Posted on 11/28/2007 2:29:35 PM PST by JWR_Editor
Last week, in an article titled "Walking a Tightrope on Immigration," The New York Times made the fact-defying claim that the illegal immigration issue poses a risk for Republicans who appeal to voters "angry" about illegal immigration. (This is as opposed to voters "angry" that they spent good money buying a copy of The New York Times.)
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
What the NYT knows or understands about Republicans could be deposited up an ant’s rectum and it would roll around like a pea in a boxcar.
As always, Ann is spot on.
New York Times cut to sell at Banc of America
A mild recession could knock Ebitda 19% below consensus, firm says
By Robert Daniel, MarketWatch
Last Update: 8:26 AM ET Nov 28, 2007Print E-mail Subscribe to RSS Disable Live Quotes
TEL AVIV (MarketWatch) — New York Times Co. on Wednesday was downgraded to sell from neutral at Banc of America Securities, which estimated that the onset of a mild recession could knock the media giant’s 2008 pretax earnings 19% below the current Wall Street consensus.
Socialism is a mind altering drug, the only way to treat socialism is stop buying! Nothing a socialist hates more than someone that refuses to pay
Isn’t there a better way to wrap fish?
ML/NJ
Shop-rite plastic wrap?And without the stink of socialism, I'm sure.
The NY Times, aka the paper of phoniness has a hard time admitting that in liberal NYS 70+ were opposed to licenses for illegal aliens.
In Southeast, NY, which is near NYC Michael Rights just won by promising to clean up the town of "Day Laborers" while in Long Island the fight continues to do the same.
This democratic, unionized, blue collar state is no different than the rest of the country, people of all political persuasions want the laws enforced and with no more coddling. It is NOT solely a Republican issue.
Wooda never thunk of that comparison!
News print done this way makes a great packing material ... which the out of work type setters, writers and big wigs could then buy on the corner ... you know ... to pack with on their way out of town!
The NYT has become to liberalism what Iraq is to terrorism, a festering pit where the afflicted can congregate so that we don’t have to deal with them in the civilized world. It provides a kind of social service - like a sewage processing plant.
“San Francisco, a city where intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is not considered unusual.”
Of course it’s not considered “unusual,” because it’s not unusual. Now, if they weren’t intoxicated... That would be unusual.
That’s quite...descriptive.
Hooray Ann!
Or pick up dog doo?
NYT: AN UNDOCUMENTED NEWSPAPER
by Ann Coulter
November 28, 2007
Last week, in an article titled "Walking a Tightrope on Immigration," The New York Times made the fact-defying claim that the illegal immigration issue poses a risk for Republicans who appeal to voters "angry" about illegal immigration. (This is as opposed to voters "angry" that they spent good money buying a copy of The New York Times.)
In support of this assertion, the Times was required not only to ignore the stunning defeat of this year's amnesty bill, but also to proffer provably absurd evidence. I dearly hope Democratic politicians continue to look to the Times as an accurate barometer of voter sentiment.
In addition to secret polls showing that "the majority of Americans" support "a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally," the Times cited election results from 1994 and 2006 that directly contradict this thesis.
First, the Times raised former California Gov. Pete Wilson's "precipitous slide" in the polls after he supported Proposition 187 in 1994, which denied most taxpayer-supported services to illegal immigrants.
The problem with this example is that Proposition 187 was wildly popular with California voters.
Times reporter Michael Luo seems to be referring to the Times' own prediction of catastrophe for Proposition 187 -- not actual election results.
One week before Californians voted on Proposition 187 in 1994, B. Drummond Ayres Jr. reported in the Times that there had been "a sharp falloff in support for the proposition."
He said Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and African-American ministers were coming out strongly against Proposition 187 and that "this outcry, along with the increasing opposition being voiced by liberals, civil libertarians and assorted national political figures" was having an effect.
And then Californians voted.
Proposition 187 passed in a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin -- a larger margin than Wilson got, incidentally. It was supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of Hispanic voters. It passed in every area of California, except San Francisco, a city where intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is not considered unusual. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed with a 12-point margin.
I'm no campaign consultant, but I think Wilson's support for an off-the-charts popular initiative probably didn't hurt him.
In fact, here on planet Earth, about the safest thing a California politician could do would be to wildly, vocally support Proposition 187. But in New York Times-speak, politicians are walking a dangerous "tightrope" if they dare to defy a slight majority of San Francisco voters!
The initiative went to Carter-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who issued a permanent injunction and then, in a series of decisions, found the initiative unconstitutional. Her rulings were still on appeal when Democrat Gray Davis became governor and dropped the appeals. Everyone remembers how popular Gray Davis was! (First governor in California history to be recalled.)
The crown jewel of the Times' pathetic attempt to marshal evidence for its thesis that Americans want more, not fewer, illegal aliens choking our roads, schools and hospitals also included this gem: "J.D. Hayworth, a hard-line incumbent Republican representative in Arizona, lost his race in 2006, as did Randy Graf, a member of the border-enforcing Minuteman group, who also ran in Arizona."
How many times do we have to disprove this canard?
As with Hillary's position on driver's licenses for illegals -- and B. Hussein Obama's entire campaign -- the Hayworth-Graf example works better when no follow-up questions are allowed. For example:
Q: Did Hayworth's and Graf's opponents campaign against them on illegal immigration?
A: No.
Q: Were there any other issues on the ballot that year that might tell us if it was Hayworth's and Graf's positions on illegals that led to their defeats?
A: Si! Oops, I mean, yes -- why, yes there were! The very election that the Times cites as proof that anti-illegal sentiment is a loser at the ballot box also included four measures that passed overwhelmingly: (1) a measure to deny bail to illegal aliens, (2) a measure that would bar illegals from being awarded punitive damages, (3) a measure that would prohibit illegals from receiving state subsidies for education or child care, and (4) a measure to declare English the state's official language.
Whatever Arizona voters didn't like about Hayworth and Graf, it wasn't that they were too tough on illegals.
My theory is that Hayworth and Graf lost because the multitudes of Times reporters losing their jobs due to the Newspaper of Record's plummeting circulation have recently moved to Hayworth's and Graf's districts. (This is what's known as a "brain drain" in those districts.)
My theory -- like the Times' theory -- is supported by no evidence. But unlike the Times' theory, mine is not specifically disproved by other evidence such as common sense, an everyday observation of my fellow man, and also those four anti-illegal immigrant measures passing in landslides in the very same election.
COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
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.
