Et tu, NY Times?
The NY Times has turned on the Obama administration—at least somewhat, at least for the moment.
It may not be the most hard-hitting editorial on earth, but considering the source it’s almost shocking. Something about the DOJ’s treatment of James Rosen has finally gotten the Times’ goat, and it’s no mystery what it is. Perhaps Obama and Holder thought that the fact that it was Rosen (a Fox News guy) they were after would protect them from the rest of the MSM closing ranks behind him to protect themselves from such intrusions. Or perhaps they thought this would never come out (and by they way, why has it come out, and why now?).
At any rate, they seem to have miscalculated on that. For now.
Here’s the lede to the Times editorial:
With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.
The wagons are slowly being circled. The press is getting angry, and it has some weapons of defense in its own arsenal. Is Obama being warned?
I don’t want to make too much of this. The left is not changing its tune on Benghazi or on the IRS investigation. Nor do I think it will. So whether this ultimately ends up being significant is anyone’s guess. But at least it’s something, a small breach in the heretofore impregnable wall of MSM defense of Obama.
[UPDATE: Special prosecutor coming up?
And here’s an especially interesting piece by the Times’ Bill Keller, who is one of the staunchist Obamaphiles of the liberal/left. In it, he calls on Obama to appoint a special prosecutor in the IRS scandal (which he believes to be the one with the most legs) to “call their [the Republicans’] bluff.” He goes on to say it should be someone widely regarded as objective, such as Clinton’s old nemesis Ken Starr.
Fascinating, no? Does it occur to Keller that, by asking this, it might just be Obama’s bluff that he’s calling?]
And the WAPO says that a special prosecutor in the IRS scandal is “inevitable. ” (Now headlined on Drudge).
The writer of the WAPO piece refers to the gambit Teh One might play of hoping the “Republicans continue their overreach.” What freaking overreach? Me, I’m seeing underreach, if anything.
It is something, I’ll give you that; a small crack in the dam. The editorial concludes:
“Obama administration officials often talk about the balance between protecting secrets and protecting the constitutional rights of a free press. Accusing a reporter of being a “co-conspirator,” on top of other zealous and secretive investigations, shows a heavy tilt toward secrecy and insufficient concern about a free press.”
Note the subdued tone, the lack of outrage (especially, need I say, compared to the ear-splitting indignation had such behavior emanated from a Republican administration). Like yesterday, I say the dam will hold despite a few cracks here and there–but I hope I’m wrong. I predict that after a few meaningless conciliatory gestures from King Barack’s administration, the press herd will go back into total sycophant mode, praising and abetting Obama at every turn.
Gary: you may be right. The consequences of deserting Obama may be too much for the Times to handle, no matter how outrageous his transgressions.
I’m trying to remember what position the paper took during the Clinton scandal. I’m almost certain they defended him against impeachment, although they did some criticizing. However, Clinton didn’t target the press as Obama has.
My guess is that unless there’s a smoking gun found that implicates Obama, the Times will limit the focus of its critique to underlings. Holder may end up a target of their ire, but Obama will remain in their favor, although they might chide him somewhat for letting his underlings get away from him. As long as they can’t find his actual fingerprints on it, though, they probably won’t turn on him too strongly.
However, the honeymoon will be over, IMHO. That might have at least some effect, although the paper will remain staunchly liberal.
Neo:
I really hope I’m being overly pessimistic here, but I fully expect most of the media, given the slightest excuse, to “go back into total sycophant mode, praising and abetting Obama at every turn.”
In what way would this differ from “the honeymoon” we’ve seen thus far between Mr. Hope&Change and the media? Again, I really hope I’m wrong–but I don’t think so.
The greater the loyalty and support, the more direct the betrayal, the greater the outrage.
Neo — it’s time to give Kirsten Powers a few more kudos too. She’s been crystal clear in her disgust with the whole Obama administration obfuscations, and the media who continue to defend them while they lie.
I wonder if she’ll end up like you someday. I can’t see her carrying the liberal banner the rest of her life. She seems to have a soul.
southpaw: methinks you missed the post I wrote about Powers yesterday.
I’m way ahead of you :-).
However, as you can see, Powers still doesn’t really get it. She has not made the transition in terms of how the ideology relates to the abuses.
Geoffrey Britain wrote: “The greater the loyalty and support, the more direct the betrayal, the greater the outrage.”
I hope you’re right. A large factor contributing to the ability of King Barack and lefty Dems to push forward destructive policies and legislation is the near-unanimous support of the mainstream media.
Without this constant cheerleading, they will be unable to do as much damage. And even less so if the MSM becomes questioning, adversarial or even outraged.
How confused Powers sounds in that column you linked to, neo.
Big government is good because, well, it is. But then, well, it’s not really big.
And Nixon was a conservative.
Ann: she sounds confused because I think she is. It’s a confusing experience to have your fundamental beliefs shaken. People tend to rationalize and defend them for quite some time—sometimes for the rest of their lives.
It was the NYT that repeatedly published national security info during the Bush presidency that damaged intelligence-gathering capabilities (i.e. the terrorist finance tracking program). Keller himself has recounted meeting with Bush where he was asked to sit on a story and he chose not to. Interesting that Keller is more interested in the IRS leaks given the likely vulnerability of his own reporters like James Risen.
I’ll remain skeptical on this for now.
Lizzy:
Yes, since the Times has built a lot of its reputation on publishing security leaks, I would think Keller would be much more concerned about the AP and Rosen. But note that the Times had a big editorial about that today, so maybe that’s the way it’s being handled, and Keller is taking on the IRS thing, which is being handled in a milder way. You’ll see what I mean if you compare his piece to the editorial.
Powers once was romantically involved with Weiner. Falling for someone like that? Confused is too kind a word..
Neo – I read Keller’s piece and was quickly reminded why I haven’t read an NYT editorial or opinion column in a while. He’s loaded this plea for a special prosecutor with so much wiggle room (“determine if what happened was criminal, or just dumb”) and so often dismisses its importance that the message seems to be: oh, just do it to shut the Republicans up and end all of this scandal distraction.
I do wonder if Keller stepped back from participating in the more critical editorial on investigating the press because of his past involvement in these national security scoops. He may no longer be Executive Editor, but he was during the early part of Obama’s presidency, and as the AP & Rosen subpoenas show, the DOJ likes to cast a wide net.
Neo- I definitely do miss a column here and there.
As Ann and you both put it, the USA article sounds confused. Besides that, I think her argument is a straw man- nobody is attacking liberalism for scandals. They’re blaming the democrat party and the media and Obama for being corrupt and abusing power for it’s own end. I agree that liberalism should be on the side of liberty, but that isn’t what the modern democrat party embraces. They use government programs to acquire and maintain power for the sake of power. I also agree a true liberal (as i understand the original meaning) would be outraged at the abuse of government power, the intrusion and intimidation of free speech and so on. To that end, the modern day democratic voter doesn’t care about those things in the broader sense that those rights apply to all of us- they only apply to democrats. So I think she is arguing on behalf of ideals and values that only a very small percentage of her party practice or acknowledge.
On the Weiner thing- I thought she had more class. Now that she has that experience on her hands- if Eric Holder and Anthony Weiner run on the same ticket- she’s got a right to the job the Weiner-Holder ticket could have a woman on it.
Andrew McCarthy at National Review argues against a special counsel. He says that the IRS scandal is primarily a political problem (our tax laws have created “a perversely complex regulatory framework that gives the IRS … enormous discretionary power to discriminate and intimidate”).
We need full public disclosure, not a legal process which will will be shrouded in secrecy for a long time until an airtight case is built. How long will that take? Much of the rest of Obama’s second term? No wonder liberals want a special prosecutor.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348982/no-special-counsel-irs-scandal-andrew-c-mccarthy
This theater of death and evil continues on I see.
We long ago passed the point of no return, so we might as well ride this death train to the end, one way or another.
A follow-up to my note above:
Don’t Criminalize the Investigations. Immunize the Witnesses!
by Michael Ledeen
May 22nd, 2013 – 9:11 pm
“Keep your eye on the mission, which is to save us from an ambitious tyranny. We cannot accomplish this life-and-death task if we turn it over to the lawyers. It’s a political mission, not a law enforcement roundup. We need to know, in detail, what happened. We have to know the details, which will, if we are good, enable us to dismantle an enormously ambitious attempt to change America in precisely the way Alexis de Tocqueville predicted. …”
http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/05/22/dont-criminalize-the-investigations-immunize-the-witnesses/
Many people don’t want to see. It’s too much work to fight an enemy once you see them. They pretend such does not exist.
They’re like a soldier putting on a blindfold and doing spray and pray in order to kill all the insurgents in a village. So long as he has ammo, he thinks he’ll win. Let’s just ignore the fact that without seeing the enemy, attacking or defending anything is pretty random.