Monday, October 27, 2014


This is on the front page of the print New York Times today. Note the juxtaposition of the article and the inset photo.

Here's the online version right now:

The Bush article is a positive, upbeat, gee-whizzy story about how a fascinating, storied family with a beloved nonagenarian patriarch is coming together around the notion of a run by young Jeb, who seemed to be destined for greatness until he was lapped at the turn by his reformed-ne'er-do-well older brother. The two brothers aren't close -- but now the older brother is his younger brother's biggest booster! Their mother has doubts -- but she's keeping them to herself! Her husband, the saintly old patriarch, would desperately love to see his young son give it a go -- it's apparently the last thing on his bucket list!

Speaking for Jeb this weekend was his son George P. Bush:
In an interview that aired on "This Week" on ABC News on Sunday, George P. Bush said that he thought it was "more than likely" that his father would run. "If you had asked me a few years back, I would have said it was less likely," he said.
George P. is 38 years old and is making his first bid for elective office -- he's running for Texas land commissioner. Why that should qualify him for a spot on a national talk show I'm not sure -- but he is the brown-skinned son of a Hispanic mother when the GOP has a negative image with Hispanics, and he is bringing glad tidings of his father's interest in the presidency, so the mainstream media is happy to oblige.

With regard to that father, he Times tells us:
Some of the positions he has taken on immigration, taxes and education are at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy of his party.
That's an impediment to Jeb's run -- but it also thrills the mainstream press. He could be the non-extreme Republican Daddy we've been praying for! He could save us from that wrinkled old crone Hillary Clinton!

The Times story on Hillary tells us that Hispanic activists are really, really angry with her:
President Obama has promised executive action on immigration change after the midterm elections. But immigration activists have already turned their focus -- and their frustration -- to his potential successor....

Behind [recent] public confrontations is a quieter but concerted effort by a critical bloc of young Latinos to urge others like them not to automatically support Mrs. Clinton in an increasingly likely 2016 presidential campaign.
What's angering these activists? Well, this, for example:
In June, Mrs. Clinton told CNN that the Central American children "should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are," a statement that made some young Latinos question her commitment to their communities.

Not long after that, Jorge Ramos of Fusion asked Mrs. Clinton if she had a "Latino problem." Mrs. Clinton replied, "I hope not!" and then said only those children who do not have a legitimate claim for asylum or a family connection in the United States should be sent back.
Even though the Times story on Jeb deals only fleetingly with immigration and other hot-button issues, the message of these two stories, to the presumably liberal readers of the Times, is that, on issues that are significant to liberals, Hillary Clinton may not be all that, while Jeb may be surprisingly appealing.

Never mind the fact that Jeb, however much he may support immigration reform, said exactly the same thing about this summer's wave of child refugees:
We must close loopholes that allow for individuals to be released from federal custody between hearings. Except for those deserving few who may demonstrate true cause for asylum or protection from sex trafficking, these children must be returned to their homes in Central America.

Next, we must aggressively remove the incentives that encourage people to break immigration laws. It is vital that we clearly communicate that there will be zero rewards for those who imperil the lives of children by sending them to the U.S. illegally. The children who have come here were provoked by adults and made to believe that crossing our border would be the key to their family's escape from a life of poverty or danger. That must end.
And he's the most liberal Republican on this issue who might run for president.

The mainstream press wants a Republican to win in 2016. The press wants to believe that Republican won't be a right-wing extremist if he's elected. That's why the right-wing positions Jeb and and Rand Paul, in particular, are being graded on a curve (as are the positions of extremist Senate candidates Joni Ernst and Cory Gardner). The press hates Obama and hates Hillary. The GOP may position itself as so extreme in the next two years that even the MSM can't deny the extremism, but Republicans ill get the benefit of every doubt. Be afraid.


W. Hackwhacker said...

It's no exaggeration that the "MSM" is Republican-wired. Reading the Washington Post in the past few weeks, you'd have seen a lot of Republican candidate-fluffing (Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz). Today on the front page no less we have a substance-free fluffer on Joni Ernst (!). If Ben Bradlee were interred already, would he be spinning in his grave?

Victor said...

With apologies to Jefferson Airplane:
'When the truth is found - the MSM turns to lies
An' all the integrity within them dies

Don't the MSM want somebody GOPer to love?
Don't they need some candidate to love?
Wouldn't they love some GOP candidate to love?
Corporate management says they better find some GOPer to love!'

Glennis said...

we must aggressively remove the incentives that encourage people to break immigration laws

Like death threats in their home countries?