The shame of NBC.

A mostly political Weblog.
April 20 2007 4:24 PM

Brian Williams or Don Imus?

Who did more damage? It's not even close.

(Continued from Page 8)

Is that what John Burns thinks? Just asking! ... P.S.: Note how the lede says Baghdad is partly calmer "as some death squads have decided to lie low"--leaving the reader with the impression that of course they will be back. But the body of the piece also notes that "[m]any militia leaders have been detained in raids by the American military ..." Why emphasize only the pessimistic explanation? I suspect Lede Tweaking by New York editors. ... P.P.S.: If NYT editors really had faith in this story, wouldn't they have titled it "Little Sign Surge Accomplishing Goal" instead of the dreary, L.A. Times-ish "Patterns of War Shift Amid U.S. Force Buildup"?  [Now you're saying they're not biased enough--ed. It's a bizarrely vapid hed. What's your explanation?] ... 12:12 A.M. link

Sunday, Ap ril 8, 2007

'Pelosi = Amnesty' Wake Up Call: When all four guests on the Chris Matthews Show agree on something, it is by definition CW--therefore the CW now holds that an immigration bill will pass and be signed into law this year, perhaps without many Republican votes. Remember, just because it's the CW doesn't mean it's wrong! ... And here I had been lulled into complacency by Kate O'Beirne's report that prospects for a bill were "pretty dim."  ...

In reality, it always seemed possible, even likely, that if Pelosi didn't get the Republican votes she needed to provide cover, she'd go ahead and pass a semi-amnesty law anyway, in part on the grounds that it would deal a long-range setback to the Republicans by bringing in millions of Dem-leaning Latino voters (both new and old). True, Democratic discontent with "comprehensive" reform is already bubbling to the surface. The party will be pulled in divergent directions: Latino activists are upset about the fees  Bush would charge for legalization;** but left-wing netrootsy populists aren't happy about the wage-dampening effect of all those guestworkers. Here's a blog example. ("Lets all support giving our jobs away via "Guest Worker.")

Why would Pelosi want to stop the Republicans ripping themselves apart over immigration and start the Democrats ripping themselves apart over immigration? Possible answers: 1) She's a fool; 2) She knows the Republicans won't stop ripping themselves apart; and 3) She knows it's inevitable that the Dems will start ripping themselves apart soon enough, so the time to pass a bill is now, before the dueling sides have ginned up, when she can sneak a semi-amnesty past the unions (who have lots of other items on their agenda) and the netroots (who are focused mainly on Iraq) without losing an election over it. ...

Advertisement

O.K. But then why would Republicans want to pass it? Possible answers: 1) They're fools; they've deluded themselves, Rove-style, into thinking it will help their party in the long run (even though this is a zero-sum game, and legalization can't help both the Dems and the GOPs); 2) They don't want to pass it. Only Bush  does; 3) The party's business donors want to pass it; 4) They will sacrifice their long term interest, and the nation's long term interest, in order to 'get the issue off the table' for the 2008 election (even though Bush is the one who brought it up).

In any case, foes of legalization--people who worry, with good reason, that the promise of legalization will attract another 12 million illegals before border controls can be put in place--can't rely on "comprehensive" reform gridlocking itself. The CW has sounded; they should consider themselves warned. ... Krikorian, this means you! ...

Update:WaPo's immigration preview is Old CW. ...

**--Of course the fees could be lowered later, once it's discovered that the vast majority of illegals won't go for a deal that would have them pay $3,500 to pay for a three-year visa, or $10,000 for permanent residency. ... 10:55 P.M. link

Goosing the News, Left Edition: In Iraq, radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has urged his forces to unite and avoid fighting alongside U.S. forces, whom he called the "enemy"--but according to WaPo's Sudarsan Raghavan  he

stopped short of telling his fighters to rise up against the American troops ....

  Slate Plus
Working
Nov. 27 2014 12:31 PM Slate’s Working Podcast: Episode 11 Transcript Read what David Plotz asked a helicopter paramedic about his workday.