Video: Smoking gun on NYT-spiked-ACORN story?

posted at 10:43 am on April 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Two days ago, I wrote about allegations that the New York Times spiked a story that linked ACORN corruption to Barack Obama’s campaign.  Last night, Bill O’Reilly played what appears to be smoking-gun evidence — an answering machine message from NYT reporter Stephanie Strom explaining how the editors shut down the story:

The message comes from Strom to a source named “Anita”, which I’ve transcribed. There may be one small problem with this, though. Listen closely for it:

STROM: Hi, Anita, it’s Stephanie. I have just been asked by my bosses to stand down. … They want me to hold off on coming to Washington. Ah, sorry, I take my orders from higher up, ah, sometimes. Anyway, I’m sorry about this and we’ll still be in touch. Take care, and, ah, let me know if there’s anything I can do to help you. Take care. Goodbye.

Anita is Anita Moncrief, the whistleblower who testified before Congress that the NYT spiked the story on orders from its editors. Moncrief told Congress that Strom called the information Moncrief provided a “game changer” — and that the Times apparently didn’t want the game changed. It would have, as Dick Morris explains in this segment, put the Obama campaign in violation of campaign finance rules that prohibit coordination between campaigns and third-party organizations.

However, take a close listen to that tape. There is a gap, represented by the ellipsis after “stand down” in The Factor’s displayed transcript, that indicates that a portion of this audio has been excised. Now that could be just an anomaly from YouTube, a glitch in the broadcast, or an audio problem in Fox’s studios — but the ellipsis appears to represent a deliberate redaction. The Factor does not explain or even acknowledge this gap, outside of the standard ellipsis, so we have no idea what else Strom said in this message. Maybe she explained that they had no corroboration for the allegations, or that they had discovered that Moncrief was just wrong in the first place, or maybe Strom just used a bad word. Without the redacted portion being made public, we have no way of knowing what came between “stand down” and “they want”.

O’Reilly and Morris note that the Times has a history of ethical issues in its conduct. The story Morris tells of a promise to drop a scandal story in exchange for an exclusive interview sounds a lot like a story I reported last May about the hardball play the Times tried with John McCain. The use of extortion and punitive reporting makes the Times’ editors political hacks, not honest journalists, and O’Reilly and Morris rightly rip the Gray Lady for such activities.

However, if we’re going to insist on above-board ethics from the Times, we should engage in them ourselves. The message O’Reilly played may well be a smoking gun, but they should release the entire, unedited message to show it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

All the news that fit to hide.

Right_of_Attila on April 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM

The NY Times lied, journalism died. And seriously, is this a surprise to anyone?

MDWNJ on April 2, 2009 at 10:49 AM

*crickets*

LimeyGeek on April 2, 2009 at 10:49 AM

All the news that fit to hide.

Right_of_Attila on April 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM

In fairness, the Times may not have had any room left in the paper after leaking a few more national security secrets.

Doughboy on April 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM

New Yarns Today (we’ll as long as they are the right left yarns)

Limerick on April 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Ed, have your forward this to O’Rielly? Sure would like to see what is up with this “gap” so if we have the complete story.

WashJeff on April 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM

I got all excited and then the excitement was dashed.

myrenovations on April 2, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Agreed Ed.

Weebork on April 2, 2009 at 10:51 AM

I would love it if Rush picked this story up.

carbon_footprint on April 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Could the NYTimes at least show the competent propaganda controls that Pravda shows by at least trying to hide their obvious bias?

Could having your lips pressed so firmly to the democrats butts and playing activists for them be so easy that “the paper of record” can afford to be so sloppy and inept?

Stalin and Fidel would be very disappointed and have the times staff thrown in prison immediately.

Baxter Greene on April 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM

“Story about a crooked political campaign? Page one!! Oh wait, this is about Barry? Nevermind.”

Physics Geek on April 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Stephanie needed TOTUS’s help when she left the message. Lot of ooohs,and uuums.

MDWNJ on April 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM

If true will THE LAW be enforced?

Mr Snuggle Bunny on April 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM

was a B carved in anita’s face, too?

sesquipedalian on April 2, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I stopped watching Bill O when he sold out for an interview with Obama. After the interview he went soft on Obama. So in my opinion Bill O is a hack.

UncleZeb on April 2, 2009 at 11:02 AM

The New York Times and mainstream Media the Cobblers that gave us Presidente Pinnochio.

When the tar and feathering begins these Cobblers should be swinging from the lamposts….. Metaphorically speaking of course.

dhunter on April 2, 2009 at 11:03 AM

It’s still a big story. Until we get an explanation of the pause in the tape, we should give O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt. I don’t seriously think he would edit important content out. They could’ve trimmed it for time purposes, getting rid of some flabbergasted response by Anita when Strom tells her the story is getting spiked.

Or it could’ve been totally irrelevant to the story.

I would like to hear an explanation, though. Fox should understand that they could edit it like that, but provide the full tape online.

hawksruleva on April 2, 2009 at 11:03 AM

I stopped watching Bill O when he sold out for an interview with Obama. After the interview he went soft on Obama. So in my opinion Bill O is a hack.

UncleZeb on April 2, 2009 at 11:02 AM

How did he sell out? He’s been pretty hard on Obama so far. And when he does go easy on the guy, he has Dick Morris or Karl Rove there to trash him.

Doughboy on April 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Well,thats an absolute outrage,why aren’t the thugs
visiting the NYT with the same zeal they went after
AIG!!(Sarc).

canopfor on April 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM

hawksruleva is right again. Fox, to retain credibility, needs to release the full tape if they have it.

kelley in virginia on April 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Good post, Ed. Hopefully we’ll get a resolution on that gap.

tneloms on April 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM

The elipsis in this story also appears to show an entire sentence (or more) to be missing. If it was sensitive information (telephone number, etc.), it should have been redacted with a bracket explanation.

RedSoxNation on April 2, 2009 at 11:09 AM

As much as I despise the NYT, I’d like to hear the entire convo before assigning blame.

Bishop on April 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Folks are missing the reason the NYT spiked the story.

A tie into ACORN would have been a five minute story, not a game changer…

HOWEVER, the allegation was one the Federal Election Commision could not ignore, as it ignored so many other allegationa about Barry’s campaign finance shenanigans…

They would have been forced to investigate… and once the investigation started? The illegal overseas campaign contirubutions… and the bogus reporting criteria they used for credit card contributions, would have come to light…

Face it folks, this Presidency may have been bought and paid for… and someday those records will get out…

Romeo13 on April 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM

was a B carved in anita’s face, too?
sesquipedalian on April 2, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Careful now, saying things like that could get you mugged in New York City by members of the “right wing hate machine.”

Bishop on April 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I stopped watching Bill O when he sold out for an interview with Obama. After the interview he went soft on Obama. So in my opinion Bill O is a hack.

UncleZeb on April 2, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Did you know that Obama touched O’Reilly’s leg in that interview?

The One.

yellow_railroad on April 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM

I’m craving getting more follow-up on this potentially awesome thread.

Ed,

Throw in another Cuda pic to tide us over til then. Chop Chop.

:)

Sapwolf on April 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM

O’Reilly and Morris note that the Times has a history of ethical issues in its conduct.

Let’s not forget their 2003 editorial hoping the Red Sox beat the New York Yankees in the ALCS, without disclosing that the New York Times was a part owner of the Red Sox. As well as Howell Raines’ spiking of a couple sports columns saying that the Augusta Country Club should stay men only, because Raines wanted it to admit women. Just small things, but they show the duplicity of the NYTimes.

And then there’s the whole Walter Duranty Pulitzer for saying how wonderful Stalin was.

The Times’ dishonesty is deep and pervasive.

rbj on April 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM

One way to get rid of Acorn,

Have the Republicans hire them

EricPWJohnson on April 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Did you know that Obama touched O’Reilly’s leg in that interview?

The One.

yellow_railroad on April 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM

He always does that. I guess he thinks physical contact will help sell what he’s saying. If you go back and watch the Joe the Plumber clip, he’s trying to do it there as well, but Joe wasn’t having any of it.

Doughboy on April 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM

was a B carved in anita’s face, too?

sesquipedalian on April 2, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Guess I’m stupid. What does that mean?

hawkdriver on April 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Pravda on the Hudson. Nothing new.

iurockhead on April 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Maybe it was a proper name that was removed? I’m very curious as to what it was.

forest on April 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM

The Times won’t run it?

Plenty of room in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Wander on April 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Guess I’m stupid. What does that mean?

hawkdriver on April 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM

It means he’s cool with the command economy and is just trying to appease his overlords.

lorien1973 on April 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Folks are missing the reason the NYT spiked the story.

A tie into ACORN would have been a five minute story, not a game changer…

HOWEVER, the allegation was one the Federal Election Commision could not ignore, as it ignored so many other allegationa about Barry’s campaign finance shenanigans…

They would have been forced to investigate… and once the investigation started? The illegal overseas campaign contirubutions… and the bogus reporting criteria they used for credit card contributions, would have come to light…

Face it folks, this Presidency may have been bought and paid for… and someday those records will get out…

Romeo13 on April 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM

True, to a point, although the next time the FEC actually completes an investigation within several years of the alledged offense will be the first time…this stuff just does not get resolved or even worked on in time to effect an ongoing election and, without googling, I am assuming that the Democrats now hold the majority on the board of the FEC…

A Balrog of Morgoth on April 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Did you know that Obama touched O’Reilly’s leg in that interview?

The One.

yellow_railroad on April 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Was the healing immediate, or did it manifest itself over the following days?
Either way, I’m sure Bill’s ills were cured./s

iurockhead on April 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Either I’ve been lied to about what kind of country I’ve been living in, or it’s getting more pathetic and corrupt by the minute.

Dorvillian on April 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Im sure if Bill was asked about this he would explain. If the tape was edited maybe there was personal stuff removed.

becki51758 on April 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Press corruption? That’s only because there’s a state granted monopoly to a handful of newspapers. You don’t have corruption in a free market. And, besides, print will be dead in a few years.

Libertarian Joseph on April 2, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I don’t trust Bill O either (he didn’t get tough on The One until he absolutely had to), however I do think he is extremely careful about what he reports and I don’t think the …. is leaving out a deal changer. He would not be that stupid.
That being said, Balrog is right. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Obama has a stream of resources that are less than legal, if not illlegal. The NYT exposing ACORN would not only be the elephant in the room but also the pile of shit with it.

ORconservative on April 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Oh, sorry, Romeo13 was right.

And again, eventually all of this will come out.

ORconservative on April 2, 2009 at 11:31 AM

It sounds like an edit to me as well. However, who made the edit? I doubt it was O’Reilly if it was relevant. He would not make such an allegation with doctored evidence. The edit was probably benign, or if not, was made by Moncreif herself in her ax grinding. Either way, The Times should justify their actions or they should be assumed guilty by their silence.

tommylotto on April 2, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Hi, sesqui, what’d I tell ya the other day? Looks like there are legs on this story.

I know it happens in politics all the time, but it could only be called business as usual if it was equally applied to both parties. Imagine, if you will, President Bush as the candidate when there’s this really juicy story involved.

TeeDee on April 2, 2009 at 11:33 AM

The whole story confused me anyway … I didn’t even know anything like this was hanging out there.

But, there are two smelly fish here – and one, I’m not really all that interested in.

The FIRST SMELLY FISH is the NYT “standing down” on what would be hot story. Who cares? Not like we need any more evidence that NYT is nothing more than an official propaganda arm of the State. Who cares? This tape IS ONLY significant as it relates to the FIRST FISH.

The SECOND SMELLY FISH – is the one that we should be interested in – and there is NO smoking gun on this tape for it. That fish – is whether or not Obama violated campaign rules by coordinating with his “Red Guard” troopers in ACORN. Not that there is any doubt whatsoever that he did – the evidence just isn’t there.

If this NYT reporter was going to visit “Anita” – then “Anita” must have some other information.

Lets see THAT!

HondaV65 on April 2, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Did you know that Obama touched O’Reilly’s leg in that interview?
yellow_railroad on April 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM

I wish the POTUS & FLOTUS would get it thru their thick skulls that ya don’t touch O’Reilly or the Queen.

Akzed on April 2, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Heard the tape last night directly from the show and as far as I remember there was no blip.

For what it’s worth.

Knucklehead on April 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM

If this NYT reporter was going to visit “Anita” – then “Anita” must have some other information.

Lets see THAT!

HondaV65 on April 2, 2009 at 11:34 AM

there is already testimony before Congress that Barrys campaign gave ACORN lists of donors, including the list of the sub $100 donors which they kept from public disclosure…

But still no outcry from the Repubs, or the Press… or any word from the Fed Elect Com.

Romeo13 on April 2, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I appreciate your open-mindedness in this matter. Intellectual honesty will keep me coming back to this site.

orange on April 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Well, even if this story has legs and gets big, the spin will be, “Obama used everything in his arsenal. Simply put, it was the only way an African-American could have been elected. Which makes him a hero, you racist bigot.”

“Greater truths” and all….

Matticus Finch on April 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM

was a B carved in anita’s face, too?
sesquipedalian on April 2, 2009 at 10:59 AM

No, hopeNchange dreamer, no ‘B’. Anita’s not a kook, just “a typical white person.”

DamnYankee on April 2, 2009 at 11:45 AM

What a shock, Obama is a Chicago political thug.

johnsteele on April 2, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Ah, yes, by all means – let us give the NYT the benefit of every conceivable doubt and then some, while assuming (even insinuating) that a critic of the MSM and/or the Obama campaign/Administration could be up to something nefarious.
`
After all, we have the smoking ellipses!
`
Couldn’t you find some way to work in a slap at Limbaugh or Palin in this story, too? Then it would meet the lame-stream definition of “objective journalism” perfectly!
`
The intensity Ed and Allah are giving their training makes me wonder if “shark-jumping” will be an Olympic event in 2012 . . .
`

Adjoran on April 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Face it folks, this Presidency may have been bought and paid for… and someday those records will get out…

Romeo13 on April 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM

The trail will lead right to George Soros. I wouldn’t be surprised if Soros is the puppet master, and Dear Leader is merely the puppet.

rbj on April 2, 2009 at 12:00 PM

NYT Who’s Your Daddy?

Dr Evil on April 2, 2009 at 12:05 PM

The SECOND SMELLY FISH – is the one that we should be interested in – and there is NO smoking gun on this tape for it. That fish – is whether or not Obama violated campaign rules by coordinating with his “Red Guard” troopers in ACORN. Not that there is any doubt whatsoever that he did – the evidence just isn’t there.

If this NYT reporter was going to visit “Anita” – then “Anita” must have some other information.

Lets see THAT!

HondaV65 on April 2, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Good point. It’s not really a cover-up unless we see the underlying story that this would have been. Since we have the source, let’s just see the story itself.

tneloms on April 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Ed, have your forward this to O’Rielly? Sure would like to see what is up with this “gap” so if we have the complete story.

WashJeff on April 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM

We know what O’Reilly thinks…

bluelightbrigade on April 2, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Well this should be easy enough to explain either way. I await the gap.

petunia on April 2, 2009 at 12:14 PM

It means he’s cool with the command economy and is just trying to appease his overlords.

lorien1973 on April 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM

you’re like a dog with a bone. it’s time to bury that thing.

it means that you can get burnt if you’re hyping hoaxes.

sesquipedalian on April 2, 2009 at 12:16 PM

rbj on April 2, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Hmmmm, I don’t recall putting in the strikeout above on the trail leading to Soros. He is Blofeld.

rbj on April 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM

This seems as much a public interest as the grilling of $1 a year executives.

Why was the congressional hearing held in private?

petunia on April 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Ah, yes, by all means – let us give the NYT the benefit of every conceivable doubt and then some, while assuming (even insinuating) that a critic of the MSM and/or the Obama campaign/Administration could be up to something nefarious.

Well, since this entire issue is about journalistic ethics, then it doesn’t help the Times’ critics to ignore them. If you actually read both posts, you’d see that I’m not giving them the benefit of every conceivable doubt. I regularly rip the Times for its bias and ethics, including an earlier post today and one coming up in a couple of hours. The notion that I’m an apologist for the Gray Lady is completely laughable, even reading this post alone without the context of over five years of blogging.

Are ethics disposable when dealing with your ideological opponents? If so, then I guess the Times did nothing wrong in your estimation.

Ed Morrissey on April 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM

And by the way O’Reilly seems pretty iept at technological advances… maybe someone should pick up a phone and ask him about it.

petunia on April 2, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Acorn is just plain a bully group. They need to be gone. Unfortunately, only Dick Morris takes on this issue?

Where are the Republicans on this story?

He’s just such a hack.

AnninCA on April 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Even if the story was a hoax, we could always use the lefty media’s “FAKE BUT ACCURATE” approach.

prince of dorkness on April 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Press corruption? That’s only because there’s a state granted monopoly to a handful of newspapers. You don’t have corruption in a free market.

A point that has not been made nearly often enough. Through Joint Operating Agreements, there has come to be a “concentration” of newspaper control that is just as bad or worse than what is claimed for the radio market. Now there are rumblings of tax breaks for newspapers…

Hey, I wonder if newspapers start getting tax cuts they will start demanding we the public get them, too… you know, the public they are “watchdogs” for?

HAHAHAHAHAH – enjoy your morning laugh!

drunyan8315 on April 2, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Obama got 52.92% of the vote with cheating and the “glow” and Bush’s huge unpopularity and the massive, massive amounts of money.

I’d say that the death of Conservatism has been highly exaggerated. In fact, I’d say that if it takes all of this to get a Democrat elected, we’re doing pretty good.

29Victor on April 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM

“Every day we make news judgements about which stories to publish and which ones not to pursue. Political considerations played no role in our decision about whether to cover this story”

And the Times release’s this statement on April 1st? Who’s the joke on???

Rovin on April 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM

it means that you can get burnt if you’re hyping hoaxes.

sesquipedalian on April 2, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Obama wants your internet. – Of course, it’s all in the name of “security”

Enjoy your serfdom!

lorien1973 on April 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Addressing what intelligence officials describe as a gaping vulnerability, the legislation also calls for the appointment of a White House cybersecurity “czar” with unprecedented authority to shut down computer networks, including private ones, if a cyberattack is underway, the officials said.

When in doubt, control it. – Obama

lorien1973 on April 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM

You need to be controlled…

“People say this is a military or intelligence concern, but it’s a lot more than that,” Rockefeller, a former intelligence committee chairman, said in an interview. “It suddenly gets into the realm of traffic lights and rail networks and water and electricity.

lorien1973 on April 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM

“Every day we make news judgements about which stories to publish and which ones not to pursue. Political considerations played no role in our decision about whether to cover this story”

One more thing—-I sure hope Stephanie Strom has a well trained body-guard. And has the Times recieved any under-the-table bailout money for keeping the story buried?

Rovin on April 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM

it means that you can get burnt if you’re hyping hoaxes.

sesquipedalian on April 2, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Yes, unfortunately, we’re all feeling the pain of that lesson with our current administration.

BlueCollarAstronaut on April 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM

I have the complete text of the missing portion:

“Is that oak?”

bergerbilder on April 2, 2009 at 2:24 PM

O’Reilly needs to play the entire thing — if he has it. Otherwise, it’s like those guys who interview you for an hour, take the best 15 seconds (chopped up if needed) that illustrate the pre-canned point they were going for and which you denied was correct, and play those.

unclesmrgol on April 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Obama got 52.92% of the vote with cheating and the “glow” and Bush’s huge unpopularity and the massive, massive amounts of money.

I’d say that the death of Conservatism has been highly exaggerated. In fact, I’d say that if it takes all of this to get a Democrat elected, we’re doing pretty good.

29Victor on April 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I like your spirit! The problem confronting America is not the death of conservatism, but rather the birth of fascism. Conservatism is fascism’s natural enemy – the battle cannot be won without it.

The Republicans, as the only readily available political vehicle for conservatism, need to accomplish a few urgent tasks by 2010:

1. Find a charismatic leader or leaders they can rally behind, and begin grooming them as presidential candidates for 2012.

2. Make the moral case against national socialism. Obama-style fascism is not just inefficient, it is immoral. The battle against it will not be won by a legion of accountants.

3. Clean up the Republican party’s candidates and elected officials, to position the party to run against the cosmic corruption of Obama’s Democrats. We all know how the media game is played. One Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, or Larry Craig trumps a thousand Tim Geithners.

4. Reform the election system and combat voter fraud.

This Times scandal is the latest evidence for the very, very obvious truth that the Republicans must rally their courage to deal with number 4 themselves, because they will receive absolutely no help from the media.

Now that we know the Times spiked the Story of the Century – a shattering expose that would have caused the spectacular destruction of a very high-profile corrupt poltiical candidate – does anyone still want to try peddling the notion that the press always “goes after the story” and just wants “big headlines?”

Doctor Zero on April 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM

When ACORN IS BEING IVESTIGATD AND CHARGED IN MULTIPLE STATES FOR voter fraud how in the hell does congress argue over how many millions of dollars will be given to this community organizition. If i were a congressman and voted for any bill that gave one damn red cent to a group like acorn I whould BE ASHAMED AND RESIGN MY OFFICE!!

TomLawler on April 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM

I stopped watching Bill O when he sold out for an interview with Obama. After the interview he went soft on Obama. So in my opinion Bill O is a hack.

UncleZeb on April 2, 2009 at 11:02 AM
How did he sell out? He’s been pretty hard on Obama so far. And when he does go easy on the guy, he has Dick Morris or Karl Rove there to trash him.

Doughboy on April 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I felt the same way about BOR (i.e. sellout) just before the election. I would listen to him on radio, and couldn’t believe what I was hearing. One female caller mentioned O was an “empty suit”, and BOR took her to task in full support of zero.

Post-election, BOR sounds like he’s tiptoeing back to the right, but I wonder what impact he had with the “undecideds” before they took to the polls.

In spite of BOR, and with the help of ACORN and MSM, the die was cast for the Manchurian Candidate.

Heaven help us.

Sweet_Thang on April 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Doctor Zero on April 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM

I would add that we also need to stop believing our own obituary. We need to stop being distracted and dispirited by what he MSM’s and the administration’s talking points.

29Victor on April 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM

It’s no surprise, really. It’s been pretty obvious for quite a while that the NYT is nothing more than a DNC newsletter.

ddrintn on April 2, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Erased tapes, how Nixonian, how ironic, how karmic.

eaglewingz08 on April 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM

The Bush administration could have shut down ACORN at any time and they DIDN’T. ACORN has been violating one law after another since their founding and NO ONE has done anything to stop them. Now they have at least part of the census and BILLIONS of dollars so trying to stop them now, with the O’bunghole admin. and the Demonazi congress amounts to trying to bottle spilled, flaming, gasoline.

nelsonknows on April 2, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Couric: “How do you think your parents would feel if they could see you now.”

GunRunner on April 2, 2009 at 5:45 PM

I stopped watching Bill O when he sold out for an interview with Obama. After the interview he went soft on Obama. So in my opinion Bill O is a hack.

UncleZeb on April 2, 2009 at 11:02 AM

.
Agreed!

JeffVader on April 3, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Excellent above board reporting with analysis as always, Ed. You are a go-to guy. Top notch, top notch.

Angry Dumbo on April 3, 2009 at 8:25 AM