Dean Held Hostage, Day 3

What is their congressman going on about, Times readers must be wondering?  Like Howard Dean, NYC congressman Jerry Nadler has denounced the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic comments made at a recent Democratic event hosted by John Conyers.

NY Sun readers are being kept abreast of developments; however, although NY Times readers were apprised of Conyer's event, the Times has sheltered them from news of the anti-semitic comments, as well as any news of either Dean's or Nadler's denunciation.

In fact, Howard Dean seems to have disappeared from Timesworld since he was spanked by Capitol Hill Dems in the June 10 edition.

Can it be that anti-Semitic pamphlets being distributed inside DNC headquarters during a DNC event is not of interest to Times readers?  Even though it prompts a disavowal from the DNC chairman?

Can it be that anti-Isarel remarks at an event staged by House Democrats is of interest to a NYC congressman, but not readers of the Times?

Can it be that Byron Calame, Public Editor of the Times, will want to respond to this?

Let's find out together: his e-mail is [email protected].

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Maybe Brad DeLong is secretly editing the Times the way he edits the comments on his blog?

[Howard Veit]

The real code word here is "Black." Liberals allow Blacks anything especially forgetting separation of Church and State. There would be no such documents present at any white meeting. Like most in big cities, work around a lot of Blacks and they hate Jews, never stop talking trash about them, and think everyone thinks like that. I fianlly complained at my workspace and was told, "Shit, Howard. We're stuck with these shitheads. If I fire them we're closed down." It's like we are smart enough to consider the source....or something like that.

[rightnumberone]

I don't think you will get a response.

But, I'll answer your question. The NY Times doesn't want its Jewish readers to know that anti-Semitism is rampant in the upper echelon of the Democratic party.

That way, they keep the Jewish people voting for Democrats.

It's the same reason why most inside New York don't realize that US Senator Robert Byrd is not only the single living Senator who was also a member of the Klu Klux Klan - but that he's the Democrat's "conscience" in the Senate.

His voting record is decidedly racist to this day (he frequently votes, for example, to approve similarly-situated Bush nominees who are white, but votes against any which are not white.)

Not that you'd discover that in the New York Times.

[TexasToast]

Perhaps they see a difference between anti-semitism and opposition to Israeli political policy?

They are, in fact, two different things.

[Knemon]

TexasToast - is there a difference between anti-semitism and the "2,000" (or whatever) "Jews stayed home that day" pamphlets?

[Dan]

"Perhaps they see a difference between anti-semitism and opposition to Israeli political policy"?

Perhaps others see a difference between critisizing Israeli policy and claiming that Israel controls US foreign policy. The later is simply code for "Jews own everything".

[Jos Bleau]

The NYT & the WaPo did the same thing (covering for him by not covering his excesses) during the Dem primaries. Dean was spouting off the very same over the top rhetoric then as now, but none of my politically aware friends who got their info from the MSM heard about any of it. Thanks to bloggers (many of them dem, to their credit), though, I did.

I don't think Dean 'captured' his press corps - that is, that the reporters who covered him swooned for him so greatly that they simply couln't see his excesses. Rather it was a cse of the 'emporer's clothes' - no one wanted to be the first one to point out that the firebrand of the democratic cause was just full of bad breath & hot air. The press knew he wasn't ready for prime time. They just couldn't say it.

That's why they so grossly overplayed the Dean Scream and effeictively destroyed what was left of his campaign after the Iowa caucus - finally, all that pent-up schepticism could be released.

I predict the same thing will happen in this case, too.

[TM]

Perhaps they see a difference between anti-semitism and opposition to Israeli political policy?

Well, I carefully make that distinction in my post. And, on a limb here, I bet plenty of NY Times readers would be interested in an anti-Israel tilt to the Dem Party whther or not it could alsobe described as anti-Semitic.

...anti-Semitism is rampant in the upper echelon of the Democratic party.

I don't believe that, but... they have their extreme wing (and denouncing the Zionist imperialist oppressor of the earnest Palestinians is de rigeur on many college campuses.)

Put another way - if someone handed out white supremacist pamphlets at a RNC functon, would the Times notice?

[Geek, Esq.]

The Democrats have Jim Moran (just one vowel wrong) and the Republicans have Pitchfork Pat Buchanan.

To paraphrase someone, the reason we have two political parties is that we can't fit all of the crooks, liars, and bigots into one.

Btw, has anyone produced the actual fliers that were handed out? I know the LaRouchies like to crash Democratic events.

[Camp Runamok]

TM,

if someone handed out white supremacist pamphlets at a RNC functon, would the Times notice?

Two words for you: Trent Lott. His effusive praise of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats was all over the Times' front page for days. 'Nuff said!

[SteveMG]

"Put another way - if someone handed out white supremacist pamphlets at a RNC functon, would the Times notice?"

Bingo.

Superb analogy; you should write speeches for Illinois senators.

This is an example of the saying that the press doesn't tell what to think, but it does tell you what to think about.

Or, in this case, what NOT to think about.

SMG

[Gerry]

It's par for the course. I just found out today that one of the more prominent Democratic House members has been flirting with the LaRouchies. I am speaking of Conyers, which probably explains why the literature was being distributed as it was. The guy who made the comments at Conyers' hearing, McGovern, has his material republished by LaRouche as well.

Top it off with the fact that the Democratic candidate for Senate in Mississippi, Rep. Erik Fleming (state rep, I believe), endorsed LaRouche in 2004 over Kerry, and that the LaRouche Youth Movement is apparently attending Democratic strategy meetings in Washington, and I think there is some rather unsavory elements in their midst being conveniently ignored by the Democrats.

See here for details.

[Lurking Observer]

Geek, JR:

Pitchfork Pat is a Republican?

Funny, back in 2000, I seem to recall that somebody else was the Republican candidate for President.

What elective office(s) has Pat held? What party affiliation did he have when he held them?

I've little doubt that you can tar and feather the GOP w/ wacky Representatives. No need to start making up party affiliations for the likes of Pat.

[Geek, Esq.]

Did you miss the part where Pitchfork Pat addressed the Republican National Convention in 1992?

If you want, I can pull up some other names. Say, like Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, David Duke, etc etc.

[Gerry]

Geek--

Yes, PP did address the Republican National Convention. That was before he went off the deep end-- a movement that led to him leaving the Republican party because his views didn't fit in with it.

The Republican party did everything it could to expell Duke, who's views of late are indistinguishable from the far left's sans racism.

[Lurking Observer]

That's quite alright, Geek.

I'll see your Helms, Lott, Duke, and meet them w/ Maxine Waters, Dick Durbin, Byrd, McKinney, etc.

My point was simply that Pat's as much a Republican at Moran's level (i.e., elected official) as Michael Moore is a Democrat at Durbin's level.

[Al]

Pat Buchanan a Republican? Last I saw, he was a Reform Party member...

[TM]

Yeah, we exiled Pat in 2000, and good riddance.