NYTimes to McCain: Dude, You Can't Write

Forgetting for a second that McCain probably didn't write the thing himself, let's take a look at that Iraq policy op-ed of his that the NY Times refused to publish, in a move that has our favorite libertarian Frances Martel up in arms.

I’m not a John McCain fan by any means, but what glorified liberal rag The New York Times did to him and his editorial today crossed boundaries of objectivity and decency that should not have been crossed.

I think there's another answer, and it's this: McCain, or his speechwriter surrogate, submitted a genuinely unpublishable piece. Take a look for yourself over at the Drudge Report, which I commend for bringing this issue to light--not because I care about self-referential analysis of old media by new media, but because this op-ed is seriously educational, in a bad way.

Full disclosure: I think the surge worked. I thought it would, and I'm glad we did it. I do think we should think about eventually leaving a country we had no business in in the first place. But none of this has anything to do with why McCain's piece was rejected. I doubt it would have been accepted by the Crimson. It's a thinly-disguised attack ad, a shallow and partisan rhetorical stream. Case in point: It mentions Obama ten times. Ten. I'm excluding pronouns. (Examples, and much, much, much more, after the jump...)

Read more »

Just a note on today's economic figures

You may have heard about the Labor Dep't statistics released today showing a little decline in the unemployment rate and a "smaller-than-expected" contraction in jobs. This has caused Drudge, typically, to flip shit and argue that the economy is rebounding. Now, this is obviously insane for a couple different reasons -- but I want to remind everybody that the real story is still wages:

Companies are cutting working hours, even as many avoid layoffs. Those working part time because of slack business or out of failure to find full-time work swelled from to 5.2 million in April from 4.9 million in March. In percentage terms, employees working part time involuntarily climbed to the highest level since 1995.

The average weekly pay for rank-and-file workers — about 80 percent of the American work force — fell $3.55 in April, to $602.56 in inflation-adjusted terms. This figure has been generally falling since the end of 2006. Gains in pay have been canceled out by the soaring costs of food and energy.

Awesome rebound!

UPDATE (6 PM): Mike Shedlock argues that the numbers are simply bogus.

Why does Matt Drudge rule our world, again?

Read this fascinating profile of Matt Drudge, and ponder how irrational it is for our media elites to take marching orders from a man with no qualifications other than paranoid fantasies about Google implanting microchips in our skin, a flair for ferreting out stories who are both titillating and meaningless, and almost total amorality.

But Camille Paglia and Donna Brazile just lurv him (apparently he's got a sort of 'wounded bird' thing going), and the New York Times, it seems, consistently enables him.

He believes that people in surgery have had chips implanted without their knowledge, that the day will come when the government will “dart” a chip into you without your permission, and that DNA will be collected from spit on the street, “and then they can impose any rule, even against smiling.”

Maybe there's something to be said for our mainstream media gatekeepers, if the alternative is turning over our info filtering responsibilities to this paranoiac recluse.

"But You Just Can't Say That"

Everyone's pal Drudge, in an unusually accurate and realistic headline choice, links to this story as "John Edwards: 'We'll have to raise taxes'...". The gist:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

Now, it's understandable why Drudge would choose not to embellish this story with his usual breathless right-wing hyperbole (HILLARY: 'I WILL CRUSH YOU'). A politician looking into the camera and saying "let's raise taxes" has, historically, been tantamount to suicide (see: Mondale, Walter).

But I'm not so sure that, in today's political climate, this is the same kind of flamethrower it once was. Since the departure of smaller-government harpies like Newt Gingrich and the emergence of more tangible problems, there has been little public discussion of taxes. The issue is worming its way out of our consciousness, or at least our newscasts. Further, Americans are generally in favor of a more-nationalized health care system, and with reservations endorse such a thing even if it means an increase in taxes (see this ABC/Post poll from 2003 which found a stunning 80% willing to accept a tax raise for universal health care). The 80s are over, Reagan is dead, and it seems like the old "tax-and-spend liberal" accusation might be losing its luster.

And more generally, one can hope that American voters are ready to respect the honesty of such a policy. I'm sure I have a bias here, considering that I worship the ground on which John Edwards walks, but: a scenario can be imagined where the electorate says "Hey, he's got the balls to say it, I'm impressed with his courage and conviction." It's at least a nice contrast from the typical politician, whose campaign produces Miracle Wonder Solutions for everything which never ever have negative repercussions. ("More social programs!" "Lower taxes!" "Balanced budget!" "Tastes great!" "Less filling!")

Edwards may be ahead of his time in rejecting the tyranny of Grover Norquist, and/or Drudge may be behind the times in accusing him of an antiquated political faux pas. I'm not sure. But the way this plays, especially if Edwards' unveiling of his detailed plan on Monday receives significant coverage, may be revealing as to how the tax issue markets in the 21st century. Keep an eye out.

Update: Taegan Goddard at Political Wire is feeling it. "[H]e's the "straight talk" candidate... Edwards seems to have little interest in dancing around tough issues and finessing his answers... he comes across as a very different kind of politician. It's worth watching."

Oh, Matt Drudge! Enlighten Us, Matt Drudge! Save Us, Matt Drudge!

Either that old crank knows something we don't, or the Crimson is more influential than we realize... developing...

Update: Hah. What Drudge "developed" was an NYT article that contains absolutely no news at all.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Jan. 4 — Could Harvard be preparing to select a woman as its new president? A scientist? A female scientist?

Only the nine members of the university’s secretive presidential search committee know for certain — or whether they are leaning in any direction at all. The search to replace Lawrence H. Summers is as opaque as the selection of a pope and has posturing worthy of a political campaign.

Another scoop for online journalism!

Update 2: Sahil Mahtani at Gadfly has some great commentary on this pseudo-journalism, especially the Crimson's.