WaPo & NYT to The Palin Haters: All Hands On Deck!

Tomorrow the state of Alaska will release over 24,000 emails from Sarah Palin's yahoo account. To say the left is salivating at the chance to find/ make up new dirt on Palin would be an understatement. So rabid is their hatred for Palin both the Washington Post and The New York Times are asking their readers to help in the muckraking (mudslinging).

The New York Times: On Friday, the State of Alaska will release more than 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s e-mails covering much of her tenure as governor of Alaska. Times reporters will be in Juneau, the state capital, to begin the process of reviewing the e-mails, which we will be posting on NYtimes.com starting on Friday afternoon.

We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.

The Washington Post: Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governorSarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska's governor will be released Friday. That's a lot of e-mail for us to review so we're looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.
We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the e-mails. Participants can join from anywhere with a computer and an Internet connection.

The Washington Post appears to have jumped the shark a little too much. The blistering response from the reader's comments has forced them to drop the idea of hand picking their Palin Haters. WaPo will instead follow the New York Times model.

This method of using readers to dig dirt is actually called crowd sourcing. It is a method of mine data. What I want to know is why didn't the New York Times or the Washington Post employ this method on something that is truly vital to America like the 3,000 pages of ObamaCare. We all know no one in Washington read that monster before it passed. Yet, here are two supposedly legitimate newspapers getting a mob together to create a Palin Hating gang bang. The whole thing reeks of media bias and fascism to me.

One thing for sure, Sarah Palin's greatest strength is that she generates so much hate from the left, that they are willing to drop all their phony veneers of compassion, tolerance, objectivity, you name it just to smear her. This unmasking will only work in her favor.

You know what would serve The Washington Post and The New York Times right? If everyone who likes Palin or who hates media bias read the emails and just draw attention to the nice ones. You know point out emails where Palin says something nice to her kids or shares a recipe or does something for a constituent. We should flood both papers with a gazzion tips on how wonderful Palin is. Make both newspapers sift through more tips than the actual number of emails just to find the dirt they are looking for. Hey, in these tough economic times, if we have to work like dogs to make a living, shouldn't the folks at WaPo and the Times have to do the same?

By the way, make sure to check out the comment at The Washington Post, they are blistering

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The New York Times
Via: The Washington Post

Oh Crap! Lefties are starting to realize Pelosi 2.0 is a bad idea

Perhaps Republicans and conservatives made a little too much noise salivating over the idea of Nancy Pelosi once again leading the Dems.  Perhaps the concussion of The Shellacking is wearing off or maybe the stench of a bad idea is just too great to ignore.  Either way resistance to Pelosi as minority whip is starting to build.

The New York Times, which might as well be the DNC Newsletter, is sending up warning flags today.

Nancy Pelosi has been an extremely effective speaker of the House for four years, shepherding hundreds of important bills toward passage and withstanding solid Republican opposition. Her work in passing health care reform and strong ethics oversight achieved what many thought was legislatively impossible. But is she really the best the Democrats can come up with as their leader as they slip into the minority?

Ms. Pelosi announced on Friday that she would seek the post of House minority leader. That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public’s throat. Both Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are inside players who seem to visibly shrink on camera when defending their policies, rarely connecting with the skeptical independent voters who raged so loudly on Tuesday.

Yes, yes, I know there the Times still has a tough of delusion thrown in for good measure, but the message of no Pelosi 2.0 is clear.

The New York Times isn’t the only ones thinking along these lines. Some of the Democrats who were defeated during the Midterm Elections have penned a letter to Pelosi asking her to step aside for the good of the Party.

FOX has obtained a letter being penned by defeated House Democrats that implores House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to step aside.

The letter is now circulating Capitol Hill and has not yet been sent to the Speaker. FOX has obtained draft language of the letter.

In the draft of the letter, the members say that they were “victimized by a national wave of resentment toward Democrats, a wave that ensnared you along with us.”

The letter goes on to say “Madam Speaker, fairly or unfairly, Republicans made you the face of the resentment and disagreement in our races. While we commend your years of service to our party and your leadership through many tough times, we respectfully ask that you step aside as the top Democrat in the House.”

The letter says that the defeated members “fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing, they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership, in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting.”

The lawmakers also say that “one mark of a strong leader is the ability to discern when it is time to pass the baton” and calls this a “dark hour.”

The letter closes asking Pelosi to step aside.

Um, good luck with that Dems.  If Nancy Pelosi could blow off the American People, there isn’t a snowball chance in hell she is going to listen to a bunch of losers. 

I still hope the Dems go off the cliff one more time and nominate Pelosi.  While having Harry Reid around as a constant reminder is nice, Pelosi is really the one people hate.  Come on Dems give us Nancy 2.0, pretty please?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: Fox News

New York Times finally sees flaws in ObamaCare

Here is another example why the New York Times is only suitable for fish wrap. The Times is just now figuring out that even with subsidies, some people still will not be able to afford to buy health insurance under ObamaCare.

New York Times: William Mann of Pittsburgh earns just enough to get by. He is 46, doesn’t own a car, hasn’t taken a vacation in three years and hasn’t had health insurance for most of his adult life.

But Mr. Mann says he still can’t afford it. He lives too close to the edge, and won’t be buying insurance, even though he will face a fine under a provision called the individual mandate, which penalizes most Americans who don’t buy coverage starting in 2014. The requirement is one of the most controversial aspects of the overhaul.

“I just can’t put that kind of money out for a ‘maybe’ — maybe I’ll get sick and use it,” said Mr. Mann, who makes just over $25,000 a year as an administrative assistant at a small wine distribution company. “That’s a lot of money.”

“The people who make all these decisions don’t live like the way I do,” Mr. Mann added, echoing other uninsured people in his income group. “They don’t live like the rest of us.”

Any American who is living paycheck to paycheck is going to have the same problem. This should have been terribly obvious to everyone inside the beltway. There are many people who simply have no extra money to buy something as expensive as health insurance, no matter how much you subsidize it.

Many people on tight budgets will have no choice but to pay the fine rather than buy the insurance. The IRS is already planning to take the penalty out of tax refunds for anyone who does not have proof of health insurance. People like Mann will then end up with no health insurance and no refund. Now how is this any better than what we had before?

Repeal ObamaCare!

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times 

The New York Times Board of Directors is whiter than a Tea Party

Oops, looks like we have a case of people in glass houses throwing stones. Yesterday, New York Times columnist Charles Blow, said he found the Dallas Tea Party he attended to be a minstrel show because of the lack of diversity. Well it looks like Mr. Blow might want to check out the minstrel show going on right under his very nose.

Below is the New York Times Board of Directors:

Just One Minute blog caught this glaring lack of diversity at the New York Times: 

… Meanwhile, I am eagerly awaiting a correction on this from Mr. Blow:

A New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic. It’s almost all white.

It's almost all white and he has the pictures to prove it.  Ooops, my bad - that was a link to the NY Times Board of Directors, which seems to be utterly free of any Hispanic, black or Asian presence.  

The left is oh so very quick to point out the lack of diversity in everything the right does, but they seem very reluctant to apply the same standards to themselves. Never fear, Michelle Malkin put on her racial bean counting cap and takes a closer look at just how diverse the media really is.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Just One Minute

Via: Michelle Malkin

The New York Times is still on the “Obama is a god” shtick

This photo appears on the New York Times website under yet another health care story.  One would think after all the plunging poll numbers, a year with zero accomplishments and tons of divisiveness, the geniuses at the New York Times would have figured out by now that Obama isn’t a god. In every society there are Gods and Clods. Obama clearly falls in the Clod category.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: South Park Studios

Paul Krugman has an epiphany

Since Scott Brown’s victory, we have witnessed a number of attitude adjustments from the Democrats in Congress. Now we are beginning to see the light bulb come on for some of Obama’s biggest Kool Aid drinkers in the media.

Paul Krugman from the New York Times has now realized that Obama “wasn’t the one we’ve been waiting for”: 

Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

Well, it has been pretty damn evident that Obama was breaking promises all last year.  The only reason the light bulb has now come on for Krugman is because healthcare is crashing and burning.

You will recall back in October, old Paul Krugman got caught on tape spilling the beans about the real reason behind healthcare reform (it’s all about single payer, folks).  So, if Krugman can lie about the real reasons behind healthcare reform, then he should not mind Obama lying to him about Hope and Change.

Read Krugman’s full piece, it’s a little bit of an eye opener.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

The New York Times calls its bias "insuffient tuned-in-ness"

The New York Times published the nuttiest thing I ever read today. The Public Opinion Editor, Clark Hoyt, tried to explain why the New York Times was so slow in reporting the Van Jones and ACORN stories.

In a nutshell he chalks it up to “insufficient tuned-in-ness” (how’s that for an ugly use of the English language) to conservative opinion sources. Meanwhile as he describes the turn of events that led to the Times insufficient tuned-in-ness, he ends up giving example after example of the paper’s bias towards conservatives.

Hoyt tells us that the Times has solved the problem of “insufficient tuned-in-ness” by appointing an unnamed editor to “monitor opinion media” (i.e. Fox News, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere)

This is such a joke. Does the Times actually think that will bring them up to speed? Basically they are going to pay some editor to sit and watch Glenn Beck, listen to Rush and read Michelle Malkin and think that they will be up to speed with conservative “opinion media”. Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!

The conservative blogosphere alone moves at the speed of light. I am already embarrassingly late posting on this topic; surely The New York Times with its vast resources can shoot for better.

The New York Times problem has always been its bias. It can make excuses all over the place, but we all know it is the bias. Hoyt himself make that clear when he said this [emphasis added]:

But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.

How polemical can these sources be when the were correct about both stories? That is where the problem lies New York Times. Luckily Michelle Malkin offers a helping hand to the new Tuned-in-ness Editor.

Personally I have no problem with the New York Times' bias. What bothers me the most is their utter dishonesty about it. I have far more respect for the Daily Kos, Huffington Post and leftwing bloggers because they are upfront about their slant. They do not pretend to be anything else but left of center. The New York Times would go a long way in improving their credibility if they would simply come out of their make believe closet once and for all.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: Michelle Malkin