Behold the Enmity of the Elites!

06/10/2011 -- The New York Times and the Washington Post: have each furiously primed the "Palinater Pump" with their direct "crowdsourcing" appeal soliciting the public to help them "investigate" here (NYT), and "contextualize" here (WaPo) the large dump of emails to and from the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The documents are being released today by the State of Alaska in response to FOI requests:

Sez Me in reaction to these two media outlet requests:

Someone please tell me how we are not now in the throes of a full blown ideological war here in America?

This action is not just compelling evidence of these two newspapers openly and brazenly enlisting themselves on the side of a political party movement . . . which would itself be a unique and foreboding event in modern American history!

No . . . heretofore, these two news-gathering outlets had tried to maintain at least a pretense of objectivity, a wall of separation between their news and editorial expressions.

This action much more than just further blurs that ever-crumbling line! It is a case of two "elite" news organizations deliberately provoking an electronic mob.

The NYT and the WaPo have just cast aside the last vestiges of their own senses of civility and haughty superiority, couched all these years in claims of pursuing a "higher purpose."

Note the tentative and telling "first offer" from the WaPo . . . the proposed limitation to 100 select deputies . . . which was just as quickly cast aside by them in the face of the NYT open invitation to all! They obviously had at least some initial misgivings, but "monkey see, monkey do" has held sway.

Fingers stabbing away, they both have just pointed accusingly -- out across the angry crowd of nasty little ginned-up ideologues -- at "the hated one."

Nakedly and shamefully demonstrating their own inadequacy to the task, they have each gnashed their teeth, and shouted out loud over the little mob of haters:

"There she is! GET 'ER!

Behold the ugly face of the Enmity of the Elites!


* * *

(The above statement of mine was first posted by me as a portion of a comment on a thread at a post on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion blog describing the actions of the New York Times and the Washington Post in openly soliciting the assistance of legions of Palin-haters on the web to sift through and target items from the large release by the State of Alaska, supposed 24,000 pages of emails to and from Sarah Palin dating from her tenure as the Governor of Alaska.)

Obama Takes On His Own Campaign:
Who Is Right?

How could it have happened?

Perhaps, just before he left on his whirlwind tour, Barack Obama mused out loud in front of aides, "Won't someone rid us of this troublesome surge?" We'll probably never know.

Surely, all of the admitted and utterly shameless Obama apologists will now rush in to explain to us why Barack Obama's campaign has suddenly purged his web site of anti-surge propaganda, while claiming that his opposition to the surge has not abated, not even a teeny-weeny bit? The New York Daily News reported it today in a story by James Gordon Meek of their Washington Bureau.

And, according to a post by Mike Allen at Jonathan Martin's Blog on Politico, entitled "Surge meets purge" which was just put up just this morning citing that Daily News story, Barck Obama has now "refined" his website, BUT NOT HIS POSITION.

From Allen's post:

The McCain camaign [sic] is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today's New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.
. . .

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.' "

Got that last comment? Barry is NOT softening his criticism of the surge, but his website is being updated "to reflect changes in current events."

Like . . . the success of the surge, Wendy?

Does that mean that Barack Obama is now officially divorced from reality, or maybe the campaign spin will be that he is merely "of two minds" on the subject?

What is he going to say to our American troops when he gets to Iraq? You’ll remember them. They were the ones who put their lives on the line to turn the situation around. They were also the ones who succeeded in doing that? The surge policy that both Barack Obama and his new best friend, Senator Timothy "Chuck" Hagel (R - Nebraska) vehemently opposed? Tim is going to join Barack in talking to the troops there. He was dead wrong on the surge when he told CNN that it would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."

Maybe Senator Obama will say something like this to the troops in Iraq:

"I continue to oppose the surge, but you guys sure did a good job in the surge."

And, by having officially taken on his own campaign now, will that not seem strange to the American people?

He says he wants them to elect him President, which would make him the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Or, do you think the American people will just laugh that off as "politics as usual" from Obama?

Mind you, Barack Obama has had, shall we say, "differences" with his staff in the recent past on the topic of Iraq. In fact, his campaign spokesmen and strategists have taken to lying out loud about what his position on the surge was at the time it was initiated.

Check the side-by-sides below, and note the dates!

Here is Obama spokesman, Robert Gibbs versus Barack Obama:



and, here is Obama Campaign Chief Strategist, David Axelrod versus Barack Obama:



In the second clip, note exactly what Barack Obama said back then:

"I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the ground."

That was because at the time he said that, he had refused to talk to General Petraeus, the man who literally wrote the book (commercial version here) on counter-insurgency warfare. Petraeus was well known to be the military expert on the subject, from long before the surge was implemented.

Of course, Obama actually has talked to him, as you can see here:



So . . . what's next?

Well, for one thing, I suppose that honest comics will no longer have any trouble at all getting laughs about Obama, regardless of what Bill Carter reported in the New York Times today!

Why Mitt?

Many folks have endorsed Mitt Romney for President, and for a variety of reasons.

My reasons really can be reduced to a connection. Few agree 100% with the positions on issues of a candidate they support, so I am sure I'm no exception. But, having evaluated the views and the approach of the candidates, for some time now I have felt a solid connection to his approach. Mitt Romney's real world career successes, both in business and in the public sector, are far and away the most impressive of any of the candidates. And the manner in which he and his family have lived their lives is notable as well. But it was his approach, the way he talked about how he would govern, that won my support and my vote.

To me, the best Presidents have a few solid qualities, ones which can oddly seem somewhat contradictory on occasion. But the Presidency demands several qualities because a President fills several roles. And the best Presidents do so in a relatively seamless manner.

Constitutionally, a President is our nation's chief executive and the military Commander in Chief. A President is also the head of state. All three roles demand unique qualities, and for me Mitt Romney would best fill all three. In fact, his grounding in the business world is a particularly significant factor now in dealing with economic turbulence, including avoiding an over-reaction that would hamstring us on the back end.

Here in New Jersey, I am reminded that a few successive Democrat administrations have literally destroyed the economic viability of our State government -- not of our economy quite yet -- but certainly of our State Government. At the same time they have bloated the size of government all out of proportion. New Jersey has become a certifiably obese state Government. The current governor's "solution," however, is to mortgage the future with enormous toll road increases, which will simultaneously ruin whatever remains of our quality of life by driving traffic off onto local arteries. And he'll be long gone before the piper even begins to tune up!

In short, New Jersey has permanently adopted the J. Wellington Wimpy model of governance, "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." So, I want a president who will not continually be knocking on Democrats' doors looking for ways to compromise and grow the government, all while enabling personal dependence and diminishing our individuality, just so he can prove he is an independent.

A president must have extraordinarily strong convictions to successfully pursue a political agenda, but those should be coupled with an inherent modesty of purpose, an understanding that in promoting and protecting and ultimately preserving our representative democratic polity and our free society, the framework for pursual of a political agenda is, and should be, limited indeed. He or she leads, but not without being fully connected, and not without understanding that at the end of the day, our core values of freedom and liberty not only remain intact, they should ideally be enhanced.

Just because of the nature of the game, many candidates this year seem to exude much of that first quality -- strong convictions -- but too little of the latter, that inherent modesty of purpose.

Anyone who truly values and cherishes freedom and liberty knows that they both inform our national soul, and can be mighty messy as well! Nothing good usually comes out of the kitchen without a sink full of pans and dishes!

Good leadership, therefore, ought to arise out of energetic engagement in public debate, and succeed only through persuasion. Good politics is the fight for the right tomorrow, employing the means that preserve our political inheritence. Finding ways to tamp down or cut off politically motivated speech and debate, therefore, is inherently wrong. McCain/Feingold was and is an abomination. And when I hear a politician opine -- as several leading Democrats have threatened since eeking out a bare majority in Congress nearly two years ago -- that talk radio may need to somehow be reigned in, that is it for them. Where was the classic liberal who stood up and said "no" to that rubbish?

I often suspect that progressives -- that's what they like to be called these days --really believe that free speech and expression are merely means to the imposition of their ends, and that once their ends are being achieved, those means can just "whither away." "Political correctness" is a demonstrable current precurser of that end game. Just think of the perfectly legitimate things you're no longer "allowed" to say, and the new euphemisms you are now expected to employ! Nuts to that!

Some "progressive leaders" even exhibit a tendency to equate, or should I say conflate their own power-seeking ambitions, with our national zeitgeist. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. It is, and always has been all about her. Well, I say, "go garnish your own wage, lady!" And she really ought to lay off the bogus tears, too!

Finally, I like the idea of a President who, like Mitt, proved he could win and govern in a blue state, in some ways, the bluest state of all -- at least then! And this year, I was impressed by his ability to go into what will undoubtedly be a battleground state of Michigan, and win as well.

Lest anyone point to current polls, however, to suggest that only McCain scores against Democrats, I'm not impressed. As at other times in the past, John McCain has gotten a free primary-length pass from the main stream media outlets, including being endorsed for the primary by both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. But that honeymoon will not last for one single second, should he secure the Republican nomination. If he does win, the media-wide spigot will be abruptly turned off.

Then there will be a lot of cheerleading for Clinton or Obama. And, as in the past few cycles, there will be some significant breaking through that filter here on the internet. I predict, more and better.

So, HERE, as with some other notable locations elsewhere on the internet, I'm for Mitt Romney for President.

Now I think I'll go vote!

CNN Meltdown, Part III, "Stonewall !"

Hugh Hewitt highlights more on the CNN "meltdown," drawing from his interview with Tom Brokaw, and linking to the latest from Mark Steyn, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and others (other links in Hugh's original).

Hugh also quoted from our own Update posted last night (thanks, Hugh) about the total disconnect between what CNN senior executives, including David Bohrman, were publicly pitching prior to the debate, and what actually unfolded at the event.

Hugh concludes:

"CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives. But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM."

Right to the nub, Hugh.

Except that CNN, unlike CBS, will likely do little if anything in the way of a "self-examination" or investigation of what happened to try to restore their credibility, other than the Anderson Cooper "mea culpa," which was limited to the exposure about General Kerr's connection to the Clinton campaign.

Will CNN just take The New Republic approach to rooting out those serious research and credibility problems? "Moving right along . . ."

So far, their site suggests just that. A quick search of the CNN main website page, or of their politics page, reveals little or no recognition at all of the brewing controversy about their debate.
Elsewhere on the CNN site, CNN Investigates caught our eye for a second, but it's about candidate "attack ads" and who is this year's Willie Horton, not about "ambush questions" and who is this year's Dan Rather!

A post-debate Podcast analysis piece with Lisa DesJardin and John Lisk contains not a single word about the controversy. It's all just a, "he said, he said" recap of the candidates.

The only thing we could find on their entire site was two comments here buried among a total of 28 in what was a quickly closed thread. They were posted by Justin and Michael as reader comment on the post-debate wrap-up. Here are the two comments:

Justin

I also was disturbed by how little work seems to have been done to check the backgrounds of those asking questions. (Or was a lot of work done to make sure they were really from a narrowly focused group of people?!) I also was disturbed by how little work seems to have been done to check the backgrounds of those asking questions. (Or was a lot of work done to make sure they were really from a narrowly focused group of people?!) With what was supposed to be a good sampling of Americans, I found simple web searches of those asking questions bringing up facts that seemed to show these particular individuals were only coming from select political views and caused me to lose faith in the validity of the whole debate. CNN-The Most Trusted Name in News...REALLY?????

. . .

Michael

YouTube either forgot to or chose not to vet their guests last night. Keith Kerr, Leann Anderson, and David McMillan are all *publicly* tied to current Democratic campaigns but were passed off as "civilians" when their questions were aired.

Good for them! But not a very good beginning for CNN!

Finally, the CNN link to their partner communication, Time, Inc. is to a video post grading the candidates' performances.

The CNN/YouTube Debate: Outsourcing Journalism by James Poniewozik, author of Time's Tuned In blog, put up a post-debate analysis on the 29th, also studiously avoided the controversy. The whole piece is about the "refreshing" uniqueness of having "citizens" ask the questions.

In fact, here's a bit of irony for you from James!

But the better questions to come out of YouTube were ones that mainstream journalists wouldn't have asked, for fear of seeming biased (as I said last time, bias produces some of the best questions) or because they strayed from the standard campaign-2008 talking points.

Really? So . . . the only reason certain reporters don't ask certain questions, is to avoid appearing biased? Well, we knew that, James. But, it is nice to hear it coming from you!

Or how about his finisher:

In the end, CNN didn't "give YouTubers a voice." The YouTubers gave CNN one.

Sure did! And a rather distinctly Democrat one at that!

The CNN/YouTube Debate Update

As has been duly noted elsewhere, here is a CNN story, "Funny, poignant questions pour in for GOP debate" dated just this past Monday (11/26), in which CNN Vice President, David Bohrman made it quite clear that the specific intention of the hosts of Wednesday night's debate was for Republican questioners to ask the Republican candidates questions.

Here is exactly what Bohrman said on topic in the story, just a few days ago:

"This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates," said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. "We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates."

Bohrman also told "The Caucus (ht: ProteinWisdom)," the blogger for the New York Times that they would weed out any "gotcha" questions.

Both claims were utterly and completely untrue.

We now know that a significant number of the few selected questioners, from as many as 5,000 YouTube video submissions, were submitted by out-and-out Democrat plants, and even one aired question was by a former CAIR intern, all with no other purpose than to hurl ambush questions at the candidates, and that a minimum amount of research on the part of the CNN producers and researchers would have quickly revealed those connections to them.

At Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds correctly calls it "a failure of professionalism," noting, as others have, that YouTube is, after all, owned by Google!

So, what happened, Dave? Who in production and/or research dropped the ball? Who, if anyone, was uhhhh . . . Googling?

Over the years, we have seen CNN in various outrageous iterations, including having experienced the disgusting accusation by the former President of CNN news, Eason Jordan (in Davos) -- who ultimately had to resign -- over falsely accusing the U.S. military of intentionally killing reporters in Iraq out of anger! Now CNN has attempted to skew the nomination process on both sides, within two weeks.

Are they trying to outdo Dan Rather?

The CNN story on Monday ended as follows:

CNN's political unit is keeping the questions a secret, but those selecting them say viewers should be prepared for presentations that are funny, questions that are poignant and a format that is unprecedented for the GOP.

Yep.

Hey, maybe what they really meant to say was "funny" questions, and unprecedented presentations.

(Our original post, here.)

Quick, Wolfy Needs Our Help!

Folks, as you know, the CNN Democrat Presidential contenders debate in Las Vegas will be off and running in just a few hours! Bet it did not occur to you that talking heads like Wolf Blitzer -- especially Wolfy -- may need our help right now!

No doubt you're aware, reports indicate that Wolf was warned by the Clinton Campaign to go light on Hillary and not try to "pull a Russert" by asking her tough questions, or pressing her for answers! Of course, that really means that Wolf will need to ask some hard questions to avoid being tagged forever as a complete sell-out weenie! The one thing that a top level talking head cannot afford is to be disrespected by both the right and the left!

Just ask Tucker Carlson over at left-leaning MSNBC!

Well, as you also know there is a writer's strike on! That's right! Who is going to write Wolf Blitzer's questions for him, huh? He can leave it for the rest of the panel to ask the usual fascinating questions of Hillary . . . questions like, "Has powder blue always been your favorite color?"

But Wolfy has to hammer home at least a few tough ones, or else he'll be the one remembered as the "potted plant" from this evening's debate.

For that reason, we've jotted out few quick suggestions for him. They're really in rough draft shape, but I assume he can edit out what he doesn't like, no?

The only other thought we had is that reports state the recent Harvard study showed that CNN is very, very left wing -- "the most hostile to Republicans." No doubt the writers there are as well. Group Think, you know?

That means he may be unfamiliar with the focus we've taken, and perhaps the style as well. Hey look, nobody is perfect! At least we tried to help the poor guy out!

So, if you can think of a few quickies to add, please do! And more importantly, if anyone has an e-mail address for Wolfy, please be sure to forward this link on to him, along with any additions you might want to make. Just copy us for the file as a courtesy, if you would.

Thanks! Whew!

So, at last, here are our 10 suggestions, arranged by subject matter, for questions that Wolf Blitzer might ask Hillary Clinton tonight!


Experience:

Senator Clinton . . .You have repeatedly said in earlier debates, that you are the most experienced of the Democrat candidates for President. But your critics note that you have never run anything, never made a budget, nor have you ever been responsible for the lives of tens of thousands, or even millions of citizens and residents. And, you never served in the military, though you reportedly once thought about it. They also note that as First Lady, you failed miserably at those few things you personally became involved in, such as health care and the travel office. Even so, one could argue that you are more experienced than some of the would-be candidates on the dais with you . . . some, but perhaps not all. Would you please turn to Governor Richardson, who has actually run a federal government department, and who is now the Governor of a State, and please explain to him exactly what makes you more experienced than he is to be the President of the United States, and the Commander-in-Chief of all of our military forces?


Campaign candor -- Two questions:

a) Mrs. Clinton . . . A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama quipped to the New York Times in a story published today, that since it took you, "two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them." Would you please take the opportunity right now to respond directly to Senator Obama, or would you be more inclined to just let that one sit out there unanswered?

b) Mrs. Clinton . . . when specifically did you first hear that your campaign was planting questions with audience members, and who exactly did you hear it from? Has anyone who participated in the planting of such questions been removed from your campaign, and if so who, and when?

Immigration:

Senator Clinton . . . you and one of your potential opponents on the Republican side, Senator John McCain, both voted for the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" package that was before Congress recently, which went down to defeat. Since that time, Senator McCain has noted that we have really had a genuine national debate on the immigration question, and that he now understands and agrees with those who say that we must first deal with the question of border security before we can implement any broad provisions that would automatically enhance the status of the millions of illegal immigrants currently in our country. Do you agree with him? Would you also be in favor of firmly securing our borders before passing such status provisions?


Health Care:

Mrs. Clinton . . . critics of your national health insurance policies point out that in jurisdictions that have taken a more socialized approach, such as you propose, that it is common for individuals to be stuck in long waiting lines, or hampered by lengthy waiting periods of time for sophisticated procedures, such as MRIs. Suppose that, under your system, your daughter suddenly developed a condition that required an MRI, but she was forced to endure a long "waiting period" for the procedure. Where would you take her to get around that problem, as many foreigners often do now when they come to the United States for treatment? Canada? Great Britain? Cuba?

Iraq & War on Terror -- Two questions:

a) Senator Clinton . . . now that another month has passed, in Iraq few could deny that our military has made considerable additional progress on the ground in defeating al-Qaeda and it's affiliates. Do you think that the time may now have come for you -- and the rest of the candidates here as well - to publicly apologize to General Petraeus, in your case, for specifically implying to his face that he was a liar when he gave his testimony?

b) Senator Clinton . . . you recently said that you would not vote for any more money to support the troops in Iraq without a withdraw schedule attached. Now it appears that the President's surge strategy is working well, and specifically without a congressionally-mandated withdraw timetable. You want to be Commander-in-Chief. You also voted for the authorization for this war. If you were the Commander in Chief, would you invite Congress to put specific timetable limitations on your ability to do your job? And if not, why do you want to do that to the current President, whose strategy is now quite clearly working without any such timetables?

Campaign Finance:

Mrs. Clinton . . . I assume by this time that your campaign has finally identified all of the donors "bundled" by Norman Hsu, and if so, how many were there exactly, will you publicly release a complete copy of that donor list? And if you have returned all of the money, how many came back to you in "voluntary donations" from those specific donors? And, what about the so-called "dish-washer donors"? Does that sit well with you, or are you troubled by the fact that a substantial number of minimum wage workers, many of whom cannot even speak English, are somehow each coughing up a few thousand dollars to contribute to your political campaign?


Press Relations:

Mrs. Clinton . . . The New Republic has just published a lengthy and very, very unflattering piece by editor Michael Crowley about your campaign's media strategy -- Bunker Hillary: Clinton's Strategy for Crushing the Media -- addressing questions like, and I quote, "the Clinton camp's reputation for fearsome omnipotence is its treatment of media figures who cross them." Just in the past few days, unmistakable comments and pieces have been published that have been interpreted as "warnings to me" not to try to "pull a Russert" in this debate and ask you tough questions. Did you or your spokesman Howard Wolfson know anything at all in advance about any veiled threats from your campaign for me to go easy on you with my questions? And do you condone any such actions?

And, finally, not to bring up old news, but tough is tough:

Mrs. Clinton . . . have you forgiven Monica Lewinsky in your heart for having taken advantage of your husband's, shall we say, weakness -- the one you specifically identified years ago as having arisen in his childhood out of the conflict between two strong women raising him, i.e., his mother and grandmother?

When Denial Trumps The Obvious
The Elephant On the Cutting Room Floor

"We can imagine no better way to give hope to opponents of Iran’s repressive state than by showcasing America’s democracy and commitment to free speech."

NY Times editorial defending Columbia's decision to allow Ahmadinejad to speak.

11/01 - Today, the New York papers are all reporting that a 66-year old Jewish Professor at Columbia University, Dr. Elizabeth Midlarsky, some of whose work has concentrated on the acts of kindness of Gentiles toward the Jews back during the Nazi period, has just had a swastika spray painted on her office door up at the university. It was the latest of several anti-Semitic incidents, including hate mail, that were specifically aimed at this teacher in the past few weeks. Two of the city's newspapers, the New York Post and the Daily News displayed photos of the brown painted symbol scrawled on the door of Professor Dr. Midlarsky's office. She and her family live in New Jersey.

There was also a report of another bias-related incident back on October 10th of a noose being hung on the office door of Professor Madonna G. Constantine, a black professor at the college.

Regarding this latest incident, the New York Post reported that Dr. Midlarsky, a clinical psychologist and teacher at the college, had received three pieces of hate mail in her mailbox in the past few weeks, all occurring since the University's event hosting a visit by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, to visit Columbia and speak there at the end of September.

The professor had quite vehemently and openly opposed the invitation extended to Ahmadinejad by the school.

Midlarsky, who had family members killed in the Holocaust, strongly opposed the Sept. 24 visit to Columbia by Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust, and wore a pin showing the Iranian president's legs twisted into a swastika.

"I was appalled he was asked to speak at Columbia. I was very outspoken about it at the time. Perhaps this game [sic – "gave"] this person the idea for this swastika." Midlarsky told The Post.

The psychology prof said she might also have been targeted because "I am openly Jewish and openly and proudly study Holocaust issues."

"I feel safe enough to come out about my concerns. I am known for it. But this could make me a target of someone who expresses hatred. Anti-semitism is there. It's real. It still exists today," she said.

Midlarsky said anti-Semitic hate mail had been left in her Teacher's College mail box three times starting on Oct. 17.

As reported in the Daily News, her husband also squarely attributed it to fallout from the Ahmadinejad episode.

Last month, Columbia University invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Midlarsky's husband blamed the spurt of hate crimes squarely on the infamous hatemonger and Holocaust-denier.

"It's all fallout from Ahmadinejad," said Manus Midlarsky from the family's home in New Jersey. "The next step is physical violence, and that's what I'm worried about."

In two separate stories, the New York Times reported the incident as well, but failed in both to even include any mention of the hosting of Ahmadinejad at the school. One story, in the Education Section of the paper, entitled Swastika Painted on Columbia Professor’s Door, completely ignored whatsoever any possible relation of the incident to the late September visit to Columbia by the Iranian President.

The only quote that story included from her was as follows:

"I see this as an attack of extreme hate and extreme cowardice by someone trying to make a point," Dr. Midlarsky said yesterday.

One would think that would at least prompt a follow-up . . . say, "And what point would that be, Professor?" And, judging from her comments in the other two dailies, there is little chance she would have been shy about heading the reporter in the right direction on that one! Perhaps they did ask her and didn't like the answer, because it didn't fit their narrative.

The Times instead focused their short report exclusively in the context of other bias incidents, including the noose-hanging bias incident reportedly aimed at Professor Madonna G. Constantine at Columbia back on October 10th, and then went on to mention another reported noose-hanging allegedly targeting a Brooklyn high school principal in recent weeks, the latter quite obviously a completely unrelated incident. From the story:

On Oct. 10, a noose was found on the office door of Madonna G. Constantine, a black professor at the college. A string of similar acts in the region have occurred in recent weeks, including one in which a Brooklyn principal received a noose along with a racially charged letter in the mail.

The Times also printed the AP story about the incident that went into much greater detail about several reported noose-hanging incidents from around the country in recent years. But that story too, as well as the original New York Times story, did not mention a single word about the obvious relation of this incident to the September visit of Ahmadinejad to the University.

In their account, the AP claimed they were unable to reach Professor Midlarsky. Every other paper could. And the time stamp on the AP story indicates that it was filed after all of the other stories. But the AP managed to reach school officials at Columbia Teacher's College, meanwhile, who sought to blame it all on their focus on multicultural teachings, and blithly ignored the openly expressed views of victim of the incident, Professor Midlarsky.

School leaders said they felt the college was being targeted because of its "deep, multicultural work."

"We are committed to maintaining that tradition by operating as an open, tolerant community," Teachers College President Susan Fuhrman and Provost Tom James said in a statement. "We will not be intimidated by these incidents."

Right.

Except that everyone knows that Columbia University got so "open and tolerant" that they invited the world’s leading anti-Semitic hate-monger and Holocaust denier to drop by for a chat, graciously providing him with an open forum from which to spew his views.

True to form, of course, he played them for all the propaganda value he could squeeze from the incident, as this wrapup from FrontPage noted it would at the time.

But now the school officials want to pretend that this latest series of anti-Semitic incidents aimed at one of their own, and a vocal opponent of that visit, had nothing at all to do with their bad judgment!

They and their compatriots in denial at the New York Times, who, at the time, were busy pretending that the Ahmadinejad "visit" was really a glorious free speech rally, have played right along with this latest refusal to recognize the obvious. Shame on them all.

Denial has apparently now found a most powerful voice in a marriage of convenience between the New York Times, and the "leaders" at Columbia University. And they'll even carry that denial to the extreme of refusing to acknowledge the expressed views of one of their own, an elderly professor against whom these latest hate incidents were directly aimed.

Meanwhile, the New York Times would prefer to lecture the President of the United States, telling him he should cease what they call his "trash-talking" over Iran -- but without offering anything even remotely resembling a way to proceed on preventing Ahmadinejad's Iranian regime from getting their hands on atomic weapons!

So, the Times says, let the little dictator come here and rant, thus enhancing and enabling his position at home and abroad. But President Bush, they say, should just zip it!