Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has offered  a comprehensive, highly detailed plan for financial and economic renewal that has inspired small government activists across the country. It has also earned positive media coverage from left leaning sources that are normally hostile toward free market concepts. But the New York Times is not part of this mix. Columnist Paul Krugman claims Ryan’s plan is an unrealistic giveaway to the rich. Meanwhile, entitlement spending is sustainable and responsible?

Columnist Paul Krugman is agitated, if not panicked.

An audacious proposal aimed at reforming collapsing entitlements, reducing debt and alleviating burdensome taxation has been on the receiving end of positive press coverage. It must therefore be taken down and discredited as an unrealistic sham replete with tax favors for the rich.  Even as The Washington Post and other left-leaning publications provide readers with a balanced and comprehensive critique, it is instructive to note that The New York Times feels a need to perpetuate entitlement illusions.

Democrats who have added a new financial liability on top of existing programs in the form of ObamaCare get a free pass, while Krugman zeros in on Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for offering up a proposal that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says would make Medicare permanently solvent. Ryan has called for a voucher system that would allow seniors to shop for their own private insurance as part of his Roadmap for America’s Future. This is but one aspect of a highly detailed financial plan set up in stark contrast to the “government-centered ideology” that now holds sway in Washington D.C.

It is the ideology Krugman and the NYT are desperate to preserve.

“And we already know, from experience with the Medicare Advantage program, that a voucher system would have higher, not lower, costs than our current system,” he argues. “The only way the Ryan plan could save money would be by making those vouchers too small to pay for adequate coverage. Wealthy older Americans would be able to supplement their vouchers, and get the care they need; everyone else would be out in the cold. In practice, that probably wouldn’t happen: older Americans would be outraged — and they vote. But this means that the supposed budget savings from the Ryan plan are a sham.”

The correlation between consumer choice, greater market discipline and lower costs has been evident throughout human history. But this fundamental point is lost in the Krugman analysis. New studies show that HMO programs with private options reduce costs. They are not so dissimilar from what Ryan has proposed.

The whole point of Krugman’s piece is to close off debate. With demographics changing, more Americans are becoming open and receptive to the idea of large scale entitlement reform.  Big government advocates are concerned for the same reason Tea Party activists are emboldened.

Missouri’s Proposition C, which is aimed at invalidated key provisions of ObamaCare, passed in Missouri with the substantial support of Democrats. In fact, it only fell short in two counties. Yet, the NYT continues to tell readers that measures lacks broad support beyond the confines of the conservative movement.  This is not mathematically possible given the percentage of voters who turned out…

As momentum continues to build against the coercive, mandatory requirements of Obama-Care, The New York Times is pinning its hopes on a dismissive narrative buried inside the newspaper’s national news section. Although an overwhelming majority of Missouri residents voted in favor of a proposition that would cancel out a key provision of President Obama’s healthcare law, the results do not necessarily translate over into any larger national trend, the NYT lectures readers.

“Practically speaking, it remains entirely uncertain what effect the vote will have,” a recent report claims. “The insurance requirement of the federal health care law does not come into effect until 2014. By then, experts say, the courts are likely to weigh in on the provision requiring people to buy insurance.”

But the vote is already having an impact beyond Missouri’s borders. Proposition C marks the beginning, not the end, of state level ballot initiatives that would amend their state constitutions to guard against federal encroachment. Moreover, there are now 22 states that have filed suit against Obama-Care.

Proposition C is not operating in a vacuum, yet the NYT is  now peddling the idea that only “conservative activists” are responsible for the lopsided result. If so, it would logically follow that the measure went down to defeat in the Democratic-leaning areas of the state. But this is not the case. Proposition C passed in every count except St. Louis and Kansas City. The real story here concerns the separation that exists between the Washington D.C . Democrats and their own party members back home.

This reality great complicates the liberal media’s agenda and must therefore be submerged within reports that identify Proposition C  with fringe groups that do not speak for mainstream voters who helped elect President Obama.

“Before the vote, the referendum had not appeared to  capture the general population’s attention with any broad, statewide media campaign,” the report observes. “Republican primary voters (who had the most competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a key role in the vote’s fate; far more voters (577,612) cast ballots in the state’s Republican primary for an open United States Senate seat as cast ballots for the Democratic candidates (315,787).”

And yet it has captured the attention and interest of voters who do not necessarily align themselves with the conservative movement. The spin here suggests that because Republican races were more competitive more of those voters showed up.  But the fact that Democrats still felt animated to show up and vote in favor of Proposition C despite a bland primary election cycle, is also suggestive.

The headline here could have read: Missouri Democrats Join with Tea Party Activists to Pass Anti Obama-Care Proposition By Large Margin.

But that doesn’t fit the narrative.

Tea Party activists have scored an important victory against ObamaCare in the state of Missouri where Proposition C passed by an overwhelming margin. In anticipation of  Tuesday’s vote, the NYT sought to discredit the effort with snide suggestions about “conservative activists.” Now that the ballot has passed, the news is buried.

Big government activists knew they were going to lose this one going into it.

On Tuesday, Missouri became the first of at least three states to vote on a ballot measure aimed against a key component of President Obama’s healthcare overhaul. By a margin of 71 percent to 29 percent, voters approved Proposition C, which invalidated the new federal law requiring individuals to either buy health insurance or pay a tax. The vote could add momentum to other efforts at the state level aimed against ObamaCare.

This would explain why the New York Times saw fit to run an article that made every effort to dismiss Proposition C as an inconsequential, low-turnout affair fueled by Tea Party activists who do not speak for mainstream opinion.

Proposition C is politically meaningless because it is only popular among a core group of activists who will be washed out by larger national trends over time, the NYT suggests.

“The referendum on the measure, known as Proposition C, is seen as an organizational test for the Tea Party and like-minded conservatives in a swing state that President Obama lost narrowly in 2008 and that has since moved measurably away from him,” the report says.

“But the campaign has been a low-key affair, with no television advertising, debates or celebrity Facebook endorsements. Leading Democrats, from Mr. Obama to Gov. Jay Nixon, have kept their distance, seeing little to be gained by contesting what strategists dismiss as a Republican straw poll with a foregone conclusion. The most competitive elections in Tuesday’s primary are on the Republican side, meaning turnout should be higher among those with natural sympathies for Proposition C.”

But even The Times is forced to concede that a majority of likely Democratic voters were not likely to vote against the proposal. It could become politically difficult for the Obama Administration to implement a law that lacks significant support in both major political parties; a point that goes missing in the report.

Moreover, the Tea Party’s connection to Proposition C is indicative of support that extends beyond the orbit of Republican and Democratic establishments. There is more at work here than just a narrow slice of the Republican establishment oriented against Obama’s policies for raw political reasons. There is a now a renewed interest in the values of the founding period that has helped galvanize efforts like Proposition C. The NYT and other liberal media outlets do not understand this phenomenon because from their perspective American began with New Deal, not with the Constitutional Convention.

This particular report’s fixation with “conservative activism” also misses the mark because in reality Missouri is a purple state. The two major parties are more or less evenly matched with slight edge to the Democrats in recent election cycles. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is a far-left activist with ties to George Soros and the ACORN organization who is expected to win the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has teamed up with Carnahan over the past few election cycles to block conservative ballot initiatives.

The Republican has not exactly been front and center in supporting small government initiatives that enjoy broad political support either, which speaks to the necessity of Tea Party movements that oppose established political entities.

Niger Ennis, a spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), said in an interview that liberal media personalities deliberately ignore the contributions black Americans have made to Tea Party rallies. A concerted has been made to circulate false allegations so as undermine grassroots activism that unites Americans across racial and party lines, he added. This would explain why reckless and inaccurate statements from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) are reported without critical examination, Ennis observed.

“The idea of racism has political currency in our environment these days,” he said. “The worst insult today is to call someone who is white a racist. That’s very valuable unfortunately in our political discourse. That’s why the media continues to report unfounded accusations from the NAACP.”

Just one day after the Tea Party victory in Missouri, Ennis joined with other CORE activists for a Tea Party event in D.C. the featured prominent black Americans who support the restoration of limited, constitutional government. That’s kind of news that does not fit with the NYT narrative. Neither does the 3-1 vote in favor Missouri’s Proposition C, which is buried on the lower right corner of the newspaper’s national news section today.

President Obama has selected a highly regarded medical professional to step in as administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This individual “personifies Mr. Obama’s determination to shake up the health care industry” and so naturally he earns praise from the NYT…

Americans who are concerned about the pending government takeover of their health care services should know that top notch administrators will be in charge of the new bureaucracies that stand between them and quality care. This is the central message of a New York Times approach takes an uncritical look at Dr. Donald Berwick, “a health policy expert,” who is slated to become administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The Gray Lady is full of enthusiasm as are the Democratic officials who are quoted.

News reports on presidential nominees are often needlessly negative and filled to the rim with quotes from antagonistic special interest groups that fall back on ad hominem attacks without making any serious policy contributions. Judge Robert Bork and other Supreme Court picks come to mind.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) are quoted here offering up praise for Berwick and this fine as far as it goes. But the report omits any reaction from  the opposing party. Discerning readers would have good cause to view this as whitewash in light of how much authority Berwick will have.

“If confirmed, Dr. Berwick would carry out major provisions of the law expanding Medicaid, for low-income people, and slowing the projected growth of Medicare for older Americans,” The Times acknowledges.

But concerned citizens can rest assured because Dr. Berwick has the right ideology and hails from the Ivy League.

“Dr.  Berwick, a pediatrician, is president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass., and a professor at Harvard  Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health,” the report notes. “He personifies Mr. Obama’s determination to shake up the health care system.”

So he’s golden as far as The Times is concerned.

Concerned Americans who remain on guard against further federal intrusion in the health care system would benefit from subsequent reports that take a hard look at nominees filling position that could directly impact their  quality of life.

For now, they may  need to shop somewhere else for that kind of reporting.

Republicans could pay a political price for their”united stand” against ObamaCare, The New York Times warns in a front page report. This same article also says the GOP has offered up “mischaracterizations” of what the bill will do. But, at the same time, the report fails to include any specific challenges to the assertions made by the bill’s critics within and outside of government…

Republicans who are vociferously opposed to the healthcare legislation now signed into law have been complicit in “occasional mischaracterizations” of what the policy fallout would be, according to a “Political Memo” appearing on the front page of The New York Times.

Although there is nothing wrong in principle with having analytical pieces that break orbit from straight reporting, it does cross to have front page news that essentially regurgitates the newspaper’s editorial spin.

There are two major arguments at work in the “memo” that really belongs more in the opinion section or in another area of paper where it is made clear to readers that the reporter is interjecting himself into the news. Without offering any specifics, The Times accuses the GOP of making inaccurate about the legislation.

The article also claims that Congressional Republicans could be in political trouble over the long-term as a result of being tightly organized against the bill. Some of the provisions of the law that go into effect early may prove to be quite popular, the article maintains. “Curbs” on insurance companies that now deny coverage for pre-existing conditions are frontloaded, while the more unpopular mandates will not kick in for a few years. 

To be sure, this could present political challenges for Republicans. But the article leaves a lot out of its equation. The public is now siding with Republican critics as the more they find out about the bill, the less they like it. The onus here is on The Times to explain where the alleged mischaracterization has occurred. Let’s talk one example of some pointed Republican criticism.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), and other lawmakers, have observed in various press releases that ObamaCare will greatly expand the power and authority of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In fact, the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff reports that up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed.

How is this mischaracterizing the bill?

Critics also charge that ObamaCare will raise premiums, dilute services, impose burdensome regulations and undermine consumer autonomy. Over time, Republicans will be proven right or wrong but they are not suffering from a lack of specifics.

The notion of principled opposition seems very alien to thinking of the reporter here. Even as the public seemed quite receptive to “obstructionist” procedures, Republicans now run the risk of being perceived as the “party of now,” the article says in a pull out quote.

“Republicans also face the question of what happens if the health care bill does not create the cataclysm that they warned of during the many months of debate, the report continues. “…there are elements of the bill, particularly in regulating insurers, that could well prove broadly popular and it could be years before anyone knows whether the legislation will have big effects on health care quality and the nation’s fiscal condition.”

In the run up to the 2010 elections, Republicans could derive substantial electoral benefits from the unified stance they took against the Democratic congress and White House. Yet, The Times insists in its headline here that there are “drawbacks” for the GOP and that party operatives should come around to supporting key components of the bill in the teeth of public opposition.

There’s a reason why this report was on the front page.

Reagan era “Inequality” needs a sharp remedy and that remedy is “Obamacare” the New York Times opines in what passes for a report. Sen. Max Baucus admitted in an interview that income redistribution was on the primary motivating factors behind the bill. You don’t say…

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) now acknowledges that President Obama’s healthcare “reform” package has been set up to alleviate the “mal-distribution of income.” Free market advocates and discerning policymakers have opposed the legislation right from the beginning are keenly aware of the socialist motivations animating government intervention into the private sector.

With the bill now signed into law, apparently there is no reason for proponents to pretend otherwise. Here is what Sen. Baucus said on Fox News.

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

These comments follow on the heels of coverage in the New York Times that celebrates Obamacare’s attack on “economic inequality” as  a way to close out the Reagan era once and for all. That the law would fundamentally alter American society is a fair observation in the reporting. But merits of the president’s proposal are very debatable and do not sit well with economists who understand the long, painful history of government price controls.

“The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago,” The Times declares. “Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. “The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.”

“Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction,” the report continues. “This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.”

Very little effort, if any, is made to conceal the policy preferences of the reporter and the editorial staff. Only one paragraph is devoted to the rising costs certain households will be forced to absorb as the healthcare bill becomes law. The rest of “report” editorializes in favor of adding new financial burdens on top of existing ones.

“…the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality,” The Times declares. “In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune — illness, death, fire, flood — across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution. The health reform bill will reverse that trend.”

Just as the left-wing saw the Clinton Administration’s attempted government takeover of healthcare as a repudiation of the Reagan era, the same mindset is at work here.

“Since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign in 2007, he has had a complicated relationship with the Reagan legacy,” The Times opines. “He has been more willing than many other Democrats to praise President Reagan. `Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic,’ Mr. Obama wrote in his second book, `contained a good deal of truth.’ Most notably, he praised Mr. Reagan as a president who “changed the trajectory of America.”

“But Mr. Obama also argued that the Reagan administration had gone too far, and that if elected, he would try to put the country on a new trajectory,” the report continues.

Republicans who run on the Reagan mantle should know that sound economics are not likely to find their way into the liberal media. But average Americans who know that the country cannot afford to support a new entitlement program, while other are collapsing are willing to look beyond “mainstream media” outlets for the right information.

Very bright legal minds stand on both sides of the pending constitutional challenges to ObamaCare launched by state officials. The New York Times suggests here that concerned Americans who oppose new mandates shouldn’t bother because precedent is not on their side. But since when do constitutionalists takes cues from the NYT…

An opening salvo has been fired against state officials who are already moving against Obama-Care on constitutional grounds.  The bill would rewrite the relationship between the federal government and the states by way of imposing new mandates that trample on individual liberty, they argue.

The pullout quote from The New York Times report states: “Constitutional scholars say precedent is on the legislation’s side.” The article then proceeds to quote several legal experts who claim the local efforts are doomed to failure.

Well reasoned-intelligent individuals stand on both sides of the debate. But the coverage here is deliberately skewed so as discourage concerned citizens who may have indentified an effective channel through which can reanimate the principles of limited government.

The Times shows its hand with a quote from Jack M. Balkin, a law professor with Yale University, who is clearly concerned about the larger that may be raised by way of state challenges.

“The attack on this bill is not merely an attack on the substance of this particular measure,” he said. “But it’s also a challenge to understandings that come with the New Deal.”

Clearly, there is some concern here on the part of big government advocates that a constitutional discussion that refocuses attention on the proper station of federal authority could conceivably roll back progressive activity. If the arguments are so weak and unfounded, why so much concern?

Ervin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, is also quoted.

“If the court stays true to its Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the last 15 years,” Professor Chemerinskey said,” I think this will be upheld.”

But liberals only support precedents that cut in their ideological direction. They place a greater premium on constitutional law as opposed to the written constitutional itself. There are at least a handful of new precedents handed down in the past few years more to liking of originalists and that they would just assume overturn.

Fortunately, the article does have some space to Randy Barnett, a constitutional law instructor at the Georgetown University Law Center, who sees some merit in the state action. The arguments from various state agents actually “might have success,” he said.

But because Barnett is measured in his comments this should be taken as a sign that the constitutional challenges rooted in the commerce clause do not have serious prospects.

“Still, Professor Barnett was careful not to predict that the opponents of the bill would block the legislation completely,” the report declares. “He said that even if a court were to strike down the requirement to buy insurance, such a ruling would still be likely to leave other elements of the law in place.”

Americans who are ambitious to raise constitutional objections rooted in the long-standing principles that reach back to the founding period should not be dissuaded by the liberal editors at The New York Times.

Both parties failed to find common ground in the healthcare debate and The New York Times is disappointed. President Obama ran on pledging a better environment for bipartisanship but this promise has fallen by the wayside. The Times should more carefully consider the actual history before it celebrates across the aisle exercises that result in unsustainable entitlements… 

Once again, The New York Times elevates the concept of bipartisanship above the idea that principled opposition is needed to prevent the political class from overreaching. A news analysis piece that examines the political fallout of the healthcare bill the House approved on Sunday assumes that Republican lawmakers were operating  on the basis of a raw political calculus as opposed to sincere convictions.

“Republicans entered this fight convinced, at least for public consumption, that they know how it will play out: with an end to Mr. Obama’s mandate and a bigger-than-normal loss for the incumbent party in the midterms,” the report claims. “In the soaring deficits that began in the Bush era and accelerated in the heat of the financial crisis, and in the argument that Mr. Obama was taking over wide swaths of the economy, an increasingly conservative Republican Party believes the health care overhaul encapsulates the argument that the president is about big government intruding into the lives of citizens.”

But the same was true as it applied to the tactics of the Obama White House. Even as successfully marshaled through his healthcare bill, the president lost something precious in the form of support from the opposing party.

“But there is no doubt that in the course of this debate, Mr. Obama has lost something — and lost it for good,” The Times laments. “Gone is the promise on which he rode to victory less than a year and a half ago — the promise of a “postpartisan” Washington in which rationality and calm discourse replaced partisan bickering.”

“Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote, the report continues. “Even President Lyndon B. Johnson got just shy of half of Republicans in the House to vote for Medicare in 1965, a piece of legislation that was denounced with many of the same words used to oppose this one. That may be the true measure of how much has changed in Washington in the ensuing 45 years, and how Mr. Obama’s own strategy is changing with the discovery that the approach to governing he had in mind simply will not work.”

These observations are true as far as they go but The Times places too much stock in historical examples of bipartisan cooperation. In reality, both parties have come together to do great violence against taxpayers and the economy as a whole.

Social Security and Medicare are held up as great legislative bipartisan achievements. Yet there is not  word here about the growing unfunded liabilities of both programs and long-term ramifications for Americans now coming of age.

Thus far, “no one on Capitol Hill has dared suggest eliminating” the program, the report says. But, at the same time, Tea Party activists are asking policymakers how they can rationalize the creation of another entitlement after mismanaged the existing plans.

More, despite all the posturing on behalf of bipartisanship there is not a word in favor  of the 34 Democrats who joined with Republicans to vote against government intervention into the private sector. They do so running upstream against their own party leadership and probably great personal cost in deference to taxpayer interests. In what way were those House Democrats not bipartisan?

Future taxpayers may yet decide that bipartisanship is over-rated, as are entitlements that eat up a greater percentage of their paycheck while paying out paltry benefits.

Socially conservative Democrats remain opposed to ObamaCare as do Catholic leaders. But reports in New York Times and the Los Angeles Times both suggest that House leaders are building up irresistable momentum in favor of the proposed government takeover on the basis of two converts and an obscure group of nuns….

Now that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and leading Catholic figures have thrown  in with the healthcare “reform” package favored by President Obama, it is sure to pass. This is the central message of news reports appearing in The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. 

With polls showing that 50 percent of voters are less likely to support congressional members who vote in favor of the government takeover, it’s quite evident that individual members have interests that diverge from their party’s leadership.

As of Wednesday, it was clear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was still several votes short of passing ObamaCare. Unnamed Republican sources quoted elsewhere in the media have said the House leadership remains at least seven votes shorts. Nevertheless, an article appearing in the Los Angeles Times claims that momentum is building as opposition among so-called moderate Democrats is beginning to melt.

“Working into the night to put the finishing touches on the legislation, Democratic leaders said they continued to expect the balloting to be a cliffhanger,” the LA Times declares. But a cascade of developments buoyed supporters of the bill, which would cap Obama’s drive for legislation to reduce the ranks of the uninsured, offer new protections for those who have medical coverage, and try to curb skyrocketing healthcare costs.”

“Lingering fear of defections from the Democratic left — among those who believe the bill does not go far enough to expand access to healthcare — was allayed Wednesday when Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) became the first liberal opponent of the House bill approved last year to announce that he would support the more restrictive Senate legislation,” the report continues.

Not too subtle.

The report uncritically repeats a lot of the very questionable Democratic talking points concerning the substance of the bill. To suggest that bill would actually reduce costs and extend medical protection is very debatable in light of the new mandates included as part of the legislation. Moreover, it is not at all clear that Kucinich is in a position to motivate other Democrats who come from competitive districts where the bill remains unpopular.

The New York Times also weighs in with a front page piece that highlights Kucinich’s declaration of support. Certainly Democrats take this as a sign of momentum and they are doing their best to convey a sense of inevitability.  Instead of taking a detached, dispassionate approach The Times obliges Democratic operatives with unsubstantiated speculation.

“The endorsement from Mr. Kucinich suggested that Democrats who have been pushing for more ambitious legislation might put aside their reservations and unite behind the bill as their best opportunity to secure health insurance for millions of Americans who now lack it,” the report says.

Bu how so? The vote turns on Democrats who already fighting for their political life in competitive districts. There is no evidence presented in either report that shows they have been persuaded to fall on their swords.

The other angle here concerns a group of Catholic nuns who have announced their endorsement of the bill. Apparently, this is sure to have influence on socially conservative Democrats who have previously opposed the legislation because in their view it does not guard against federal funding for abortion. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has led this faction but La Times claims it is now falling apart. Stupak’s colleague, Dale Kildee, another Michigan Democrat has come on board with the leadership and there are supposedly several others but they are not named.

“Even before the letter from the Catholic nuns and comments by retired Bishop John E. McCarthy, some of Stupak’s allies had been persuaded to support the bill,” the La Times says. Kildee decided that the antiabortion language was strong enough after he met with his priest. Then Kildee, who spent six years in a Catholic seminary, issued a statement and sent a letter to the White House declaring his support.”

Democratic leaders have said the vote could come as soon as Sunday and they may yet secure passage. If so, it will be on the basis of current no votes that both papers deliberately ignore in their coverage.

The New York Times does finally mention at the very bottom of its report that the Catholic nuns do not speak for other church leaders who have consistently raised objections.

“Mr. Stupak reiterated his opposition to the Senate bill, as did the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

That’s not as newsworthy as the conversion experiences of Kucinich and Kildee in the eyes of liberal editors. But any qualifying statements that work against political talking points are welcome, even if they are reduced to one sentence.

There is a legimate debate raging over the Senate filibuster rule. But this article uplifting Senate Democrats who are determined to force through healthcare “reform” comes across as phony and opportuntistic because it is. The so-called “nuclear option” was viewed not so long ago as an unseemly power grab but that was when Republicans were in the majority.

When Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate, the so-called “nuclear option” was anathema, but this has completely turned around now that Democrats are playing defense on healthcare “reform.”

The forum President Obama held last week with Republicans showed that the philosophical divide could not be breached and that a bipartisan package was beyond reach, the New York Times reports. For this reason, Democratic leaders are now entertaining a parliamentary move that could force the legislation through.

Opinion polls show that the public has turned decisively against the idea of a government-run healthcare system and that issue could work against Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections. But never mind about the merits of the legislation and public sentiment, “Republican intransigence” has compelled Democrats to move decisively and embrace a new strategy, The Times observes in a follow up to the forum.

“If anything, Democrats said, their seven-hour meeting with President Obama and Republicans on Thursday confirmed their belief that it was futile to try to work with Republicans on a major health care bill because the philosophical differences between the parties were too profound,” the report says. “Accordingly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, Democrats in the House and the Senate have begun work on a bill that they hope could be passed in the Senate by a simple majority.”

The article greatly understates the implications of changing the Senate rules so as to impose unpopular legislation. Going back to 2005, The Times was sharply critical of the concept when Republicans suggested that the filibuster could be broken to force through federal judges. This contrasts with the sedate, restrained coverage of the “Health Care Nuclear Option” that Democratic leaders are now entertaining.

Astute readers will make note of a curious disconnect in this piece concerning policy differences. On the one hand, The Times is scandalized by a highly charged partisan atmosphere that works against presidential priorities. But, at the same time, the reporter is blithely unconcerned about the fallout from parliamentary shortcuts.

The extraordinary use of state power to allow for coercive policies to intrude into the private sector deserves intense, detailed coverage as opposed to uncritical reporting that merely repeats Democratic talking points.

“Democratic leaders said Republican intransigence could help them round up the votes of wavering centrists in their own caucus,” readers are told.

The Times rounds out its coverage with commentary from Chris Dodd, the soon to be retired statesman from Connecticut who normally eschews the reconciliation procedure Democratic leaders are now discussing. But just this one time, he will fall on his sword to advance a noble agenda that outweighs the importance of Senate customs.

“Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and an architect of the Senate health bill, said he was `not a great fan’ of using the budget reconciliation procedure,” The Times explains.

“Would you drop doing health care altogether because you do not like the process?” Dodd is quoted saying. “I don’t think so.”

This is quite a turnabout from the coverage The Times gave when Sandra O’Connor stepped down from the U.S.  Supreme Court opening the way for a more conservative jurist. There was serious talk then that Sen. Majority Bill Frist might possible fall back on the “nuclear option” to break the filibuster of a nominee.

Whatever the merits of these parliamentary moves, The Times should spend more time interviewing and quoting policy experts on both sides of the debate and less interjecting itself.