High unemployment usually means bad news for the political party in power, right? But that’s wrong according according a front page story that works overtime to sell the readers on the idea that Democrats could do well in key states on the basis of data supplied to the newspaper by Moody’s Analytics.

Polls show that House and Senate Democrats are in trouble and could face losses that well exceed the historical average in November’s mid-term elections. But it is apparent from today’s front page report that the New York Times will make every effort to salvage incumbent Democrats who favor their big government agenda.

Oddly enough, the reporter even acknowledges that the article is rooted more in wishful thinking than it is in any hard data.

“Political analysts expect Republicans to make gains — possibly significant ones — in Congress in November, threatening to retake the House and maybe even the Senate,” The Times concedes. “But digging deeper, beyond the national numbers, reveals at least a few glimmers of hope for Democrats — still fairly distant and faint, but bright enough to get campaign strategists scanning the horizon and weighing the odds.”

The central argument here is built around job prospects in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York where Democrats are vulnerable in normally safe seats. Apparently, manufacturing is on the upswing in all three states and job are beginning to come back. Remarkably, The Times also claims high unemployment numbers do not necessarily connect with political contests.

“While much attention has been paid to the nation’s stubbornly high unemployment rate, political scientists have found little correlation between that measure and midterm elections results. Instead, they have found more broad-based indicators, particularly real personal disposable per capita income, which measures the amount of money a household has after taxes and inflation, to be better gauges,” The Times claims.

But unemployment was a key ingredient of the so-called “misery index” that the liberal media often applied against Republican candidates throughout the 1970s and early 1980s before the economy turned upward under President Reagan.

That’s what you call spin and there’s more.

Moody’s Analytics examined some of the House and Senate seats for the NYT that offered up “some surprising bits of encouragement for Democrats but also adds color to the overall daunting picture confronting the party. At the very least, any such signs of hope are certain to affect the strategies being worked out now in campaigns,” according to the report.

But there is very little in the way of specificity once the article moves on from Pa., N.Y. and Ohio. The piece is mostly speculative and more suitable for the blogosphere than it is for the news section of the front page. Readers are told that The Times has identified 114 House seats and 17 Senate seats as being particularly competitive come November. Significant Republican gains could potentially set back the agenda the NYT favors on its editorial pages. Just recently, The Times complained ObamaCare regulations did not go far enough.

Here are some hard numbers included in the Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll that show Democrats are back on their heels even if the public is not in love with GOP.

The number of people who say the country is headed in the wrong direction is 62 percent with 50 percent expressing disapproval over President Obama’s handling of the economy. Moreover, the administration’s mishandling of the BP oil spill has also factored into the equation with about 50 percent expressing disapproval over Obama’s lethargic response.

But the most telling numbers relate to Congress.

When prospective voters were asked to weigh in on their party preference, 45 percent of those surveyed say they want Congress to be controlled by Republicans, while 43 percent want Democrats in charge. By contrast, the public favored a Democratic Congress by a margin of 48 to 39 in April of last year. That’s quite a drop.

The report would be more persuasive if it included statistics and evidence that showed Republicans were also losing ground with the electorate as their Democratic counterparts implode. That’s not here. Instead, the NYT recruits Moody’s Analytics to help take the edge off troubling economic news that normally bites the incumbent party.

“The economic forecasting company also predicts housing prices will rise in metropolitan areas connected to a fifth of the competitive House seats identified by The Times,” the report says. “The forecasters project three-quarters of the competitive districts will experience employment growth in their corresponding metropolitan areas between the fourth quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010.”

Republicans still have a long distance to travel before voters are convinced they are serious about downsizing government and restoring constitutionalism. But there is no denying how much political trouble the Democrats are now in less than two years after the liberal media suggested Republicans would be consigned to the political wilderness for decades.

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s clever legislative tactics could end up costing U.S. taxpayers a lot of money, especially if he succeeds in advancing a “cap and trade” bill that is loathed by the public. The New York Times is disappointed Graham backed out of a compromise on global warming legislation, but that doesn’t mean liberal reporters are ready to write him off just yet…

Is Sen. Lindsey Graham still the new Republican media darling of the New York Times and other liberal publications? This gets complicated. He scored points in progressive circles for helping to resurrect a global warming bill that would otherwise be dead in the U.S. Senate. But Graham is now backpeddling and must be closely monitored.

With his close colleague Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) running to the right in response to a tough primary challenge,  the NYT needed a new enlightened spoiler well positioned to complicate conservative ambitions. In fact, the paper acknowledges as much in a report that appears in the national news section.

“As a rare member of his party who is consistently willing to cross the aisle, he has filled a niche once occupied by his close friend and mentor, Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican,” The Times observes. “No though, Mr. Graham’s position as the go-to Republican for Obama in the White House is in doubt.”

Graham has been working in close concert with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) to cobble together a compromise on the anti-emissions regulatory scheme that passed the House last year. They do not use the term “cap and trade” but this is more about marketing gimmicks than it is about any substantive change. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has released a video lampooning this public relations strategy.

The debate over immigration policy has derailed any attempt to steer through a compromised version of “cap and trade,” at least for now. Sen. Graham claims he has backed out of supporting the energy bill because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now prioritizing immigration reform in response to action taken in Arizona; McCain’s home state.

A nearby article discusses the state’s new immigration legislation, which gives local officials greater latitude and authority to identify and detain illegal aliens. The article claims that a boycott organized by left wing activists against the state is having an impact. Gov. Jane Brewer, a Republican, says the new bill will improve public safety and supply the police with additional tools.

The profile piece on Sen. Graham maintains a mostly positive tone, even as The Times attempts to nudge him back in the direction of The White House.

“Some Democrats whisper that he must be trying to spare Mr. McCain, who is facing a tough primary challenge from the right, an uncomfortable vote on immigration,” the report says. “Others openly surmise that Mr. Graham must have caved in to his Republican critics.”

Even so, The Times is not ready to give up on its man. The article later points out that Sen. Graham has been censured by three chapters of The South Carolina Republican party and attracted criticism from the right. At the same time, he continues to earn praise from leading Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“For Mr. Obama, who has struggled to keep his campaign promises to change the tone in Washington, Mr. Graham has been something of a godsend,” the report notes.

With opinion shows showing the public has little patience or legislation that will increase energy prices and stifle industry,  it will be difficult to navigate the “cap and trade” bill through the Senate in election year. But it’s important for readers to know that media darlings like Sen. Graham continue to scheme and plot against the free market with the encouragement and support of The New York Times.

President Obama and his congressional allies are looking to extend the government’s control of the financial sector with the help of a compliant news media. The New York Times eagerly takes up this charge in a front page story that suggests to readers that the unsavory practices of Goldman Sachs are to blame for their fiscal woes but the premise here is all wrong…

Washington’s culpability in the housing crisis and its larger economic fallout continues to go unreported in the liberal news media, which would  help explain why recent policy missteps stand a good chance of being repeated. President Obama’s proposed financial “reforms” will only exacerbate the same regulatory conditions and perverse incentives that spurred the 2008 financial meltdown.

There’s a nice opening here for enterprising journalists eager to fill in the gaps where interventionist government policies are unconcerned. To the extent these reporters remain in circulation, they do not ply their trade at the New York Times, which reflexively faults the private sector for economic turmoil.

This front page report from the Gray Lady calls out Goldman Sachs for turning a “serious profit” on mortgages is crafted to advance Washington’s regulatory agenda and omits any serious discussion of the misguided policies that have bedeviled America’s financial markets.

The first few paragraphs are built around email messages transmitted between the bank’s executives that are now the subject of a Senate investigation. Readers get the palpable sense that the Goldman Sachs leadership was somehow duplicitous and manipulative in its approach toward the housing market.

Here’s how it is reported:

“In the messages, Lloyd C. Blankfein, the bank’s chief executive, acknowledged in November 2007 that the firm had lost money initially. But it later recovered by making negative bets, known as short positions, to profit as housing prices plummeted. `Of course we didn’t dodge the mortgage mess,’ he wrote. `We lost money, then made more than we lost because of shorts.’

He added, `It’s not over, so who knows how it will turn out ultimately.’

In another message, dated July 25, 2007, David A. Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, reacted to figures that said the company had made a $51 million profit from bets that housing securities would drop in value. `Tells you what might be happening to people who don’t have the big short,’ he wrote to Gary D. Cohn, now Goldman’s president.”

But the premise here is all wrong. What difference does it really make if Goldman Sachs made or lost money betting for or against mortgage securities?

Since “the actions taken by Wall Street firms during the housing crisis” are the central focus of the report, the White House and Congress escape scrutiny. This is unfortunate as pending federal action could further undermine the free market.

Here are a few suggested follow up questions that should figure into upcoming reports.

Is it government’s job to assume the risk associated with bad business decisions?  Or if you prefer to get even more Orwellian about it:  Is it government’s job to arbitrarily restrict free market exchanges in an effort to prevent bad decisions from being made in the future?

If the government’s answer to either of those questions is “yes,” then it is embracing a Soviet-style command economy and repudiating the free market principles on which this nation was founded.

The political posturing between Goldman Sachs and key U.S. Senators is worth mentioning here as it could impact the legislation’s trajectory. Company officials claim the use of email messages has been highly selective and misleading. In response, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) claims the emails sharply contradict what Goldman Sachs has said in public.

It is reported as follows:

“Goldman on Saturday denied it made a significant profit on mortgage-related products in 2007 and 2008. It said the subcommittee had “cherry-picked” e-mail messages from the nearly 20 million pages of documents it provided. This sets up a showdown between the Senate subcommittee and Goldman, which has aggressively defended itself since the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a security fraud complaint against it nine days ago. On Tuesday, seven current and former Goldman employees, including Mr. Blankfein, are expected to testify at a Congressional hearing.”

But here again, what should be incidental information becomes central to the story. Moreover, The Times fails to inform readers that the case against Goldman Sachs is more than a little specious.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) claims the firm duped a German bank into buying up toxic assets at the direction of a hedge fund manager. Two key facts here have gone unreported:  Goldman’s $90 million loss on the deal as well as clear and compelling evidence that the German firm knew exactly what it was getting into.

Moreover, the German bank invoked in the SEC filing crafted similar agreements with other companies only a year or so before the Goldman deal.

As is often the case, the bias here stems more from what is left out of the reporting.  An honest assessment need not apologize for Goldman Sachs as its activities should be open to fair criticism. But giving cover to the political class before it prepares to move highly consequential legislation does a great disservice to readers.

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.

Any U.S. Administration would crow about strong GDP numbers. But where the New York Times always questioned economic fundamentals under Republican presidents, it appears unwilling to dig into other statistics that would put 4th GDP numbers into a larger historical perspective. Former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said in recent testimony that the U.S. is actually experiencing a jobless recovery…

Americans may not feel like they are in the midst of a strong recovery. The dollar remains weak, job creation lethargic and the stock market sluggish. But there are barometers that show the U.S. economy is beginning to rise again and any administration would be entitled to crow about these the numbers.

The critical difference here being that President Obama has The New York Times as  a cheerleader.

“The United States economy grew at its fastest pace in more than six years at the end of 2009…, The Times reports. “The broadest measure of economic activity, gross domestic product, expanded at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, after a 2.2 percent increase the previous quarter.”

Businesses are beginning to reinvest as growth returns, some experts note and Obama Administration officials believe this will ultimately translate into robust job growth.

“Employers are seeing demand go up,” Christina Romer, the chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers is quoted as saying. “They’re starting to hire temporary workers. We’re trying to get them to take the plunge and hire permanent workers. And do the hiring sooner rather than later.”

The report also describes a new jobs proposal from President Obama that would provide companies with a tax credit of up to $5,000 for each new hire. The timing is ideal the president explained while in Baltimore because businesses need this kind of incentive in aftermath of a recession.

And there’s the rub. The U.S. is in midst of a jobless recovery and there is some small acknowledgment of this reality for readers to absorb once they get past the GNP stats.

“The economy has been able to grow even without adding workers because employers have found ways to accomplish more with fewer workers,” the report says. “Productivity grew at a robust rate of 8.1 percent in the third quarter of 2009, the most recent data available.”

For Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao recently testified on the paucity of job creation and said the new administration has placed too much emphasis on policy changes favored by “Big Labor.”

“While the administration focused in 2009 on appeasing its organized labor allies, job creation ground to a halt,” she said in testimony. “Current job creation figures are abysmal. The dearth of job creation during this administration distinguishes this recession from other downturns…No one feels the lack of job creation more keenly than America’s fifteen million unemployed workers who have been without a job, on average for 29 weeks, the longest since that data began being collected in 1948.”

By all means, The Times should report on encouraging economic numbers. But it never did any cheerleading for George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan who both experienced robust job growth under their watch after cutting taxes.

Leaders in both major parties seem to be coming around to the idea that nuclear power should once again be viewed as viable option to meet America’s energy needs. But the larger concept of “clean energy” that envionmentalists continue to advance is quite questionable as is the science behind man-made global warming. Despite the antagonism green activists quoted here have toward Obama’s proposal, the president remains committed to the idea of green jobs and alternative clean energy sources. The report does nothing to challenge the highly questionable assertions…

Clean energy and green jobs have become the new rationale for costly, “cap and trade” schemes that President Obama continues to push now that “climategate” has complicated the scientific argument. Here is what he said in the State of the Union Speech.

“I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy.  I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.”

This New York Times report claims that Obama has “embraced” nuclear energy. But in reality this is most likely a ploy to secure Republican support for anti-industry initiatives. The administration has approved a new loan guarantee for the construction of nuclear power plants in Georgia, according to the article.

Why exactly is it necessary for the U.S. to lead on clean energy technology and where is the evidence? Where are all of the green jobs? Regardless of where one stands on the question of man-made global warming there appears to be a renewed appetite for the use of nuclear energy in both parties. But Obama is not challenged here to explain or account for merits of green  technology.

The office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in response to an inquiry from The Times that Republicans were receptive to the move but would not suddenly reverse course and approve “cap and trade.”

Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of America’s electricity, with 100 nuclear plants located at 65 sites in 31 states, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. By contrast, 80 percent of France’s energy needs are supplied by nuclear power. Other examples include Belgium, 54 percent; Sweden, 46 percent; Switzerland, 41 percent; and Japan, 34 percent.

These numbers show there is ample room for nuclear energy to become part of a mixed solution.  But, at the same time, America’s economy runs very well on fossil fuels that remain under attack from environmentalists. Moreover, new studies show that so-called green jobs are heavily subsidized and subtract from economic performance.

The burden then should be on environmentalists to demonstrate why policymakers should not pursue additional nuclear power plants that can operate in tandem with other existing resources. But The Times, true to form, gives the green pressure groups a free pass here.

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club is quoted as saying that nuclear power is not the fastest or cheapest way to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

“The loan guarantees announced today may ease the politics around comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, but we do not believe that they are the best policy,” he argues.

But Obama’s own EPA director has already conceded that the cap and trade proposals favored by green groups will not make a meaningful difference where the climate is concerned. Moreover, Pope is not asked to explain how is policy stance squares with the scientific questions that been raised thanks to “climategate.”

Average citizens who have invoked the proudest traditions of the American Revolution during various Tea Party events have been tied with a long list of unsavory groups and individuals who operate at the fringes of American politics. The stark ideological differences between free market advocates and conspiracy theorists are nowhere acknowledged or reported in what could have been a detailed, even-handed informative article…

There’s a good report on the Tea Party movement struggling to break through some of the snide, superfluous commentary that works its way into reports about beleaguered American taxpayers who have found expression.

Every large-scale movement has disparate forces and peripheral players that are not central to the causes and concerns of most activists. While they deserve some mention, journalists should also maintain a sense of perspective so that readers are properly informed about overall tone and direction of the political forces at work.

Unfortunately, The New York Times sees fit to slight and marginalize the Tea Party movement instead of capturing and reporting on the key ingredients that have fueled average Americans who are becoming active for the first time.

This front page report includes some interesting nuggets and helpful background on the many elements of the Tea-Party movement. The reporter lands several good interviews with key players but inserts incendiary observations that dilute from what could have been an effective piece.

“The Tea Party movement defies easy definition, largely because there is no single Tea Party,” the report says.

So far, so good.

“At the grass-roots level, it consists of hundreds of autonomous Tea Party groups, widely varying in size and priorities, each influenced by the peculiarities of local history. In the inland Northwest, the Tea Party movement has been shaped by the growing popularity in eastern Washington of Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, and by a legacy of anti-government activism in northern Idaho.”

Fair enough.

“Outside Sandpoint, federal agents laid siege to Randy Weaver’s compound on Ruby Ridge in 1992, resulting in the deaths of a marshal and Mr. Weaver’s wife and son,” the article continues. “To the south, Richard Butler, leader of the Aryan Nations, preached white separatism from a compound near Coeur d’Alene until he was shut down.”

And how does this relate back to the Tea-Party movement? So the next time a street crime is committed in close proximity to a progressive event, or say it is discovered that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright once sleep at the same hotel that also accommodates Democratic party activists this will somehow be converted into hard news.

There’s more….

“Further complicating matters, Tea Party events have become a magnet for other groups and causes — including gun rights activists, anti-tax crusaders, libertarians, militia organizers, the “birthers” who doubt President Obama’s citizenship, Lyndon LaRouche supporters and proponents of the sovereign states movement,” the report shrieks.

There are no interviews here with LaRouche supporters or “birthers,” which is not to say they did not invite themselves to certain Tea Party events. But is it really accurate to say the movement has become a “magnet” for either group. There’s a definitely a libertarian streak to the Tea Party at all levels in light of the emphasis that has been placed on free market issues and constitutional rights. Activists seem less interested in cultural questions as the movement is mostly concerned with economics.

This is the kind of an analysis that goes missing from the report. Given the left-wing bent of LaRouche’s economic views his supporters would not make for an easy fit with Tea Parties. The reporter also goes through considerable gymnastics to interlink conservative and libertarian activists with conspiracy theories animated by an unreasonable fear of the federal government. Here the reporter confuses distrust with paranoia.

The largely defunct John Birch Society also finds its way into the article as a way of needling Tea Party participants who are quoted including an Arizona sheriff who expresses concern over the scope and reach of the Federal Reserve Board. Unfortunately, he was set up in the following paragraph”

“It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades.”

There is a legitimate debate raging about the proper role of the Federal Reserve Board that gets into larger questions of financial reform. The Tea Party movement has been a conduit for these concerns but don’t expect them to get a fair hearing in the New York Times.

Despite signficant policy setbacks in high profile areas such as 9/11 terror trials and ongoing consternation with his own White House, Attorney General Holder earned a front page puff piece from The New York Times that seeks to bolster his tenuous standing. Former AGs such as John Ashcroft and Edwin Meese also served during challenging times. But they were not popular with the liberal press and therefore were not treated to congenial front page spreads as Holder is here…

Even as his most high profile initiative collapses, Attorney General Eric Holder can bank on the New York Times to bolster his standing and push back against critics. Very little in the way of hard news is presented to readers in a lengthy front page piece that portrays the AG as enlightened figure beset with unfair political attacks. Readers gain insight into Holder’s family life, his relationship with President Obama and White House political advisors.

The premise here is that despite the administration’s reversal on the planned Sept. 11 trial for  Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and ongoing disputes over counter-terrorism Holder remains a influential, key player determined to reverse Bush era polices.

“Asked why he wanted to be attorney general, Mr. Holder did not mention national security issues; instead he said he took the job to put a department he loves on track after scandals during the administration of President George W. Bush. Still, just after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, the president asked Mr. Holder to lead the effort to resolve the fate of the detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

Although Republicans maintain that Holder’s views fall well outside of mainstream thought were national security is concerned, The Times goes out of its way to portray as a non-ideologically, politically detached prosecutor.

“When it comes to traditional criminal justice issues, like white-collar crime and sentencing reform, Mr. Holder holds views accrued over decades as a prosecutor, judge, Justice Department official and lawyer in private practice,” The Times reports. But his national security résumé is short, his genial temperament may be unsuited to political combat, and his approach to terrorism is guided more by case-specific pragmatism than an overarching ideology reducible to sound-bites.

Sympathetic sources are also inserted to help maintain the image of a congenial, fair-minded AG who is serious about upholding the law.

“Eric is an on-the-merits guy,” said Reid Weingarten, a Washington lawyer and friend is quoted as saying. “Case by case. Does that work in a changing world?”

Readers willing to suffer through the first several paragraphs of fluff finally get something in the way of substance concerning Sen. Lindsay Graham’s (R-S.C.) pursuit of military prosecutions for terrorists. As the article points out, Graham has supported The White House on other high profile initiatives like global warming legislation and the closing of Gitmo.

Apparently, Graham has had  conversations with Holder and other executive branch officials who have ownership over the 9/11 trials. The following quote from the South Carolina Republican is closest the article comes to offering up something in the way of criticism:

“Of all the issues they have dealt with, this is the one that could bring the presidency down,” Mr. Graham said he told each, adding: “Most Americans don’t look at these folks as common criminals who were trying to rob the liquor store. They look at them as dangerous terrorists.”

The report also touches on some of the differences Holder has with Rahm Emanuel and other top White House aides on the KLM trial and other counter-terrorism questions but quickly transitions offer to a lengthy rejoinder in favor of the AG.

“Mr. Emanuel, who favored a military trial for the Sept. 11 detainees, said his disagreement with Mr. Holder is rooted in different perspectives, not personalities,” The Times reports. “You can’t close Guantánamo without Senator Graham, and K.S.M. was a link in that deal,” Emanuel said, referring to Mr. Mohammed.”

But from this point forward Holder is permitted to spin his way out of what is an unworkable policy.

“He [Holder] told colleagues that the civilian option was more likely to deliver swift, sure justice.

Unlike the civilian prosecutors, the military team built its case around detainee confessions that are likely to raise challenges over whether they were tainted by torture. The commission system’s prosecutors and judges were less experienced; its rules are a work in progress, with no clear answer to questions like whether defendants may plead guilty to capital offenses; and its legality is untested, so the Supreme Court might overturn any guilty verdict.”

There’s nothing wrong in principle with the idea of obtaining the perspective of a leading public figure who has been under siege for unpopular stances. But readers will search in vain for positive front page spreads on Republican  attorney generals such as John Ashcroft and Edwin Meese who endured severe criticisms during controversial, challenging moments in history.

President Obama is now poised to use executive authority to push through initatives that have been blocked on Capitol Hill and remain unpopular with the public. George W. Bush was on the receiving end of hostile press coverage for invoking executive powers in the post 9/11 era to safeguard the U.S. homeland and block future attacks. The message here seems to  be executive power for me but not for thee…

When President Bush invoked executive power in the aftermath of 9/11 to advance counter-terrorism, he was criticized for unconstitutional overreaching in The New York Times and elsewhere. But when a president has difficulty advancing a far-left agenda he is permitted to fall back on non-legislative alternatives.

This is the central message of a report that details executive action the Obama Administration is pursuing to compensate for setbacks on Capitol Hill.

Although “cap and trade” proposals, labor law changes, and the healthcare package are not likely to pass Congress, anytime soon President Obama has nobly repositioned himself beyond democratic channels to enact his progressive agenda, The Times observes with no small amount of affirmation and approval. The newspaper that had such a jaundiced view of executive power just over a year ago has now come around.

“Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat, the report asserts nonchalantly. “And Mr. Obama’s success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress.”

Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so,” The Times continues. “His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.”

So here in a nutshell we have an overview of policy changes favored by the liberal media and far left pressure groups that have languished in the U.S. Senate. This is another example of an article that could be very effective and informative, if just pulled back commentary best reserved for an editorial.

Even as he refuses to rule out “recess appointments,” The Times correctly points out that this is problematic for Obama given how critical he was of Bush using this technique to bypass opposition. The report has also does a nice job of weaving in some recent history where executive action is concerned.

But the editorial preferences are made quite clear in the following paragraph:

 “Another drawback of the executive power strategy is that actions taken unilaterally by the executive branch may not be as enduring as decisions made through acts of Congress signed into law by a president. For instance, while the E.P.A. has been determined to have the authority to regulate carbon emissions, the administration would rather have a market-based system of pollution permits, called cap and trade, that requires legislation.”

One searches in vain of news reports during the Bush presidency of articles that lament the temporal nature of executive orders and administrative action.

The public is not in love with the Republicans but it is clear that Obama has lost his luster from 2009 and that candidates running in opposition to costly legislation do well at the polls. But a much different message is conveyed here that will no doubt find its way into White House talking points. Self-described Republicans blame their own party  more than Obama for partisanship, according to the New York Times. Read on…

 Never mind about those recent Republican victories and the many Democratic retirements in Congress, President Obama will find a way to persevere through recent policy setbacks if The New York Times has anything to say about it.

Several polls are cited in a front page story as a way to prop up the central idea that Obama maintains a strong political posture, especially as it relates to the public’s lingering antipathy toward George W. Bush and the Republicans. Even The Times is forced to concede that “as the party in power,” Democrats are particularly vulnerable to an aroused electorate.

But the report quickly pivots away from any suggestion that Obama is back on his heels and instead pulls in quotes from self-described Republicans who say their own party is to blame for the lack of bipartisanship.

This is purely anecdotal and it runs counter to other polls that show that the public was very resistant to legislation the minority party declined to support. The American people may like the idea of bipartisanship in theory, depending upon a how a poll question is asked. But in practice they are thankful to have a legislative system in place designed to checkmate expensive proposals.

Moreover, it’s more than a little peculiar to find that there is not one example of a Republican who supports the party’s stance against Obama’s agenda. Liberal callers into the Rush Limbaugh program frequently posture as Republicans when they are not. The same technique could be at work here.

“Obama is certainly trying,” said Bonnie Ewasiuk, 60, of Woodbridge, Va. “I’m a Republican so I don’t like to go against the party, but Obama has reached out and had meetings and I don’t think the Republicans are going to be responsive. All you see from them is negativity.”

How hard did the reporters try to find Republicans who are representative of their party’s position? Public consternation over the proposed government takeover of the healthcare and labor union paybacks figured prominently into last year’s gubernatorial races and Sen. Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts. Why not solicit comments from some of those voters?

It’s also quite evident The Times and other liberal media outlets are concerned about the power and influence of the Tea Party movement has generated. For this reason, it must be dismissed and marginalized.

“The Tea Party movement, which has grown out of the strain of discontent, so far commands relatively little support; 18 percent of respondents said they considered themselves supporters of the movement, while  55 percent said they had heard little or nothing about it.”

It’s just not believable to imply that the Tea Party movement has not generated significant support and enthusiasm.  Although maybe stronger in some states than others, it has become a receptacle for Americans who see the federal government stepping beyond its constitutional boundaries.