It’s hard for me to even get mad about this because it’s just so predictable. In fact, I was just thinking this morning how strange it was that the left hasn’t attacked Reagan on his 100th birthday. With all the celebrations this past week and Sarah Palin riding horses at the Reagan ranch, I figured the left would come out swinging. Of course, that was before their liberal Messiah decided he was Reagan 2.0. As a result, Reagan criticism has been rather muted on the left. A president they’ve loathed for a lifetime has suddenly become a swell guy…like Obama!

[Watch Ronald Reagan's 1989 farewell address from The Oval Office]

But Michael Kinsley over at the LA Times couldn’t help himself. He had to try and at least land a couple of glancing blows to Reagan’s legacy. Not only does Kinsley hate Reagan, he hates that his liberal Messiah actually wants to be like Reagan.

Worst of all, Reagan, with his sunny disposition amid catastrophe, taught Americans that it will all be OK; don’t worry about it. So for 30 years we didn’t worry about it. Now we’re worried. But it’s a little late. I don’t call that greatness, or worth emulating.

Hey Michael, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Your man is no Reagan. More importantly, he doesn’t want to be. Like everything else with Obama it’s all about optics. Obama thinks if he studies Reagan and adopts his rhetoric he can turn his presidency around. It’s yet another hat trick designed to fool the American people. What Barack Obama and his cronies don’t realize is that Ronald Reagan wasn’t playing a character. He didn’t adopt his persona and policies based on polling data. He didn’t say what he said as a front for a hidden political agenda.

The reason the American people responded to Reagan the way they did is because he was genuine. They could sense that what he said was what he truly believed. And more importantly, what he believed was both good for America and good for Americans.

Barack Obama is the polar opposite of Ronald Reagan. Nobody knows what he really believes because no one really knows him. But his destructive policies are neither good for America nor good for Americans.

You can read more analysis on Kinsley’s hit piece over at Big Journalism.

New York Times editor Bill Keller was on a panel hosted by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism recently (where liberal media hacks are born) and the subject of WikiLeaks came up. He said The NY Slimes would stand with Assange.

Emily Bell, the moderator and director of the Tow Center at the journalism school, then turned to the Times and Guardian editors, both of whom worked with Assange and WikiLeaks on the Iraq War documents and the leak of U.S. State Department cables, and posed a question about the possibility of Assange’s prosecution.

…“I think the Times‘ lawyers would prefer I not declare what I’d do in a court of law,” he said. “It’s very hard to conceive of a prosecution of Julian Assange that wouldn’t stretch the law in a way that would be applicable to us.”

“Whatever anyone thinks of Julian Assange, certainly American journalists, and other journalists, should feel a sense of alarm at any legal action that tends to punish Assange for doing essentially what journalists do. That is to say, any use of the law to criminalize the publication of secrets,” Keller said. “I think we do stand alongside him.”

As I’ve said before, I have very mixed feelings about Assange.  I’m not entirely convinced that he should or even could be prosecuted under US law. However, it’s flat out absurd to call Assange a “journalist.” People give him stolen material and he puts it on his website. That’s it.

The NY Slimes Times has a lengthy profile of Pamela Geller. We’re big fans of Pam here at THJ and you should be too. You can read Pam’s blog HERE.

UPDATE

Salon is furious about the “softball” piece.

(hat tip liberalurls)

Here’s a great demonstration of liberal bias from Fox New’s Chris Wallace:

The New York Times was more than happy to print the lies and fantasy of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres on its sacred pages, but refuses a response Op-Ed from an FBI informant wishing to set the record straight.

Nobody expects the gray bitch lady to actually be fair, but now they don’t even care if they look fair.

Thankfully, Pajamas Media has published the Op-Ed in full.

(hat tip LGF)

The NYT is upset that Sean Hannity did a special over the weekend that focused on Obama’s radical associations. The Times is angry because it was an overly partisan presentation that lacked any opposing point of view.

The odd thing is that Keith Olbermann NEVER has an opposing viewpoint on his show. He brings in the same bunch of left-wing ‘yes men’ to nod in agreement with him night after night.

Thankfully, Olbermann Watch decided to complile a list of Olbermann’s guests going all the way back to 2006 and identify them by party:

• May 22 (2006): Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• May 30: Rep Barney Frank (D)
• June 9: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• June 15: Bob Schrum (D)
• June 16: Rep John Murtha (D)
• June 19: Al Gore (D)
• June 20: Sen Jack Reed (D)
• June 20: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• June 23: Al Gore (D)
• July 5: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• July 12: Barbara Boxer (D)
• July 13: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• July 26: Bill Richardson (D)
• August 8: Daily Kos (D)
• August 9: Joe Trippi (D)
• August 30: Howard Dean (D)
• August 31: Barbara Boxer (D)
• August 31: Rocky Anderson (D)
• September 5: Tom Kean Jr (R) [speaking against Bush policies]
• September 6: Richard Ben-Veniste (D)
• September 7: Sean Maloney (D)
• September 8: Mack McLarty (D)
• September 11: Max Cleland (D)
• September 20: Jane Hamsher (D)
• September 22: Bill Jefferson Clinton (D)
• September 26: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• September 28: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• October 16: John Ashcroft (R)
• October 18: Joe Trippi (D)
• October 20: Barack Obama (D)
• October 26: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• October 31: Joe Trippi (D)
• November 6: Howard Dean (D)
• November 22: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• November 30: Joe Trippi (D)
• December 6: Russ Feingold (D)
• January 3 (2007): Barney Frank (D)
• January 4: John Murtha (D)
• January 4: Jay Rockefeller (D)
• January 11: Russ Feingold (D)
• January 18: George McGovern (D)
• January 23: Hillary Clinton (D)
• January 24: James Webb (D)
• January 24: Hillary Clinton (D)
• February 20: Tammy Duckworth (D)
• February 21: David Boies (D)
• February 27: Patrick Murphy (D)
• March 21: Charles Schumer (D)
• March 22: Patrick Leahy (D)
• April 2: Joe Biden (D)
• April 3: Russ Feingold (D)
• April 6: Madeleine Albright (D)
• May 15: Lanny Davis (D)
• May 29: Al Gore (D)
• June 5: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• June 20: Wesley Clark (D)
• June 26: Rahm Emanuel (D)
• July 6: Wesley Clark (D)
• July 12: Wesley Clark (D)
• July 20: John Kerry (D)
• July 26: Wesley Clark (D)
• August 6: Wesley Clark (D)
• August 8: Joe Biden (D)
• August 14: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• August 30: Wesley Clark (D)
• September 4: Wesley Clark (D)
• September 12: Chris Dodd (D)
• September 13: Joe Biden (D)
• September 27: Jim Webb (D)
• September 27: Bill Clinton (D)
• September 28: Elizabeth Edwards (D)
• September 28: Bill Clinton (D)
• October 3: John Edwards (D)
• October 11: Hillary Clinton (D)
• October 12: Bill Richardson (D)
• October 24: John Garabendi (D)
• October 29: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• November 19: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• November 29: John Edwards (D)
• November 30: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• December 11: Tim Roemer (D)
• December 14: Lawrence O’Donnell (D)
• December 14: Markos Moulitas (D)
• December 27: Chris Dodd (D)
• January 4 (2008): John Edwards (D)
• January 10: Bill Richardson (D)
• January 11: Rush Holt (D)
• January 23: John Edwards (D)
• February 25: Dee Dee Myers (D)
• March 14: Barack Obama (D)
• March 21: Bill Richardson (D)
• March 31: Chuck Hagel (R) [speaking against Bush policies]
• April 9: Elizabeth Edwards (D)
• April 21: Hillary Clinton (D)
• April 25: James Clyburn (D)
• April 30: Chris Kofinis (D)
• May 1: Joe Andrew (D)
• May 9: Harry Reid (D)
• May 9: James Webb (D)
• May 28: Scott McClellan (R) [speaking against Bush policies]
• June 6: Chris Kofinis (D)
• June 9: Scott McClellan (R) [speaking against Bush policies]
• June 11: John Kerry (D)
• June 20: Chris Kofinis (D)
• June 23: Markos Moulitsas (D)
• June 25: Robert Wexler (D)
• June 30: Jim Webb (D)
• July 1: Chris Kofinis (D)
• July 17: Chris Kofinis (D)
• July 21: Chris Kofinis (D)
• July 22: Chris Kofinis (D)
• July 25: Bob Barr (L)
• July 31: Chris Kofinis (D)
• August 8: Chris Kofinis (D)
• August 12: Chris Kofinis (D)
• August 20: Chris Kofinis (D)
• September 8: Barack Obama (D)
• September 9: Barack Obama (D)
• September 10: Chris Kofinis (D)
• September 12: Markos Moulitsas (D)
• September 15: Chris Kofinis (D)
• September 18: Chris Kofinis (D)
• September 24: Chris Kofinis (D)
• September 25: Rahm Emanuel (D)
• September 26: Robert Gibbs (D)
• September 30: Chris Kofinis (D)
• October 2: Chris Kofinis (D)

Sean Hannity regularly appears with his liberal co-host Alan Colmes during the week, but on weekends he hosts “Hannity’s America” alone and the Obama special was part of that.

So what then is Olbermann’s excuse for never allowing anyone with even the slightest inkling of disagreement with him appear on his show.

Judging from the above list, the NYT has another article it needs to write, but I’m not holding my breath.

In fact it was only a couple of months ago that Olbermann’s favorite poodle Dana Milbank wrote a piece in the Washington Post critical of Barack Obama, and was immediately axed from appearing on ‘Countdown’ ever again.

Milbank said at the time that he simply accepted a new contract with CNN, but later added “It’s just that CNN’s a better fit for me and my philosophy of holding all parties to account.”

The New York Times apparently thought Memorial Day would be an especially good day for a hit piece on President Bush and John McCain.

The editorial in today’s NYT really is a disgrace. It’s filled with so many lies and distortions that if the paper really doesn’t have a left-wing agenda they should probably find a new editor since he clearly doesn’t edit.

The first and probably most outrageous statement in the piece goes after President Bush for having “squandered” soldiers lives in an “unwinnable war”. I’m sure families who lost a loved one in Iraq really enjoyed the cowardly New York Times calling their sacrifice a waste.

Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

The second part of the above quote is also false. President Bush never said the new G.I. Bill was “too generous” he simply said the educational benefits should be an incentive to re-enlist. Basically, you would get half the benefits for your first enlistment, and the other half after your second.

Staggering the benefits will allow the military to retain its best and brightest at a time when they’re need most. It’s not just President Bush who thinks the new G.I. Bill should be changed, but the Secretary of Defense, The Joint Chiefs, and all the military’s top brass including General Petraeus.

The President never disagreed with the benefits in the bill, but merely how they’re offered. But the editorial again makes this false assertion:

Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They wouldn’t prefer that, so the NYT is again lying.

The final part of the Memorial Day hit piece goes to make more false claims, mischaracterizations, and outright lies.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.

Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.

The parts in bold are either totally false or misleading. The first part in bold talks of “sapped morale” and “strained recruiting” both of which are nonsense.

I don’t know which troops they took the time to talk with (likely none) but the morale of our military has never been higher.

The second part in bold is wrong, but is likely a result of complete ignorance on military matters rather than the usual left-wing bias.

Nobody has argued that the bill would offset re-enlistment by increasing new recruits, but that’s precisely the problem.

New recruits are great, but right now the military is trying to keep the very people the Times editorial acknowledges would leave. The idea is to retain experienced battle hardened soldiers who can aide in ongoing missions and train new recruits.

A 16 percent decrease in experienced soldiers being offset with a 16 percent increase in “virgin” soldiers would be a disaster for our armed forces.

The New York Times doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about as usual, but the least they could do is wait to print their fresh lies and distortions the day after Memorial Day.

The New York Times has frozen hiring and cut a small number of newsroom jobs as it tries to reign in spending. The paper is promising to cut about a dozen support positions and is trimming “a number of” clerical and secretarial jobs.

Executive Editor Bill Keller sent a memo to all employees informing them of the changes. The memo also said the Times plans to “rethink” it’s coverage priorities and how to better use space and people.

They could probably start by not giving any more advertising discounts to MoveOn.org for attacking the military, but I’m no accountant.

The company’s shares have fallen by about 30 percent in the past 12 months as the Times and its other newspapers, including the Boston Globe and several small dailies throughout the United States, fight a prolonged slump in advertising sales.

Shares fell further on Wednesday after Bank of America analyst Joe Arns cut his rating on the shares to “sell” from “neutral,” saying that luxury advertising, which accounts for nearly a third of the Times’s national ad revenue, could fall if the U.S. economy experienced a recession.

-Chris Jones

I bet this was incredibly painful for The New York Times to have to write:

The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.

It was looking like it was gonna be a near total media blackout on the good news in Iraq, but thankfully there appears to be at least a shred of honesty left at the NYT.

-Chris Jones

Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest shareholder in New York Times Co., sold its entire stake today, according to a person briefed on the transaction, sending the stock to its lowest in more than 10 years.

New York Times shares slid 48 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $18.43 at 12:44 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading and fell as low as $18.28, a level not seen since January 1997.

Morgan Stanley held 10.5 million New York Times, or a 7.3 percent stake, as of June 30, making the company the second- largest institutional investor behind T. Rowe Price Group Inc., with a 14 percent stake.

Family members led by New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. control the company through their ownership of Class B shares that allow them to appoint nine of the company’s 13 directors.