Ashley Parker does it again, concerning immigration: Ashley Parker got her start as Maureen Dowd’s “research assistant.”
We’ll pause for a moment to let you laugh. Or as you try to figure out what that could possibly mean.
Parker is part of the youth brigade at rags like the Post and the Times. This morning, she files a news report about the way the GOP is switching its stance on immigration.
Her report sits atop the front page of the hard-copy Times. By its placement, it’s the day’s number-one news story.
These are Parker’s first three paragraphs. Please note the highlighted claim:
PARKER (3/20/13): Republican opposition to legalizing the status of millions of illegal immigrants is crumbling in the nation’s capital as leading lawmakers in the party scramble to halt eroding support among Hispanic voters—a shift that is providing strong momentum for an overhaul of immigration laws.Even for Parker, that is astounding. Here’s why:
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Tea Party Republican, on Tuesday became the latest to embrace a more welcoming approach, declaring to the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants that if they want to work in America, “then we will find a place for you.”
While he never uttered the word “citizenship” and said a secure border must come first, Mr. Paul strongly implied that citizenship would eventually be available to them.
According to Parker, Rand Paul “strongly implied” that citizenship would eventually be available to illegal immigrants.
She tells you that in paragraph 3, above the fold on the Times front page. But if you read all the way to paragraph 19—you have to turn to page A18—she breaks down, confessing to this:
PARKER: When initial reports about Mr. Paul’s speech suggested that he was backing full citizenship for illegal immigrants, his staff quickly corrected the record, saying that he supports “a quicker path to normalization, not citizenship.”Duh. Rand Paul never used the word “citizenship” in his speech. And sure enough! When the AP reported that he had endorsed citizenship, his staff “quickly corrected the record.”
But the political climate has moderated, and many Republicans are being forced to accept, if not outright embrace, some form of legalization for the illegal immigrants already in the country.
Parker knew that all along. But so what? On the front page, she told you that he “strongly implied” support for citizenship. You had to read very deep onto page A18 to get the actual info.
This situation was clear by early last evening; we saw it fully discussed on cable. The situation was clear to Parker too. But she decided to play on her paper's front page. You had to read deep for the truth.
The New York Times is a hopeless mess. Parker is under-qualified even by Times standards.
But this morning, the Times outdid even itself. What could possibly have gone through the mind of young Parker’s hapless “editor?”
The source of Parker's assertion: In what way did Paul “strongly imply” that citizenship would eventually be available to illegal immigrants?
In paragraph 5, Parker quotes these words. This seems to be where he did that:
PARKER: “Prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into becoming and being taxpaying members of society,” Mr. Paul said in a speech before the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.Those words are a departure for Mr. Paul. But even before his staff's rebuttal, only an amateur would have thought that was an endorsement of citizenship.
The remarks are a departure for Mr. Paul, who as a Senate candidate in 2010 called for an electronic fence and helicopter stations to help secure the border with Mexico.
Like any good research assistant to Dowd, Parker kept playing the fool even after the staff's rebuttal, and an editor let her do it. Gaze on the soul of your modern, Dowdian Times!