Googling the NY Times Letters to the Editor

New York Times ^ | 09/18/2006 | NY Times

[relictele]

Let’s Read the G.O.P. Tea Leaves (5 Letters)

To the Editor:

In “How to Win by Losing” (Op-Ed, Sept. 13), Ramesh Ponnuru argues that Republicans could “win by losing” if they fail to maintain control of the House but keep the Senate in 2006, because this would put the G.O.P. in a better position to win in 2008....

[relictele]

Haven't done this in a while. In a way, it's fish in a barrel. The NY Times and its readership have always acted as mutual echo chambers for the paranoid, vain and pessimistic.

Today's letters on the state of the GOP represent an extra-special batch of hate for poor old Ramesh Ponnuru who dared to suggest the possibility of a Congressional split (Dem House, GOP Senate) and how it might benefit the GOP for the two-year term 2006-2008.

David Schildknecht – he’s top of the list since we have two (!) pictures.  Hello Frisco!  Don’t think we’ll bump into him at the concession stand at the Friday night football game.

http://www.erobertparker.com/info/dschildknecht.asp

http://www.wineloverspage.com/wines/wt020601.shtml

 

 

Tad Blair – could be more than one in sprawling LA but…a Psych prof at an institution of higher learning in LA writing to the NYT?  Odds are good but not a lock.

 

http://www.mentalhealth.ucla.edu/opce/jsn.html

 

http://www.bri.ucla.edu/bri_who/BRI_members.asp

 

 

Mel Minthorn – occupation listed as ‘hand-wringer’ on his tax return.  A couple of his prior letters.  I imagine he worries about opening the toothpaste every morning lest the evil spirts escape the tube.  You know the drill:  American bad, military worse, we can’t wait to conquer the world.  Of course, they never get round to explaining why the world’s lone superpower WOULDN’T conquer the world before everyone else catches up…

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E5DD1E31F932A15750C0A9659C8B63

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/opinion/l11katrina.html?ex=1158724800&en=b02c07828c8b8dcf&ei=5070

 

 

[MNJohnnie]

More absurd nonsense. Democrat House- THIS GOP Senate would be the worst of all worlds for the Conservatives.

Here is what the rabidly ignorant bomb throwers pretending to be "Conservatives" are advocating.

"Gee we have held 2/3s of the US Federal Government for 4 years after being out of power in one or more branches for 70 some years and everything is NOT perfect! Since we are getting 60% of what we want, not the 100% of what we feel we want, granted to us the second we want it, let us throw a political tempetantrum so we can get 100% of what we claim to loath imposed on us by our foes and hope we somehow magically win back the Government some day"

More political ignorance from the Always Angry Know Nothings who wrongly call themselves "Conservatives", and the "Pretend I am a Conservative" Democrat activists, in the Junk Media.

Riddle me this Angry ones. What US President signed 2 Tax INCREASES, an Illegal Alien Amnesty and ran from a Islamic Terrorist threat all while presiding over a doubling of the size of the Federal Government?

That right Ronald Reagan. Using this 100%er "lets throw a churlish termpertantrums because we cannot have ONLY 100% of ONLY what We want the second we want it" standard, REAGAN was not a Conservative!!

Consider this. Given the powers of Incumbency and the ability of the moon bat leadership of the Democrat party to write Campaign Fiance laws, the notion that Conservative would ever gain back Congress is an wild leap of faith. It is a naive notion without any serious base in factual reality. Add to that slim chance of victory this thought. IF the Democrats take back Congress and re implement the Fairness Doctrine and destroy Talk Radio, the "Win By Losing" crowds blanket assumptions go from merely risky to utterly insane.

Perhaps the Conservative Political Suicide Club MIGHT want to consider there will be NO legal way to go back and UNDO the blanket amnesty the Democrats will pass EVEN if Conservatives win back the Congress at some future point.
Not A Guest Worker program, a real full bore legalization of all the illegals.

What is it about pseudo Conservative Talking Heads that they want to fire the ONLY people, the US House GOP that have been sane on Border Enforcement?

Then, on top of that, look at this? Democrats want to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1703526/posts?page=1

What happens to this "Win by losing" dogma if their wildly optimistic assumptions have to be realized without Talk Radio to carry their media message?

That right Conservatives, your wildly fantasies go from wildly implausible to abased.

Conservatives cannot win by losing! It an idiotic notion put forward by political never beens. It chidish nonsense

[MNJohnnie]

Hmm seems the letter writers are vastly more sane then the Freeper Fringers with their absurd political fantasies of "winning by losing".

[weegee]

Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

[drubyfive]

What about Dave Scott and Fred Gray?

[BigSkyFreeper]

Only liberals think they can win by losing.

[relictele]

What about Dave Scott and Fred Gray?

Guilty. But those are fairly common names/spellings so Google just threw up a ton of results. It's not paid work after all :)

[Maelstrom]

So let's just agree that people to the Left of Reagan harm conservative agendas and keep them out of the primaries.

As for the Fairness Doctrine...all I can say is McCain/Feingold.

((McCain somes first in that deal))

You are censored, courtesy of "conservatives" like McCain (80% Conservative rating ACU).

[drubyfive]

On David A. Scott of Columbus, Ohio and Frederick T. Gray Jr. of Chester, Virginia, Google turns up complete white pages listings for both. I can't find anything more on Scott, but Gray wrote a letter to his Congressman in 2001 protesting the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov under the Digitial Millennium Copyright Act. It also appears that his father was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and an appointed Virginia Secretary of State during the 1960s.

I've always thought that most letter-to-the-editor writers probably do it regularly, so I checked out these five names in the NY Times archives. It turns out that Scott and Gray were first-timers (at least that were published). Schildknecht has had three letters published in the past, Blair has had six, and Mel Minthorn of Wilton CT is the champion with 10 letters published since November 2001.

[relictele]

Schildknecht has had three letters published in the past, Blair has had six, and Mel Minthorn of Wilton CT is the champion with 10 letters published since November 2001.

For all the wide readership the Times claims, they have an awful lot of retreads on the letters page. Of course, they could pick any letter at random and get the same flavor of tripe but it makes me wonder:

- Is their editorial readership smaller than claimed? - Are they cherry-picking letters? - Will they print a letter that isn't a note-for-note rehash of points already made by the Times in-house lefties?

Mind you there are a couple of letter-writing fanatics on the right, notably Paul Bloustein of Cincinnati and Oren M. Spengler of Upper St. Clair PA. How do I know these names/locations? Because they write a truckload of letters every day and are published often in the NY Post, USA Today, etc. They are entitle to their opinion of course but they seem to think that all of us are entitled to it as well.

[drubyfive]

If I were editing any of those op-ed pages, frequent letter-writers would have a much higher hurdle to clear to make it in. The most important factor would still be cogency, but all things being equal I'd give preference to writers that had not been published in the last year.