<i>The New York Times</i> and election year politics

[Rule of Reason Blog]

By Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The chum that is being thrown out this cycle is just so uninspiring. It goes without saying that I often disagree with the editorial stands of The New York Times, but the Republicans' recent charge of treason over the newspaper's disclosure of a secret government program to monitor international finances is simply absurd. Why? Because if info about a convert program was leaked to the public, it was leaked by an administration official—the administration official caused the leak to happen, and he bears the burden of responsibility for any negative fallout—not the The New York Times. Furthermore, the existence of a monitor program was common knowledge; according to the AP, it had been alluded to in a UN report as early as 2002.

So why then is the The New York Times the focus of all this high and mighty criticism while the source of the government leak is hardly an afterthought? That’s easy to answer—attacking The New York Times appeals to the Republican base during an election cycle and steers attention away from the government’s own failure to police its ranks.

What bothers me is that we’ve seen this before. Remember the Martha Stewart case and the charge of insider trading? The “inside information” she was investigated for acting upon was the Food and Drug Administrations’ refusal to grant approval for the product of a pharmaceutical company. That information was leaked by a government official, but he certainly didn’t pay for his leak; it was only Martha Stewart and the pharmaceutical company’s CEO, Sam Waksal who were sentenced to jail.

Will that be the story with The New York Times? It remains to be seen, but if I were them, I would start circling the wagons. When this administration wants to draw blood in order to score political points, it is utterly ruthless.

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001781.html

[Dismuke]

By Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The chum that is being thrown out this cycle is just so uninspiring. It goes without saying that I often disagree with the editorial stands of The New York Times, but the Republicans' recent charge of treason over the newspaper's disclosure of a secret government program to monitor international finances is simply absurd. Why? Because if info about a convert program was leaked to the public, it was leaked by an administration official—the administration official caused the leak to happen, and he bears the burden of responsibility for any negative fallout—not the The New York Times.

I haven't followed this all that closely - but the speculation I have heard is that the leak was most likely caused by someone in the State Department which I understand is rife with Leftist sympathizers who are deliberately out to sabotage the War and our national security in order to score political points and vent their nihilistic hatred of this country. Now why the State Department and CIA as well continues to have such individuals and the Administration does not have a massive purge of such creeps is utterly beyond me. Perhaps the Administration deserves blame for not doing so. But, for all I know, political or legal reality as their hands tied on taking necessary action. Maybe someone can shed more light on this for me.

Either way, just because the New York Times might have a legally protected right to print such a story does not mean that they have a moral right to do so. That rag DOES deserve the condemnation that it is getting regardless of any shortfall of the Republicans on blaming their own.

ANY organization can have a rogue person in its ranks - that does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate to blame the entire organization. That may or may not be appropriate to do so according to the particular circumstances. The behavior of the New York Slimes, however is not the work of a rogue individual - it is the conscious deliberate policy of that vile and corrupt organization to undercut the war effort for no other reason than they are a bunch of evil, intellectually dishonest Leftists. To me, that is far more worthy of condemnation than mere incompetence which may or may not be the case here with the Administration.

So why then is the The New York Times the focus of all this high and mighty criticism while the source of the government leak is hardly an afterthought? That’s easy to answer—attacking The New York Times appeals to the Republican base during an election cycle and steers attention away from the government’s own failure to police its ranks.

Perhaps you have a valid point about the need to be critical of the Administration. But what do you propose that Republican political operatives and commentators do during an election cycle - vocally point out the incompetence of their own party so as to swing the election to the Democrats and perhaps get us one step closer to what the New York Times really wants to happen: for Jimmy Carter, Algore and Jacques Kerry to make a visit to Tehran and Venezuela and apologize for America being such a rotten and evil country? That is what they want, you know.

Despite their many, many faults, the Administration DOES want to win the war - the Left does not. The Left these days consists of nothing more than a bunch of Stalinists who couldn't care less about the fate and future of the country if it is a country in which they are not able to satisfy their insatiable lust for power for power's sake.

Will that be the story with The New York Times? It remains to be seen, but if I were them, I would start circling the wagons. When this administration wants to draw blood in order to score political points, it is utterly ruthless.

I only wish the Administration were utterly ruthless when dealing with its enemies. If it were, George Bush would be out there calling a spade a spade and using the "T-word" (treason) every time evil Stalinist scumbags such as Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, Sheehan, Pelosi and others open their traps and exhale wind. Treason IS what these people are guilty of, after all, in the moral, if not legal, sense of the word. If the Administration was ruthless enough and had the courage to do that, they would have the courage to fight the war the way it needs to be fought.

My question is this: how on EARTH can you call the Administration ruthless towards its enemies in order to score political points in comparison to the extremes that its enemies go? Are you familiar with Fahrenheit 911? Have you not heard the speeches that Kerry, Kennedy and Algore have made? Are you not familiar with the trumped up charges by a deranged rogue Leftist district attorney that basically forced Tom DeLay out of office on nothing more than mere accusations? DeLay may have his faults - but what happened to him in nothing short of an attempt to criminalize someone on the basis of his ideology. Consider how Rush Limbaugh has been politically persecuted by a rogue Leftist prosecutor in Florida based on the here say of a disgruntled former domestic servant with Florida law being trampled all over in an attempted fishing trip into his private medical records in absence of any other evidence that he did anything illegal? And how about the New York Times the other day plastering before the world the fact that the man uses Viagra - which is NOBODYS business but his own - because a customs check happened to find a bottle of the pills in his luggage? Would something like this happen to Al Franken or Cindy Sheehan? Think of the outcry by the New York Times if it did. There is an ongoing attempt to criminalize Rush Limbaugh because of his ideology - and the New York Times is more than willing to plaster his personal life all over the newspaper and smear his good name (like the story they ran a few years accusing him of "money laundering" which turned out to be nothing) because he is effective in presenting his ideas. Think what you like of his ideas - he is an American citizen who faces legal harassment by because of his ideas and the fact that he expresses them vocally and effectively. Quite frankly that scares me - along with the fact that we have people in high places in the government and at newspapers such as the New York Times who want us to lose the war. The Administration deserves criticism for many things. But to suggest that it is somehow being unethically ruthless in trying to score political points in light of the behavior of its political enemies - well, I consider that to be very bizarre and profoundly unjust.

Sorry to be so brusk - but this editorial kind of ticked me off a bit and I am short on time to edit it down to sound more polite.

[Dismuke]

what the New York Times really wants to happen: for Jimmy Carter, Algore and Jacques Kerry to make a visit to Tehran and Venezuela and apologize for America being such a rotten and evil country? That is what they want, you know.

I should have added that I meant the above to read visit Tehran and Venezuela as an officially sanctioned representitive of US foriegn policy. It is probably only a matter of time before they do just that in the capacity of private citizens.