Fairy Tales From The Old Gray Lady

No sooner do I finish posting on Trent Lott than I notice this from kos; he tells us that the New York Times reported that the Senate’s Jim Crow descendent…

…has made no secret of his deepening frustration in the Senate, not only because his party is in the minority but also because an increasingly bitter partisan divide this year has left little use for his skills as a deal-maker.

I really wish that, for moments when the Times decides to shill for the Repugs, they run a disclaimer next to the affected copy just so we know what they’re doing (“oooh, such partisanship in Congress!! Harrummph!” And no, I don’t like it either, but the “P” word is Beltway code for the Dems standing up and actually telling the Repugs from time to time that they’re a bunch of full-mooner crazies, as kos tells us).

Well, since the Times has chosen to play this game, I should point out two similar instances of “carrying the GOP water” over the weekend.

The first appeared here on Saturday from Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg…

With a Mideast peace conference planned for the coming week and a war in Iraq to prosecute, Mr. Bush is, of course, deeply engaged in the most pressing foreign policy matters of the day. The “kitchen table” agenda is part of a broader domestic political strategy — which some Republicans close to the White House attribute to Mr. Bush’s new counselor, Ed Gillespie — for the president to find new and more creative ways of engaging the public as his days in office dwindle and his clout with Congress lessens.

“These are issues that don’t tend to be at the center of the political debate but actually are of paramount importance to a lot of Americans,” said Joel Kaplan, the deputy White House chief of staff.

The issues in question are providing federal protection for two coveted species of game fish and opening up additional air space for commercial traffic, neither of which requires an executive order, as the story notes (and yep, when Dubya's entire presidency is going down in flames, this is about all he is truly good for at this point).

One Republican close to the White House, who has been briefed on the strategy, said the aim was to talk to Americans about issues beyond Iraq and terrorism, so that Mr. Bush’s hand will be stronger on issues that matter to him, like vetoing spending bills or urging Congress to pay for the war.

This is either a clever way to sneak in a dig at Dubya or some of the most shameless propagandizing I’ve ever seen.

This tells us about the effect of Dubya’s vetoes of Congressional spending bills, and as far as “urging Congress to pay for the war,” Stolberg should have read this story from her fellow Times reporter David M. Herszenhorn which tells us that Dubya has resisted signing off on a $50 billion appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan, approved days after Dubya already signed the yearly defense spending bill.

Herszenhorn also tells us…

The arguments on both sides (Dubya and Congress) had some elements of truth. The Pentagon has enough money to continue operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, though shifting the money between Defense Department accounts can be complicated. And notices of potential layoffs (to Army and Marine civilian employees) may have to be sent, even if the layoffs are unlikely to occur.

That additional context in Stolberg’s story would have been nice, wouldn’t it?

And finally, I give you the following from Patrick Healy’s story yesterday here in which he tells us that the Democratic candidates for president have to adjust their campaign strategy due to the “success” of “the surge”…

This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground — a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace.

What the hell kind of a commentary is that? Does Healy have tea leaves or tarot cards somewhere that we should know about?

Somehow I think most of the people in this country are smart enough to know that “the surge” doesn’t depend primarily on the success of our troops in the field or the quelling of violence (at least temporarily, for whatever reason), but that it depends on whether or not the Maliki government will ever get its act together in Iraq.

I really can’t understand the point of that paragraph, unless Healy wants to try and sneak in a Republican party talking point somehow. In that case, it makes perfect sense.

Update: Another sneaky backdoor deal, I see (“Iraq 4 Evah,” from Dubya of course, and the headline is in error, by the way - Bushco doesn't have any principles).