Conventional Dis-Wisdom from the NYT
Nancy Pelosi, first woman Speaker of the House, arrived at that position because American voters overwhelmingly turned the House over to the Democratic Party. The people put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the "people's chamber."
So, what does the NYT give us for analysis at this historic moment?
Try this craptastic piece from Carl Hulse.
Hmmm. Carl, I hate to break it to you: the PEOPLE elected a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress in the face of a DEEPLY unpopular president and his War in Iraq, with very little help from a complacent press, including the New York Times. The people did so in historic fashion. Not a single incumbent Congressional Democrat lost their seat in 2006...something that hasn't happened in so long for either party that it is virtually unprecedented. Meanwhile, GOP Conservative stalwarts like Rick Santorum, George Allen, Richard Pombo and J.D. Hayworth had their asses sent packing from Washington D.C.
Congressman Jerry McNerney, someone a few us busted our asses to help elect here in California, was elected decisively by the PEOPLE of CA-11. Nobody else. It was their choice. George and Laura Bush showed up in the district. The GOP spent millions to no avail. It's hard to think the editors at the New York Times are paying attention.
It's somewhat uncharitable, if not counter-factual, to claim that that the COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED AND SHOCKING Democratic majority in the US Senate is "miniscule" and to then call the landslide Democratic delegation in the House...233 members strong..."not much larger." Truth be told, the Democratic party, in a single election cycle, enjoys as powerful a Congressional position as the GOP EVER HAD in its twelve years in control of the House. What editor "passed" on this crap?
This kind of coverage comes as no surprise.
The New York Times is DEEPLY complicit in both a fundamental lack of criticism of George Bush during the 2000 and 2004 elections and, most damningly, a completely uncritical approach to covering the lies, deceptions and misinformation used by this administration and its proxies that led this nation into the Iraq war, a war which has cost 3000 Americans their lives. The New York Times is DEEPLY complicit in the war in Iraq. Nothing changes that fact. Not a half-hearted and unclear retraction. Not another in a long-running series of articles that snipe at Democrats while failing to hold the GOP to ANY reasonable standards of decency and honesty.
I apologize for the outrage, especially since it makes me seem so stereotypically "the blogger." History will not look kindly on the New York Times in this era. Not in the least.
The only people who have framed the 2006 election as a return to some kind of untrammelled "liberalism" that never once existed in this nation (tell me when...under Richard Nixon?...under Jimmy Carter?...under LBJ?) are the GOP, and now, Carl Hulse in the New York Times. This piece is riddled with talking points straight from Karl Rove's desk.
That happens when you forget something about our democracy.
The people decide. That's something the Times and George Bush are going to have to reckon with.
More power to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There's a great deal of work to do in D.C. No Democrat has claimed...ever...that the 110th Congress is going to be anything but a body committed to reflecting majority views of the American voters. The Democratic Congressional delegation reflects the American public deeply. That's a good thing.
It's the people's House, it's the people's Congress, and their job is to do the people's work. And that's exactly what the 110th Congress is going to do. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
So, what does the NYT give us for analysis at this historic moment?
Try this craptastic piece from Carl Hulse.
Democrats realized their political and legislative dream Thursday. Now they must face reality.
As they take control of the House and Senate, members of the new majority must reconcile diverse ideological factions within their ranks and make a fundamental choice. They can spend their energy trying to reverse what they see as the flaws of the Bush administration and a dozen years in which conservative philosophy dominated Congress. Or they can accept the rightward tilt of that period and grudgingly concede that big tax cuts, deregulation, restrictions on abortion and other Republican-inspired changes are now a permanent part of the legislative framework. [snip]
...as one senior Republican asked, will Democrats hostile to the Bush administration be more like the scorpion in the fable with the frog, unable to resist the urge to sting even if they hurt themselves?
Democrats acknowledge that with their minuscule majority in the Senate and one in the House that is not much larger, they lack the political muscle to go too far in reversing Bush policy even if that was their chief goal.
Hmmm. Carl, I hate to break it to you: the PEOPLE elected a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress in the face of a DEEPLY unpopular president and his War in Iraq, with very little help from a complacent press, including the New York Times. The people did so in historic fashion. Not a single incumbent Congressional Democrat lost their seat in 2006...something that hasn't happened in so long for either party that it is virtually unprecedented. Meanwhile, GOP Conservative stalwarts like Rick Santorum, George Allen, Richard Pombo and J.D. Hayworth had their asses sent packing from Washington D.C.
Congressman Jerry McNerney, someone a few us busted our asses to help elect here in California, was elected decisively by the PEOPLE of CA-11. Nobody else. It was their choice. George and Laura Bush showed up in the district. The GOP spent millions to no avail. It's hard to think the editors at the New York Times are paying attention.
It's somewhat uncharitable, if not counter-factual, to claim that that the COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED AND SHOCKING Democratic majority in the US Senate is "miniscule" and to then call the landslide Democratic delegation in the House...233 members strong..."not much larger." Truth be told, the Democratic party, in a single election cycle, enjoys as powerful a Congressional position as the GOP EVER HAD in its twelve years in control of the House. What editor "passed" on this crap?
This kind of coverage comes as no surprise.
The New York Times is DEEPLY complicit in both a fundamental lack of criticism of George Bush during the 2000 and 2004 elections and, most damningly, a completely uncritical approach to covering the lies, deceptions and misinformation used by this administration and its proxies that led this nation into the Iraq war, a war which has cost 3000 Americans their lives. The New York Times is DEEPLY complicit in the war in Iraq. Nothing changes that fact. Not a half-hearted and unclear retraction. Not another in a long-running series of articles that snipe at Democrats while failing to hold the GOP to ANY reasonable standards of decency and honesty.
I apologize for the outrage, especially since it makes me seem so stereotypically "the blogger." History will not look kindly on the New York Times in this era. Not in the least.
The only people who have framed the 2006 election as a return to some kind of untrammelled "liberalism" that never once existed in this nation (tell me when...under Richard Nixon?...under Jimmy Carter?...under LBJ?) are the GOP, and now, Carl Hulse in the New York Times. This piece is riddled with talking points straight from Karl Rove's desk.
That happens when you forget something about our democracy.
The people decide. That's something the Times and George Bush are going to have to reckon with.
More power to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There's a great deal of work to do in D.C. No Democrat has claimed...ever...that the 110th Congress is going to be anything but a body committed to reflecting majority views of the American voters. The Democratic Congressional delegation reflects the American public deeply. That's a good thing.
It's the people's House, it's the people's Congress, and their job is to do the people's work. And that's exactly what the 110th Congress is going to do. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Comments