Posts on Washington Times

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding Indiana’s partisan voter-ID law, like other recent cases with conservative outcomes, received generous praise from the Right. “This victory continues conservatives’ good run of Supreme Court decisions dating back to last term,” wrote Human Events columnist Sean Trende, who called the case evidence that John Roberts’s appointment as Chief Justice “mark[ed] a sea change” in pulling the court “rightward.”

Paul Weyrich praised the Court and called objections to the law—which closes access to the ballot box for many otherwise eligible voters, primarily minorities and the elderly, in pursuit of the phantom threat of voter fraud—“overblown and sensational,” adding, “We do not compel people to vote.” (As Weyrich said in 1980, “I don't want everybody to vote. … [O]ur leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”)

And Gary Bauer boldly asserted that “all citizens have photo I.D.s, and the only people who don’t are illegal aliens, who are, by definition, not allowed to vote. The only ones disenfranchised by the photo I.D. requirement are those who should not be voting anyway.”

Of course, by the time Bauer sent that remarkable claim out to his e-mail list, the AP was already reporting on some of these people he said “should not be voting”:

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph. …

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back within the 10 days allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

Prince William County, Virginia did something this week to address social and financial problems stemming from its recent crackdown on immigrants. What exactly it did is not entirely clear:

Washington Post headline: “Pr. William Softens Policy on Immigration Status Checks.”

Washington Times headline: “Prince William stiffens crackdown on illegals.”

Washington Examiner headline: “Pr. William softens illegal immigration policy.”

NBC 4 played it safe with “Prince William Votes To Change Immigration Enforcement.”

So what happened? As the Post and the Examiner report, the board of supervisors in this wealthy D.C. suburb, where police have been checking the immigration status of crime suspects, changed the policy slightly. Now the police only check the status of those arrested. (A proposal to check only those arrested and put in jail failed by a wide margin.)

While the Washington Times immigration coverage is always suspect, and the paper’s editorial page has been pushing the county to stay the course, in this case they do point to another change in policy: whereas before, local police needed “probable cause” that the person was undocumented (wonder what that means?), they now check everybody. Broadening the law, claimed the supervisors, would help protect them from lawsuits for racial profiling. But as Chairman Corey Stewart, leader of the crackdown, asserted, “This will increase the number of people who will have their immigration status checked.”

In any event, it’s hardly the “reconsideration” of the crackdown we were teased with in April.

Let's not get too excited about new management. AP story headlined "Immigration crackdown costs grow" (see here) printed as "Illegal immigration costs grow."

Associated Press stories run almost identically in various newspapers—maybe the headline will change, or a few paragraphs will be trimmed. Or, in some cases, certain copy-editing standards will be enforced. Take this AP story from last week, as run in the Washington Examiner, a right-leaning tabloid in D.C.:

Md. lawmakers renew debate on in-state tuition for immigrants

By KRISTEN WYATT, AP

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Maryland lawmakers renewed debate Thursday over one of the sharpest topics to come up in recent years - whether to allow residents who are illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition.

Now consider the version published by the right-wing Washington Times:

Tuition for illegals stirs strong debate

By Kristen Wyatt

ANNAPOLIS (AP) — Maryland lawmakers renewed debate yesterday over one of the sharpest topics to come up in recent years — whether to allow residents who are illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition.

Replacing “illegal immigrants” with “illegal aliens” was part of the Times’ stylebook. The same went for “same-sex marriage,” which the Times published as “same-sex ‘marriage’”—that is, the paper added scare-quotes around the word "marriage." These typographical tics were more than a conservative badge of honor for the Times, owned by Korean religious leader Rev. Sun Moon. For many observers, they were also a running gag, a joke that the newspaper didn’t seem to be in on.

But the comical stylebook, at least, is now a thing of the past—another casualty of executive editor Wesley Pruden’s retirement, along with the departure of longtime staffers Fran Coombs and Robert Stacey McCain, who gave the Times an unfortunate air of white supremacy. New executive editor John Solomon promises “news down the middle”; we’ll believe it when we see it.

More he said/he said from the Washington Times. Background here.

"Indeed, unless the laws of arithmetic are repealed, the Thompson tax plan almost certainly will lead to massive budget deficits." But CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow, a Thompson water-carrier, is in his corner.

According to a (subscriber’s-only) article in Insight, the sensationalist newsweekly put out by the right-wing Washington Times, “both Democratic and Republican” members of Congress, unnamed in the story, “have been worried” that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) “would become the strongest advocate of extreme Islam in Congress.”

"He is a pleasant man, but his advocacy of the Saudi agenda is very worrisome," a senior House aide said. "This feeling represents numerous Democrats."

Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress, has been a target of the far Right since his election last November. Talk show host Dennis Prager said he “should not be allowed” to pose with Koran after his swearing in, a sentiment echoed by self-described “defender of religious freedom” Jay Sekulow, and former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore—who was removed from the bench for refusing an order to move a two-ton Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse—wrote that Muslims like Ellison are not fit for office. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) warned his constituents that “if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.” Meanwhile, other right-wing commentators have attempted to link Ellison to American Muslim groups they purport to be somehow associated with terrorism.

Insight, citing anonymous “congressional sources,” claims that “no Democrat has gone public in fear of a Saudi-financed Muslim backlash, particularly by Ellison's biggest supporter, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”

As an example of Ellison’s supposed “close ties to Islamic fundamentalists,” the Insight article refers to a visit by Ellison and other members of Congress to Iraq, during which he met with U.S. military leaders and Iraqi leaders seeking his help in “countering al-Qaeda's vision of Islam.”  USA Today noted that Ellison was “already helping a State Department outreach effort aimed at improving the image of the U.S. in the Muslim world.” In Insight’s telling, those details get lost and the trip takes a menacing aspect:

Ellison's close ties to Islamic fundamentalists have sparked greater concern. In late July, Ellison toured Iraq and met Sunni clerics in Ramadi who sought his help in improving Islam's image in the United States. Ramadi has been regarded as being heavily influenced by al Qaeda.

"They were very upset and concerned that al Qaeda is misrepresenting Islam," Ellison said on July 30. "And they were talking to me about what I can possibly do to work with them to give a clearer, more accurate picture of what Islam is all about."

Apparently, the 25th Anniversary of the establishment of The Washington Times qualifies as national news.  At least it does to The Washington Times, which ran a 2200+ word “article” about itself on its own “Nation/Politics” page yesterday.  

Written by one of its own staff members, The Times’ love letter to itself is remarkable for its complete and utter lack of humility.  

As the piece explains, the Vietnam War and Watergate “contributed to a surge of self-regard among the news elite” that “curdled into an inflexible, often arrogant bias that has cost news organizations the public's trust” – but not The Times and that it is why it became the “vanguard of a media insurgency”:

The Times, however, has upheld traditional journalism standards with far fewer resources than its more lavishly funded competitors. Indeed, The Times earned its credibility precisely because of its shoe-leather reporting on corruption at every level of government as well as its scoops on issues involving national security and U.S. intelligence services.

The tumultuous administration of D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, the House banking scandal, the exposure of Rep. Barney Frank's live-in call boy, President Clinton's Whitewater troubles, the 1995 budget showdown between Mr. Clinton and the Republican Congress, the September 11 terrorist attacks -- on these stories and many others, The Times has been a vital source of information.

For some reason, nowhere in the piece is it mentioned that the paper was started by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a man who admitted back in 1991 that “literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times.”

Just as The Times is anything but modest about its accomplishments, it is likewise swollen with pride over its ability to maintain its “standards of objectivity” – with “objectivity” presumably meaning "serving as a reliable mouthpiece for the Right”:

Peter LaBarbera, president of a group called Americans for Truth, is upset with President Bush for his supportive comments on the parenthood plans of Mary Cheney and her long-time lesbian partner. Although Bush has made a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage one of his platform issues, in the case of the vice president’s daughter he struck a different tone.  “I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I'm happy for her,” Bush told People magazine. “He blinked,” complains LaBarbera.

Circuit is “really critical” for terrorism cases, says Sekulow. GOP “kicked the can,” sighs CWA’s LaRue. Wash. Times: Choose to nominate either moderates or extremists who will fail.

Editorial demands Pelosi tell Democratic candidate to take dubious machine results “like an adult.” More on voting in Sarasota.

After 18,000 votes lost and winner declared by 369-vote margin. Right-wing paper ties concerns to machine conspiracy theories.

With House out, Washington Times looks to more Hazletons. Meanwhile: Taneytown, MD (pop. 5,000), with 37 residents identified lacking English skills, goes English-only. Also: Farmers Branch, TX passes Hazleton-style crackdown.

The GOP “betrayed its ideals,” says Wash. Times; “competence, not ideological change,” echoes WSJ. More of the same: Dobson, Fidelis, Sen. Coburn, Club for Growth.

“Our unguarded borders have already been penetrated by Hezbollah.” Others see it as good step and good politics for GOP.