Powered by TypePad

« Looks Like Democracy | Main | I'm Sorry I Read That »

April 14, 2005



"including Mr. Bush and Senator Bill Frist"

Senator Frist, but not President Bush - the nyt is incorrigable. No rudeness is too petty for it.


If Howard Kurtz is with me, who will stand against me?


I don't get it Tom.

How is the NYT's headline to the left?


I may be misinterpreting the question, but...

Reuters and the NY Times had a near-tie on the basis of the headline. However, the Times swept to victory with its stirring lead, which included "stepped up his crusade against judges".

If you are making a different point - that I am being overly simple in putting critics of DeLay on a simple left/right axis - well, forget it.

People use those simple left/right labels all the time, and it is a lot more applicable with Delay's critics then it is with, for example, the divisions over Terri Schiavo (which also gets labeled left/right quite frequently).


It's just that i see nothing wrong with the NYT's headline. It's accurate. Sure, they could have used another headline but there is no 'correct' headline for this.


"Accurate"? How about "informative", as in capturing the main point?

A headline saying "Delay spoke while the sun was shining" would meet the accuracy test. (Well, I have not checked the weather for Washington...)

And is it "accurate" to say he "stepped up his crusade" against judges? Not many other reporters or commentators saw that.

In fact, as we further dissect the lead paragraph, we see that deLay "instructed" the House Judiciary Committee to investigate Federal Court decisions. Yet down in the body, he "asked" them to.

Can we agree that the words mean different things? And can we find out whether DeLay can set the agenda for the Committee?


Of interest to all of DeLay's fans, including canttakenomore, whose cup will 'runneth over' with this article.



creepy dude

Update: No, Tom Delay remains a jackass:

The Associated Press quotes Delay on Tue Apr 19, 7:56 PM ET mouthing the following...tomfoolery:

"We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous. . . . And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

That would be the Justice Kennedy appointed by Ronald Reagan, of course. Now if Lord God Reagan can't appoint the right sort of justice, who the hell can?

creepy dude

And I'm sure Justice Kennedy meant he used Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis as opposed to say gaining his insights from Powerlies or the DailyKos.

We're way past "Who will rid me of this meddlesome judge" territory. Delay is in fullblown Captain "Somebody's been eating the Strawberries" Queeg mode.

The comments to this entry are closed.