The New York Times and the soul of white folk!


Obama si, Alabama no: Andrew Rosenthal is the editor of the New York Times editorial page.

We would assume he’s a good, decent fellow in his personal dealings. That said, he’s also a legacy hire, and he just isn’t real sharp.

Everyone can observe this fact now that Rosenthal has his own blog. Does Anderson Cooper likes to talk toilet paper? Rosenthal wastes his time of a morning typing up piffle like this:
ROSENTHAL (11/14/11): Split Personalities and Political Spouses

Herman Cain’s wife, Gloria, has been pretty quiet so far, but in an interview conducted Sunday on Fox News (it’ll be broadcast Monday evening), she defended her husband against the sexual harassment accusations that surfaced about two weeks ago. She told Greta Van Susteren that her husband “totally respects women.” She also noted: “I’m thinking he would have to have a split personality to do the things that were said.”

Mrs. Cain’s willingness to stand up for her husband is admirable. But her assurances will convince precisely no one who hadn’t already decided that a vast left wing conspiracy was to blame for Mr. Cain’s troubles. (And, yes, I’m intentionally making a Hillary Clinton allusion.)...
Groan—and snore! There’s more, but we don’t recommend it.

That afternoon, Rosenthal took some time to share the tape of Herman Cain’s non-answer Libya answer. (You couldn’t have seen it anywhere else!) “Do yourself a favor and watch Mr. Cain attempt to talk about Libya,” the editor typed. “I think he might have just out-Perryed Perry.”

Simple story: The New York Times isn’t a bright newspaper, despite its reputation and branding. This thought often pops into our heads when Rosenthal emotes on racial issues, as he did in his latest editorial about the Alabama immigration law.

The Times disapproves of Alabama’s law, which is fine by us. But we thought Rosenthal jumped the shark, even for him, in his lofty, high-minded attempt to let us know where the wild things are.

A certain type of pseudo-liberal loves to maintain the conceit that we’re still living in 1955 when it comes to racial issues. This posture lets the pseudo-liberal strike an heroic pose. Here’s a sample from that editorial, which appeared a few hours before Rosenthal posted his tired musings on Gloria Cain versus Hillary:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (11/14/11): Alabama is far from alone in passing a law whose express aim is misery and panic. States are expanding their power to hasten racial exclusion and family disintegration, to make a particular ethnic group of poor people disappear. The new laws come cloaked in talk of law and order; the bigotry beneath them is never acknowledged.

But if there is any place where bigotry does not go unrecognized, it is Alabama.
For our money, the posturing in this editorial is almost obscene. Rosenthal even works Bull Connor into his screed as she postures, poses and exclaims about all the racism/bigotry.

As always, Rosenthal was very bold when it came to denouncing Alabama. It felt just like the good old days when he and we were young! An ethnic group is being disappeared! Misery and panic are everywhere! In response to these outrages, R- and B-bombs were widely deployed. But it’s always like that on this page.

That said, we were struck by someone else who got disappeared. His name is Barack Obama.

Rosenthal went on and on about the misery and panic created by the Alabama law. That seems a bit overwrought to us—but how about the misery and panic created by the president’s policies? We don’t have a firm view on this topic ourselves; it isn't a topic we follow in detail. But if Alabama is spreading misery and panic, why isn’t Obama? Adam Serwer discussed his record just a few weeks ago, writing for Mother Jones:
SERWER (9/20/11): On September 9, I wrote that the Obama administration, based on statistics from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was nearing its millionth deportation. It seems I was only about three days off. According to Reuters, the administration hit that milestone on September 12. How does that compare with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush? The answer, if you've been hearing Republicans accuse Obama of "backdoor amnesty" and holding the border hostage, may surprise you. “The Obama administration had deported about 1.06 million as of September 12, against 1.57 million in Bush's two full presidential terms.”

That's right, Obama is on the verge of deporting more undocumented immigrants in a single term than Bush did his full eight years in office.

Despite the administration's stated focus on unauthorized immigrants with criminal records, more than half of those deported had no criminal records, 54 percent to 46 percent. But that number doesn't convey what percentage of removals categorized as criminal include serious or violent offenses as opposed to minor ones.


Just ten days before Obama passed the million deportation mark, Mitt Romney said that "Three years ago, Candidate Obama promised to address the problems of illegal immigration in America. He failed. The truth is, he didn't even try."

More than a million deportations, and his first term isn't even up yet. I wonder what the numbers would look like if Obama were trying.
If Alabama’s conduct is steeped in bigotry, why isn’t Obama’s?

If you’ve ever read the New York Times, the answer is obvious. As an ardent pseudo-liberal, Rosenthal loves to R-bomb southern whites. Black guys from the Land of Lincoln are going to get a pass.

This is the way the New York Times thinks. Whatever you think of Alabama’s law, the Times luvvs to trash southern whites.

Banning the bombs: Note the massively different tone when the Times criticized Obama’s immigration policies in August (click here). There was no mention of misery, panic. No R- or B-bombs flew.

Does deportation feel better when a black liberal does it? Inquiring minds wnat to know!


  1. Yeah, the Times should report the non-existent racial underpinnings of US immigration policy which is being revised/reprioritized under Obama, right?

    This is the kind of stuff I've come to expect from Breitbart's multiple sites.

    Seriously, we've got 24/7 coast-to-coast and border-to-border propaganda/lies being broadcast by the right wing in this country and the Times calling Alabama's law exactly what it is (if you can't deport them, scare them into moving to another state, who cares if you're losing legal citizens too) is the biggest problem you can come up with concerning the press?

  2. I'm appalled by the idea that simply enforcing the law can be characterized as racism. If the Times want to permit unlimited immigration without the requirement of US Government permission, then that's what they should be calling for. I think President Obama and the State of Alabama deserve praise, not criticsm, for enforcing existing immigration laws, even if the New York Times doesn't like some of those laws.

  3. David in Cal said...
    "... I think President Obama and the State of Alabama deserve praise, not criticsm, for enforcing existing immigration laws, even if the New York Times doesn't like some of those laws."

    You seem to be blissfully unaware the feds have sued the state of Alabama over its new immigration law.

    The Justice Department is also investgating the state of Alabama for possible civil rights violations.

    Mr. Somerby's comparing Obama's efforts with Alabama's borders on slander and so does yours.

  4. Anonymous, I'm well aware of these Federal actions. The Federal Government is also suing the State of Arizona over its immigration law. I deplore these suits.

    IMHO the Federal Government is suing to prevent these two states from helping to enforce existing immigration law. As I said, if people disagree with existing federal immigration law, then they should change it. But, I think existing law should be enforced as long as it's on the books.

  5. @TRA.....why does this "border" on slander? Or, more succinctly, HOW does this "border" on slander? I am genuinely curious...where is the falsehood in the Howler's post?

    @ Dave in as a general rule, you think that so long as one is 'enforcing' the law/a law, there actions cannot be deemed "racist"? A very interesting assertion given our nation's history.

  6. monkberry, if one wants to go back in America's race history, one can fault the US forever. However, taking into account all we've done since the founding of this nation, I am proud of where we are now.

    Yes our nation allowed slavery for 90 years. After the Civil War we allowed a system of Jim Crow that deprived African Americans of their rights.

    However, the United States also fought a war to end slavery, in which hundreds of thousands of people died. We had a Civil Rights Movement and civil rights legislation that successfully ended Jim Crow. We spent trillions of dollars on various welfare programs to help the underprivileged, particularly minorities. We established affirmative action laws to prevent the practice of racism. And, BTW we elected an African American President.

  7. David in Cal....

    Thanks for the homilies. It warmed the cockles of my heart and made me proud to be an American.

    My sole point was to ask whether our past history offered any possible insight into the general question/proposition you offered...namely that: "......simply enforcing the law can be characterized as racism".

    I would think history has settled that question. Perhaps we can move on to debate whether that dynamic is still at work today.