 03:43 PM
17. I really do not see the difference between the editorial page of a newspaper, and the opinions expressed on a partisan blog.

And therein lies the issue. I see a major difference in that Stefan never claimed to be an objective purveyor of news and information ... along with the so-called professional responsibilities of the state's largest daily newspaper. And the fact some are willing to write off this partisanship under the guise of 'it's just an editorial' is more of an indictment of what he or she expects from a newspaper than it is of people pointing it out.

You seem like a decent person, with a decent outlook on how things could be. I don't believe The Times or any other so-called mainstream media source in this region can claim the same. And that's the point some of us are tyring to make.

Posted by: jimg on November 20, 2006 03:54 PM
18. If it's the party's job to choose the leader who is best for the country, how did we end up with Trent Lott again? Cynically, I don't expect either party to anything other than what is in its own best interests, but apparently the Republican party even screwed that up.

Posted by: Palouse on November 20, 2006 04:01 PM
19. jimg: I see your point on the Editorial versus a Blog, but I still do not see this specific Seattle Times editorial as particularly partisan.... If anything, coming out basically against Pelosi and Murtha, and calling her move stupid, would make the editorial anti-democratic-establishment to me.

And I would also think that you can get an equally biased editorial comment from any number of John Carlson or Michael Medved columns over at the King County Journal.

Posted by: Splinter on November 20, 2006 04:06 PM
20. "[The Democrats] were elected, in my opinion, to give the American people a new direction in Iraq."

Unlikely. The Democrats deliberately concealed any organized program they may have had, in order to run as simple non-Republicans. That's no new direction at all, unless voters think that doing an about-face and doubling your pace counts as such.

The Times is not much different than any other paper. It was no doubt serious when it pontificated that Pelosi's job is to herd things in a direction that benefits her Democratic party, the country taking second best.

That's because such papers really aren't staffed by philosophers looking out for the interests of the people at large. Rather, they're run on the same mercenary paradigm as their own sports pages, cashing in on the conflict of Team A vs Team B. In that case, what's different between Pelosi propping up the Democrats, and some head coach reinforcing his coaching staff?

Notice all the emphasis the papers have been giving stories about Karl Rove in the last six years. Just another head coach.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on November 20, 2006 05:23 PM
21. They will sidestep the one issue they cannot afford to sidestep, because they don't want to upset the apple cup for the 2008 election.

So they will do nothing but talk about Iraq, except talk about the draft. Huh? I thought we were pulling out of the war...How come a draft?


Posted by: GS on November 20, 2006 11:04 PM
22. Really? Interesting that Reichert didn't run until 2004, and they endorsed Dave Ross. And who did The Times endorse for Pres. in 2004?


I think he was trying to say that they endorsed Reichert, and, in 2000, endorsed Bush.


Of course, as you pointed out, they endorsed Ross in 2004 and Kerry in 2004. I'm just explaining what I think he was saying.

Posted by: Cliff on November 21, 2006 01:08 AM
23. (Democrats) were elected, in my opinion, to give the American people a new direction in Iraq.

Puleeze!

Iraq was like issue #4 on exit polls.

The Democrats managed to convince people that the Republican Congress was corrupt, and convinced them to throw the bums out. It had nothing to do with issues. They didn't run on any issues.

Posted by: Cliff on November 21, 2006 01:13 AM
24. (Democrats) were elected, in my opinion, to give the American people a new direction in Iraq.

Puleeze!

Iraq was like issue #4 on exit polls.

The Democrats managed to convince people that the Republican Congress was corrupt (#1 on exit polls), and convinced them to throw the bums out. It had nothing to do with issues. They didn't run on any issues.

Posted by: Cliff on November 21, 2006 01:14 AM
25. Cliff - I never said the democrats were running on "a new direction for Iraq", I said that's one of the major reasons the GOP was defeated, and it's only my opinion.

The GOP being corrupt may have been part of it, as it was with the Democrats in 1994, but I think Iraq, the obvious incompetant leadership on it, total bungling and failure to take responsibility was the issue that tipped the moderates to the left. I'm no polling expert... just how I saw it.

And repeating the "cut and run" line, and suggesting anything but "stay the course" is defeatism, is really getting old. There are a lot of very reasonable options out there, coming from both parties, but obviously W needed the kick in the pants this election provided to get his stubborn arrogant ass off his course to disaster.

Posted by: Splinter on November 21, 2006 08:05 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?