I’ve used that label to describe The New York Times editorial page for the better part of a decade. The filibuster is either a great evil or an honorable tool depending on who it is being wielded against. And then we get this: Thankfully, some Senate Republicans also seem to understand the importance of the […]
The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto catches The New York Times editorial page in one of its classic partisan flip-flops. "In its closing months, the Bush administration is pulling out all the stops in its eight-year effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act. In mid-August, the administration proposed two dangerous regulatory changes. One would free […]
This is probably old news for most of you who follow the blogosphere closely, but I've had these articles taking up valuable space in my browser and I've been meaning to point this out for a week. Human Rights Watch is not a human rights organization. It is a Democrat advocacy group that only cares […]
I often use the construction in the headline to refer to The New York Times editorial page. Most notably, I refer to that page's double-standard when it came to the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees. When filibusters were threatened (not executed) against nominees of President Bill Clinton, the page decried the practice. When […]
I've made this point repeatedly regarding the New York Times editorial page, but it applies to many other newspaper editorialists -- they are partisan, not principled. For the past couple years this has produced hypocrisy on the issue of judicial filibusters. Both the Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune -- among others -- have exposed themselves […]
I've long argued that the New York Times editorial page is partisan, not principled. Most recently, the Times bemoaned the failure to throw money at the New Orleans levee system in the wake of Hurricane Katrina -- yet months earlier they had attacked funding for the levees as unnecessary pork. So, today it should be […]
Texas Sen. John Cornyn has a letter to the editor in today's New York Times that exposes that the editorial page's opposition to changing the filibuster rule all depends on who is trying to do it. To the Editor: "The Senate on the Brink" (editorial, March 6) supports the "historic role of the filibuster," which […]
For some reason, law professors tend to be a little more respected than their gun-for-hire brethren who will argue any position if the money is right. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe is a liberal, but he’s also a respected legal theorist. And like your average run of the mill lawyer, he can be bought. In […]
I often criticize The New York Times editorial page for being partisan, not principled. But MSNBC anchorman Keith Olbermann is giving them a run for their money. As you can see from this video courtesy of OlbermannWatch.com, Olbermann is not merely a partisan Democrat, but he's even made his decision on which Democrat he is […]
If you haven't already read this, do it now. It's an account of how the New York Times didn't feel as outraged about the Clinton administration's wide-ranging Echelon spying program as they do about the Bush administration's comparatively limited surveillance program. I've often said of the Times editorial page that it is partisan, not principled. […]