NYT OPED Board Shows Lack Of Common Sense

Opinion/Editorial



 

 Nothing pisses me off more than political correctness trying to overcome or defy common sense especially when it comes from none other than the leaders of the liberal print media the New York Times and their assinine Opinion/Editorials.

 This mornings second lead OPED entitled "Campus Life and Guns."

 It begins "The gun lobby is flirting with self-parody as it exploits the issue of sexual assaults on college campuses by proposing a solution of — what else? — having students carry guns. Experts who study the complicated issue of predatory behavior and advise colleges point out that rapes often begin in social situations. “It would be nearly impossible to run for a gun,” said John Foubert, the national president of One in Four, a rape-prevention organization.

Such common sense, however, has never deterred statehouse politicians when it comes to obeying the gun lobby. Lawmakers in 10 states are busy adapting the issue of campus sexual assaults to the campaign to arm college students. Carrying concealed weapons on college campuses is now banned in 41 states by law or university policy."

 Yeah the mean and evil big gun lobby but we never hear of big labor or big government from these hacks.

 It continues "The debate has been far from enlightening. Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, the sponsor of a Nevada campus gun bill, said in an interview with The Times that “these young, hot little girls on campus” would be far safer if they could brandish a weapon and make sure “these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.”

In Colorado, North Dakota and Wyoming, legislators are working to allow adults to carry firearms in schools, starting in kindergarten. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott, who had endorsed leaving the issue in the hands of university administrators, has decided he will sign any of the campus-carry bills rushing toward passage, even if universities cannot opt out. A Kansas bill would scrap the requirement for a state permit, so any “law abiding” citizen could carry a concealed weapon anywhere.

In Florida, the Legislature has a bill legalizing concealed carry on the 12 state university campuses, despite considerable opposition from students, professors, administrators and police officials. The Montana Senate has approved a campus gun bill dealing with such fine print as whether roommates can veto a student’s gun possession."

 Yeah right enlightening as long as you dont go against the NYT's warped sense of PC as opposed to common sense.There would be less rapes on college campuses if women carried to conceal.

 More senseless dribble "As the debate goes forward, legislators would be wise to resome facts and consider a new study, based on federal data, by the Violence Policy Center. It strongly suggests that states with weak gun-safety laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in gun deaths."

 A study based on bullshit numbers that are fudged none the less again the NYT editorial board carrying the water for their buddies in the Obama administration.

The Ditz Weighs In From NYT

Opinion/Editorial


 

 It's a no brainer that in the media whether it be print or televised their biases come shining through on a regular basis.But its another thing when they turn to cannibalism e.g. no more than today or the famous phrase that I'll be glad to coin "the eating of their own" nothing is more true than what I'm about to comment on in this edition this morning.

 This is precious in the fact that if it wasn't true it would be laughable.

 This mornings hit piece im going after of all people Maureen "the Ditz" Dowd she is throwing boulders at the house of NBC News BS anchor man Brian Williams.
The title of her crap is "Anchors Aweigh."
 It begins
  WASHINGTON — THIS was a bomb that had been ticking for a while.

NBC executives were warned a year ago that Brian Williams was constantly inflating his biography. They were flummoxed over why the leading network anchor felt that he needed Hemingwayesque, bullets-whizzing-by flourishes to puff himself up, sometimes to the point where it was a joke in the news division.

But the caustic media big shots who once roamed the land were gone, and “there was no one around to pull his chain when he got too over-the-top,” as one NBC News reporter put it.

It seemed pathological because Williams already had the premier job, so why engage in résumé inflation? And you don’t get those jobs because of your derring-do.

When Williams was declared the hair apparent to Tom Brokaw in 1995, hailed by Jay Leno as “NBC’s stud muffin,” I did a column wondering why TV news programs only hired pretty white male clones. I asked Williams if he was an anchor android.

“Not that I’m aware of,” he said gamely, in his anchor-desk baritone. “I can deny the existence of a factory in the American Midwest that puts out people like me.”

Williams told friends last week that he felt anguished, coming under fire for his false story of coming under fire.

Although the NBC anchor had repeated the Iraq war tall tale, ever more baroquely, for more than a decade, when he cited it on his Jan. 30 broadcast during a segment about going to a Rangers game with a retired, decorated soldier who had been on the ground that day when he landed, Williams got smacked down on Facebook.

A crew member from a Chinook flying ahead of Williams, who was involved in the 2003 firefight, posted, “Sorry dude, I don’t remember you being on my aircraft. I do remember you walking up about an hour after we had landed to ask me what had happened.” Stars and Stripes ran with it, and, by Saturday, Williams announced that he was stepping down for several days.

Social media — the genre that helped make the TV evening news irrelevant by showing us that we don’t need someone to tell us every night what happened that day — was gutting the institution further.

Although Williams’s determination to wrap himself in others’ valor is indefensible, it seems almost redundant to gnaw on his bones, given the fact that the Internet has already taken down a much larger target: the long-ingrained automatic impulse to turn on the TV when news happens.

Although there was much chatter about the “revered” anchor and the “moral authority” of the networks, does anyone really feel that way anymore? Frothy morning shows long ago became the more important anchoring real estate, garnering more revenue and subsidizing the news division. One anchor exerted moral authority once and that was Walter Cronkite, because he risked his career to go on TV and tell the truth about the fact that we were losing the Vietnam War.

But TV news now is rife with cat, dog and baby videos, weather stories and narcissism. And even that fare caused trouble for Williams when he reported on a video of a pig saving a baby goat, admitting “we have no way of knowing if it’s real,” and then later had to explain that it wasn’t. The nightly news anchors are not figures of authority. They’re part of the entertainment, branding and cross-promotion business.

Former ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer trended on Facebook for reportedly scoring the first interview about Bruce Jenner’s gender odyssey.Yesterday

Brian Williams lied. He put himself above the news he was reporting on. He's not alone. Over the years, I have read

When current ABC News anchor David Muir was still a correspondent, some NBC News reporters had a drinking game about how many times he put himself in the shot and how many times his shirt was unbuttoned.

As the late-night comic anchors got more pointed and edgy with the news, the real anchors mimicked YouTube.

Williams did a piece on his daughter Allison’s casting in an NBC production of “Peter Pan.” And Muir aired an Access  Hollywood-style segment with Bradley Cooper.

As the performers — Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver and Bill Maher — were doing more serious stuff, the supposedly serious guys were doing more performing. The anchors pack their Hermès ties and tight T-shirts and fly off to hot spots for the performance aspect, because the exotic and dangerous backdrops confer the romance of Hemingway covering the Spanish Civil War.

Oliver, who has made waves with pieces on financial chicanery in the Miss America contest and the corporate players trying to undermine net neutrality, told The Verge that he is hiring more researchers with backgrounds in investigative journalism.

Meanwhile, in an interview with Fusion, Muir acted out the facial expressions he uses during his broadcast: “the listening face,” the “really listening” face, and the “really concerned” face. All that was missing was “Blue Steel.”

With no pushback from the brass at NBC, Williams has spent years fervently “courting celebrity,” as The Hollywood Reporter put it, guest starring on “30 Rock,” slow-jamming the news with Jimmy Fallon and regaling David Letterman with his faux heroics: “Two of our four helicopters were hit by ground fire, including the one I was in, RPG and AK-47.”

As his profession shrinks and softens, Williams felt compelled to try to steal the kind of glory that can only be earned the hard way.

 

Heres my take Dowd is talking about getting glory the hard way by earning it ok Dowd look at the rag you write for Missy

Dumb Ass Question To Ask When The Author Knows Why....

Opinion/Editorial



 

 Heres a valid point why ask a question or make an assinine when you know the answer to it.This is the very basis of my piece this morning.The New York Times oped contributor this morning one Nate Cohn writes for The New York Times at @UpshotNYT.

 The title of his piece of crap is "The Surprising Power of Blue-State Republicans" but the sutitle is what caught my eye this morning Why it’s very hard for a far-right conservative to win the G.O.P. nomination.

  I already know the answer why but let this leftist idiot Mr.Cohn have his say as to why.

 It begins "There is a basic mystery at the heart of modern Republican presidential politics. The party’s voters, despite electing conservatives to the House and Senate, have repeatedly chosen relatively moderate nominees, like Mitt Romney and John McCain, in the primaries.

With the 2016 campaign underway, and candidates positioning themselves for money, endorsements and staff, the establishment of the party is again at the center of the conversation. Even though Mr. Romney said on Friday that he had decided not to pursue the nomination, a third Bush seems poised to run, and has suggested he will not bow down to conservative activists.

How does a Republican Party seemingly dominated by the South, energized by the Tea Party and elected by conservative voters also consistently support relatively moderate presidential nominees? The answer is the blue-state Republicans.

The blue-state Republicans make it far harder for a very conservative candidate to win the party’s nomination than the party’s reputation suggests. They also give a candidate who might seem somewhat out of touch with today’s Republican Party, like Jeb Bush, a larger base of potential support than is commonly thought.

It’s easy to forget about the blue-state Republicans. They’re all but extinct in Washington, since their candidates lose general elections to Democrats, and so officials elected by states and districts that supported Mr. Romney dominate the Republican Congress.

But the blue-state Republicans still possess the delegates, voters and resources to decide the nomination. In 2012, there were more Romney voters in California than in Texas, and in Chicago’s Cook County than in West Virginia. Mr. Romney won three times as many voters in overwhelmingly Democratic New York City than in Republican-leaning Alaska.

Overall, 59 percent of Romney voters in the Republican primaries lived in the states carried by President Obama. Those states hold 50 percent of the delegates to the Republican National Convention, even though they contain just 19 percent of Republican senators. Just 11 percent of House Republicans hail from districts that voted for President Obama.

For all the legitimate attention that will be given to questions about whether an establishment favorite like Mr. Bush can win over deeply conservative voters, there are just as many questions about which conservative candidate can win over blue-state Republicans. Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney won every blue-state primary in 2008 and 2012, making it all but impossible for their more conservative challengers to win the nomination.

“There’s no question the presidential trail goes through places that congressional Republicans don’t always have to go,” said Ari Fleischer, the first White House press secretary for George W. Bush, the last Republican to win the party’s nomination largely because of strength in red-state primaries. Mr. Bush struggled in blue states, losing early primaries in New Hampshire and Michigan, but still secured the nomination.

 The importance of blue-state Republicans makes it far less likely that the party will nominate a conservative firebrand or a favorite of the religious right, like Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee, than one might guess from the unwavering conservatism of the red-state electorates that hold sway over elected Republicans in Washington. It also makes the primaries the party’s best chance to moderate its image in hopes of faring better in presidential elections, as the Democrats did in 1992 by nominating Bill Clinton, a Southern Democrat. The pre-eminence of red-state conservative Republicans in Washington has made it all but impossible for congressional Republicans to compromise, moderate or rebrand the party ahead of the 2016 elections.

It would be hard for the Republicans to nominate a true moderate who disagreed with the party’s conservative base on more than a few issues. Most blue-state Republicans are conservatives, but they are nonetheless very different from their red-state counterparts. Moderate Republican politicians, like Mr. McCain or Mr. Romney, have been forced to evolve into more conservative candidates on issues like immigration or climate change. Yet Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney would have struggled to win the nomination without the blue-state Republicans.

The tendency of a national primary electorate to moderate a party isn’t new. And it’s not limited to the Republicans. Mr. Clinton won just three of the first 15 contests in 1992, losing relatively liberal Maryland, Colorado and New Hampshire before sweeping eight Southern primaries on Super Tuesday. Hillary Clinton would have a huge advantage over a candidate who challenged her from the left. Such a candidate might win San Francisco, Boulder, Colo., or Vermont, but would struggle to win relatively conservative Democrats in Appalachia or the South.

According to an analysis of Pew Research and exit-poll data, blue-state Republicans tend to be more urban, more moderate, less religious and more affluent. A majority of red-state Republicans are evangelical Christians, believe society should discourage homosexuality, think politicians should do what it takes to undermine the Affordable Care Act and want politicians to stand up for their positions, even if that means little gets done in Washington. A majority of blue-state Republicans differ on every count.

In recent presidential primaries, blue-state Republican voters have overwhelmingly supported so-called establishment candidates. On Super Tuesday in 2008, Mr. McCain all but locked up the nomination by winning delegate-rich blue states like Illinois, New York, California and New Jersey. Yet outside of his home state, he lost nine of the 11 red-state contests on that night. Mr. Romney lost all but one red-state primary held before his principal opponent dropped out of the race, yet he won the nomination by sweeping the blue states. He won 45 percent of the vote in blue-state primaries, but just 30 percent in the states that voted for him in the general election.

A credible conservative threat to whoever emerges as the Republican’s leading establishment candidate is likely to be posed by a candidate who can break the establishment candidate’s grip on the blue states. They would combine strong red-state appeal with at least modest blue-state support — more than Rick Santorum won in 2012 or than Mr. Huckabee did in 2008. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who has won elections in a blue state but who also appeals to grass-roots conservatives, is one possibility.

Here’s another way to think about it: If the Republican presidential nominee were decided by the red states — by the same electorates that send Republican officials to Washington and then dissuade them from even the most incremental compromises — then Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain probably wouldn’t have won the party’s nomination. Mr. Romney would have won a below-average share of the vote in 154 of the 247 districts represented by Republicans, as well as the states that contribute 38 of the 54 Republican senators, according to an Upshot model of Mr. Romney’s support in the 2012 primaries.

THE clout of blue-state Republicans is enhanced by an alliance with the party’s donor class. Republican donors, in general, are likely more concerned by electability and business issues than religiosity and the culture wars. But they also come disproportionately from the blue states, which accounted for 62 percent of all Republican primary fund-raising in 2012. A candidate like Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey or the former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2008 might be too moderate to win the nomination, but would have a far easier time raising money than a highly conservative candidate like Mr. Santorum.

The distance between the base of congressional Republicans and the more geographically diverse primary voters is far larger than it used to be. Heading into the 1992 presidential election, the Republican Senate was split nearly evenly — 55 to 45 percent — between senators from today’s red and blue states. Now the split is 81 to 19. That’s because the ranks of red-state Republicans grew enormously in 1994, 2010 and 2014, while blue-state Republicans suffered big losses in 2006, 2008 and even 2012. The share of Republican voters from the Obama states, meanwhile, has barely decreased at all.

The importance of the blue states doesn’t mean that a conservative to the right of the party’s center couldn’t win the nomination. Brad Todd, a Republican strategist, thinks that the support for Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain in the blue states was a product of the weak candidates they faced, not because the blue states were unwilling to support populist, conservative candidates. Some blue states, like Colorado or Nevada, might even contain primary voters who are “more conservative than in some red states,” he added.

A populist, conservative candidate has won the blue states before. George W. Bush was conservative, populist and evangelical, but also a Harvard M.B.A. and a scion of the establishment. He lost Manhattan, San Francisco and Alexandria, Va., but still managed to win the New York, California and Virginia primaries — along with the nomination. Mr. Walker, an evangelical Christian who rose to prominence by fighting labor unions, making him a demonstrated ally of the business wing of the party, has a similar profile with the potential to appeal to voters throughout the party.

The red-state Republicans aren’t standing around. The Georgia secretary of state, Brian Kemp, is organizing a so-called SEC primary — referring to the college sports conference — of Southern states on March 1, the first date when states other than Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire are permitted to hold contests. The potential effect is obvious: It could bestow crucial momentum to the candidate favored by the South, perhaps another conservative like Mr. Santorum or Mr. Huckabee, and the boost needed to win the Midwestern primaries where conservative candidates have struggled, like Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. Even in that scenario, the conservative Republican would need to win in the blue states — and would hope to have an easier time doing so after red-state victories.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Kemp insisted that the SEC primary is not intended to provide a boost to any particular kind of candidate or even the candidate favored by the South.

The goal is to make sure Georgia voters “have a say-so in the election,” he said. “So I’ve been trying to position ourselves to be more influential without breaking the rules.”

  Here is my response you can crunch all the numbers and figures and media so called research but at the end its the leftists that have taken over the Republican Party putting up candidates that dont resemble CONSERVATISM wolf in sheeps clothing claiming to be conservative when they know damn well that they are not.

Who's to blame look in the mirror Mr.Cohn and your employer NYT!

But I wouldn't expect a bias socilaist like you to comprehend this as most liberals cannot