Tag: NYT

Join Jim and Greg as they cheer President Trump’s selection of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court. They also dig into the New York Times story on Trump’s taxes and discuss what might be damaging and what’s just noise. And they discuss the spectrum of attacks Democrats and their media allies are aiming at Judge Barrett – from Obamacare scares to bashing her for being a working mom to why adopting kids from Haiti is somehow troubling.

Join Jim and Greg as they welcome the sanity of Attorney General Bill Barr in the face of congressional Democrats who refuse to acknowledge the violence and destruction in the streets, much less do anything about it.  They also enjoy hearing how Sen. Kamala Harris may have damaged her chance of being Joe Biden’s running mate.  And they get a kick out of the tone-deaf rich people complaining to the New York Times about having to ride out the pandemic at their summer homes in the Hamptons.

Join Jim and Greg as they applaud former New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss for resigning and blasting the Times for becoming a forum only for the far left. They also chronicle Joe Biden’s ongoing embrace of the Bernie Sanders agenda, which is curious since he was nominated for not being Bernie Sanders. And they dissect the ego and delusion required for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to create a poster to explain what a terrific job he did handling the COVID outbreak in his state.

They Eat Their Own

 

The commitment of journalism to the distorted and deceptive Leftist agenda has been something amazing to watch, particularly in the past year. For the most part, everyone has fallen into lockstep with the powers-that-be, either out of a shared agenda or out of fear. Now we can see that even at the highest levels, no one, even in journalism which is dominated by the Left, is safe.

Last week, Tom Cotton wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that was met with outrage. (It is now behind a paywall.) Not only did he support President Trump’s commitment to securing the country from the destruction and violence of rioters, but he was accused by the Times of putting people in danger:

The column drew criticism from inside and outside the New York Times newsroom as some readers and journalists interpreted the column as advocating actions that would put protestors and reporters in danger.

Join Jim and Greg as they cheer the recovery of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his heartfelt thanks to those who saved his life. They also slam Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for implementing insane restrictions like not being able to visit someone else’s home and not being able to buy plants, flowers, seeds, or even child car seats. And they unload on the New York Times for dismissing a woman’s sexual assault claim against Joe Biden by saying it could not find any other pattern of abuse except for the women who already accused him of hugs, kisses, and touching that made them uncomfortable.

Happy Monday!  Jim is in a good mood after a Jets win on Sunday and he’s fired up for all three martinis.  First, Jim and Greg applaud FedEx CEO Fred Smith for fighting back against smears from the New York Times that accused his company of evading taxes thanks to the recent tax reforms.  They also shred Prince Andrew for his absurd defenses against accusations he was connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile ring, including Andrew’s explanation that he stayed at Epstein’s house against his better judgment because he is “too honorable.”  And they break down the sloppy, clueless effort of the Pete Buttigieg campaign to connect with black voters in the 2020 campaign.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy watching some Democrats fret that Beto O’Rourke’s vow to take everyone’s AR-15 and AK-47 might convince voters that Democrats are after our guns.  They also shudder as Iranian-funded and armed rebels in Yemen attack Saudi oil production facilities, leading to much higher tensions in the region.  And they hammer the New York Times for publishing a new, salacious allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh while omitting the fact the alleged victim has no memory of the incident.

Losing the ‘Narrative’ Narrative?

 

Foucault mis readerIn the process of critically assessing the New York Times’ “1619 Project,” an author at The Spectator managed to misread Foucault. Please hang in there! I promise this is worth your while. I offer some helpful context for the “1619 Project,” and show that it is very vulnerable to attack from a post-modern icon. You need not trot out conservative arguments that fall on deaf ears. You can turn Foucault on the New York Times.

John Hinderaker, of Power Line Blog, offered a commonsense analysis of the NYT “racism” narrative:

A normal person might wonder why the Democratic Party, in the person of the New York Times, is so obsessed with slavery, which was abolished 154 years ago. Isn’t it time to move on? Forty or fifty years ago, that is what just about everyone thought. But the Times, on behalf of the Democratic Party, is trying to stir up race hatred. Democrats think racial hostility is essential to defeating President Trump in 2020–their paramount goal, next to which everything else is an afterthought. They face a problem, in that Trump has been the best president for blacks, certainly since Reagan, maybe forever. So, they say, let’s focus on 1619. And then go out and vote for Democrats, the party of slavery and Jim Crow.

Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss female Connecticut athletes in Connecticut filing a federal discrimination complaint against their state’s policy on allowing biological males who identify as females to compete against biological females. They also talk about The New York Times excluding questions concerning abortion in favor of fluff questions for the Democratic presidential candidates. And they discuss Joe Biden boasting about his past work relationships with segregationist colleagues in the Senate.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America recoil at the synagogue shooting in southern California but also honor the heroes who made sure the attack was not far deadlier.  They also wince as the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association ends in a very public dispute between two top officials, foreshadowing what may be a very difficult year to come.  They slam the New York Times for publishing two anti-Semitic cartoons within just a couple of days.  And they remember the late Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America walk through three major media embarrassments in recent days.  They react as CNN’s Brian Stelter suggests everyone but the mainstream media is responsible for lavish coverage of the alleged assault of actor Jussie Smollett, which now appears to have been fabricated.  They also shake their heads as the reporters covering Kamala Harris ooh and ah over the clothes she tries on at a campaign stop in South Carolina.  And they push back hard as the New York Times suggests Republicans are “painting” Democrats as socialists, baby-killers, and anti-Semitic in advance of the 2020 campaign.

David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America dissect the Mueller indictments of Trump ally Roger Stone and how the latest revelations should concern the president.  They also comb through the indictment and marvel at Stone’s intimidation tactics, which David likens to a rejected script for a mobster film.  And they slam the New York Times for trying to pile on Christian education by begging young people to #exposeChristianschools.

Welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast for September 6, 2018 (number 190!!!) it is the Zero Loyalty edition of the podcast with your unfailingly loyal hosts radio guy Todd Feinburg and AI-guy Mike Stopa.

This week, in our loyal way, we discuss the treachery inside the White House, the head-rearing of the Deep State, the grandiosity-possessed #NeverTrumper with a grudge who has decided to launch a tirade against the President because of some confused psychodrama going on in his head. (Trust me, it’s a “he”). Does it make any sense to rail against Trump as being “un-democratic” while speaking furtively from your un-elected sinecure in the public employ?

Member Post

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/realestate/not-everyone-is-jolly-about-christmas-trees-in-the-lobby.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fask-real-estate On a forgotten front of a forgotten war, a dedicated unit of troops – D (Dick) Company of the 41st Journalism Brigade, known as “The Old Grey Ladies” fights on. What we owe them for their sacrifice can never be repaid. Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

It’s pretty simple. Hillary can’t be prosecuted because she was only “extremely careless” (Comey), but not “grossly negligent” (the law), and the NYT can’t be prosecuted because it’s only grossly “negligent” (the judge), but doesn’t evince “reckless disregard” (the law). Liberals call this “nuance”, a French word meaning “Heads I win, tails you lose.” Preview […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Moderates in Paradise: David Brooks

 

David Brooks during a commercial break on Meet The Press.David Brooks, the reflexively moderate New York Times columnist, is at it again, this time lamenting those poor, confused Iowa Christians who believe that the Bible’s injunction “Do not show partiality to the poor” means, well … not showing partiality to the poor. According to Brooks, this idea should extend to both policy and political discourse, but the parlance employed by the likes of Ted Cruz is deemed un-Christian by the pant-crease impresario.

Brooks finds evangelical support for Ted Cruz inscrutable. They are supposed to respond to the reassuring tones of Mike Huckabee or the pleasantly sleep-inducing Ben Carson. This is why Brooks — whose column is characterized by his unfunny and, apparently, unself-aware tendency to lecture Christians about how they should comport themselves — is confused by Cruz’s lead in Iowa. These Iowa Christians don’t seem to know their place anymore. Trump? Cruz? Please! It’s not like Iowa evangelicals have witnessed much undesired change during Obama’s tenure.

Brooks sees little in America that has changed in Obama’s tenure for evangelicals to complain about. Why don’t they simply roll with it now that divorce law is deemed fit for basket cases likes Oregon and Illinois while while marriage be defined once-and-for by one man in a robe? It’s a play so absurd, Harold Pinter and Harold Becket together couldn’t have conceived of it.