Posted on 06/29/2006 8:01:43 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
June 29, 2006
As fellow NewsBuster Mithridate Ombud noted today, a San Francisco Chronicle columnist has flatly accused the Bush administration of anti-Semitism in its criticism of The New York Times for its latest leak of an anti-terror program. That this might be an emerging MSM theme is evidenced by a similar suggestion coming from Chris Matthews on this evening's Hardball.
The Times rose to prominence under the ownership of, Arthur Ochs, a Jew. His descendants, notably including the Times' current publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, continue to play a dominant role in the Times' affairs.
So when Chris Matthews repeatedly asks pointed questions about the motivation of the Bush White House in going after the Times to the exclusion of other papers, even going so far to affect a 'New Yawk' accent, it could be inferred that he is accusing the Bush administration of anti-Semitism, or at least of a cynical political calculation that flirts with such bigotry.
Matthews' guest was the charming and articulate Nicolle Wallace, who is wrapping up her tenure as White House Communications Director to accompany her husband to NYC - of all places - where he has accepted a position as part of our UN delegation. Matthews asked Wallace:
"Why does the United States focus all of its heat on the New York Times, not on the L.A. Times, not on the pro-business Wall Street Journal"?
Wallace: "The New York Times . . . made a decision that placed their right to publish something . . . ahead of protecting this [anti-terror] tool. We vigorously disagree. We desperately wish that they hadn't done so, because it took a tool away from us.
Matthews: "I think you may well be right. My instinct tells me you're right on the merits, but on the politics, why's the President going after just the New York Times?" Rather than awaiting Nicolle's response, Matthews decided to answer his own question:
"It's the old trick, go after New York, go after big ethnic New York way up there in the northeast that never votes Republican, blame everything on them." That's when Chris went did his best [not very good], impression of a New York accent: "You know, it's 'New Yawk.' Isn't that what the game here is being played?"
Wallace: "We're well beyond tricks, and certainly --"
Matthews: "Why not the L.A. Times,the Wall Street Journal, why not go after all three that ran the story? It seems like the old Barry Goldwater trick of saying 'cut off the eastern seaboard and we'll have a better country. It seems such a cheap political move."
Perhaps there's a suggestion of animosity to all things ethnic in Matthews's theory, but above all Chris seems to be accusing the Bush administration of animosity to Jews, the Times' powers-that-be.
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and Bush Chief of Staff Josh Bolten - both Jewish - will surely be interested to learn of this, not to mention the vast neo-con conspiracy of Jews from Kristol to Perle to Wolfowitz that liberals have so frequently accused of pulling White House strings.
Hardball/NewsBusters ping to Today show list.
For Matthews to imply that anti-semitism is involved, when he snidely spits out "new-cons" (a code word for Republican Jews) at every turn is an ultimate hypocricy.
That should be "neo-cons".
Because the NYT reported it first???
And they have a history ???
The libs are sinking pretty low to go down that route
This--after Chris has been pimping that anti-Semite Joe Wilson and his VIPer bed mates? Has he no shame?
This is one of the silliest and sloppiest leaps of logic I've read in a long time.
Just noticed your tagline...do you post over at youtube? The libs have trolls that heavily propagate over there.
Nope .. I just lurk there and other places
I've seen some of the lib video and well ... they are pretty dumb, imo
I've never been sold on this argument and it leaves room for what Matthews is claiming, namely "New York Times" is a code word for liberal Jews.
Seems they are experts at playing the race card or touting class warfare.
Chris Matthews, you're a nutty fruity granola bar. STFU.
He mentions the same people Buchanan refers to: Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams.
All Jews.
Trust me....Chris Matthews will leap on anything and try to skew it to make Bush the bad guy...
This sounds like it is implausible...but for Chrissy Matthews, no, not at all.
If he doesn't have anything to blame on Bush...he will through out anything, just to see if it sticks..
BTW...one of his guests tonight was Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe...who is a prissy little man, that it worse than Chrissy....eeesh
Really? Who do you think Chris had in mind when he talked about 'ethnic' New York? Dominicans, perhaps? - or the owners and operators of the New York Times? Couple it with the column appearing today in the newspaper where Chris worked for years - the San Francisco Chronicle - flatly accusing Bush of anti-Semitism, and I'd say he's buying into the theory.
1. The Wall Street Journal is published in New York.
2. Los Angeles, California is Republican??
3. Matthews is a putz. He makes absolutely no sense.
I have no fondness or patience for Matthews but that leap is simply inane.
Oy vey what a mess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.