The Poisonous New York Times On President's Interview With Larry King

 

One of the most blatantly disgusting front page editorials from Alessandra Stanley at the Washington bureau of the treacherous New York Times this morning, is shamelessly and openly placing the President in the same category as the convicted and now deceased Kenneth Lay of Enron:

Two kinds of celebrities go on "Larry King Live" on CNN: those with something to sell and those with something to hide [emphasis added]

Al Gore and Brandon Routh, the young star of the newly released "Superman Returns," recently appeared on the show to promote their new movies. The second category includes guests like Star Jones Reynolds, Mary Kay Letourneau, and, right after his indictment in 2004, Kenneth L. Lay of Enron. "Larry King Live" is the first stop in any damage control operation — a chance to explain oneself to the least contentious journalist in the land.

And that is why President Bush invited the CNN talk show host to the White House on his 60th birthday. [emphasis added]

Transcript of the Larry King Live interview with the President and Laura Bush here.

Amongst other carefully chosen untruths she claims that the President agreed to a 'softball interview' with King in order to boost his falling poll numbers

The standoff with North Korea over its missile tests, the war in Iraq and ever-sliding ratings in the polls have given the president little reason to celebrate. Mr. King gave the president a chance to defend his policies without risk of interruption or follow-up.[...]

[...] Even when he ventured into areas like the war in Iraq, public opinion polls or the president's past friendship with Mr. Lay,

Larry King hardly escapes unscathed by the bitchy Ms. Stanley, having called him "the least contentious journalist in the land", she goes for the kill

Mr. King looked less like an interrogator than a hotel concierge gently removing lint from a customer's coat. Mr. King's questions rarely rile his guests; instead, his cozy, incurious style encourages them to expose themselves.

One of my editors @ NewsBusters Tim Graham, does not like Stanley's odds when criticizing the President's poll results

Again, you wouldn't want to dance to these poll results. The last two I cited are 37-60 and 38-60, approval vs. disapproval. But "ever-sliding" is certainly not the best word to describe them. Perhaps Stanley would have considered adding an approval rating for the New York Times right now? When a Fox poll found 60 percent of Americans thinking their hot scoop on the SWIFT program helped the terrorists more than the public?

It does not get any better, as Stanley continues her scurrilous attack

And just as Liza Minnelli seemed to come unglued all on her own in her appearance on the show last March, Mr. Bush at times seemed tense and defensive even without needling from his host. "I've been popular before, as president," Mr. Bush said tightly. "And I've been — people have accepted what I've been doing." He added: "Sometimes things go up and down. The best way to lead and the best way to solve problems is to focus on a set of principles. And do what you think is right."

The president appeared on Mr. King's show twice before, in 2000 and in 2004, but those were campaign interviews. On Thursday, the president was fighting to improve his battered image.

I suggest Ms. Stanley, not famous for her own journalistic accuracy, and in love with her own version of "truthiness", should worry more about her paper's poisonous image right now, rather than the President's supposedly battered one.

Comments

[Ghost Dansing]

Dubya is trying to get his poll numbers up. Larry King is a nice man and isn't a very aggressive interviewer...infotainment it is.

If anything could be going more wrong for this Republican administration, I'm not sure what it would be.

The Supreme Court's decision striking down the military tribunals set up to try the detainees being held in Cuba is far more than a narrow ruling on the issue of military courts. It is a reaffirmation that even in times of war, the law is what the Constitution, the statute books and the Geneva Conventions say it is — not what the Dubya wants it to be.

The Supreme Court held that these rules violate the standards Congress set in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which requires tribunals to offer the same protections, whenever practicable, as other military trials. It also ruled that the tribunals fall short of the kind of trial required by the Geneva Conventions. It rejected the administration's claim that these international standards cannot be invoked in an American court.

The message of this ruling is that the executive branch cannot continue in its remarkable insistence that because there is a war on terror, it no longer needs to follow established procedures that would subject it to scrutiny by another branch of government.

The justices rejected the administration's constant refrain — made in everything from its "enemy combatant" policies to its defense of the National Security Agency's domestic spying — that the authority Congress granted the president to use force after Sept. 11, the exigencies of wartime, or simply the inherent powers of the presidency allow Dubya to trample on existing laws as he sees fit.

Most Americans understand that the President is not a King, and the Executive Branch isn't an "elected" dictatorship of the majority. Some Republicans don't seen to know that.

[Jeremayakovka]

Haven't paid attention to the King interview yet. But about those poll numbers...

We've seen Bush's #s return to around 40. Good.
We know low #s are not decisive or trustworthy (viz. Hitchens's recent piece).
With American political consensus located in a center-right perspective, our primary concern should be with how the right negotiates with itself and with the center. This will pay the most dividends in November and in setting an agenda through '08.

[jess1dering]

MvdG,
Me thinks that is their number one goal. To defeat Bush, even more, to defeat what Bush stands for. The Loonie Libs are loosing their allies on the Supreme Court and are DESPERATE to defeat conservatives in the next presidential election. I don't think we've seen anything yet in so far as their antics go.. Especially if another candidate dares to try to accurately represent the wishes of conservative voters
I don't think they're enjoying the current situation, though. I have been watching a steady rise in arrogance and an increasing intoxication from excessive power-bibing. I think they're shocked and trying desperately to "undo" the damage in the only way they know how...which is SPIN for all they're worth, with precious little regard for fact or truth. I can't help but be embarrassed for them as they weave their faulty , confused web. HOWEVER, I'll bet they don't feel one little bit of shame or embarrassment.
Anyhow, pride comes before the fall and this fall is long overdue.
.

[Michael van der Galien]

I must say that The New York Times is screwing up big time lately. If their goal is to make Bush become more impopular, they're failing.

My view? Sadomasochism (sp?). They're only hurting themselves and actually seem to enjoy it.

[ElMondoHummus]

"...Mr. Bush at times seemed tense and defensive even without needling from his host..."

Well, no (bleep)ing kidding!! Anywhere he goes, there's always someone wanting to nitpick a fight over their pet grouse of the day. He can't even go to Graceland without a bunch of folks using it as an opportunity to snark about him!

You know what bugs me about A Stanley's criticism? Given that anyone in his position would be tense and defensive, that he shouldn't show it. That he should've radiated a false of how he feels. That the "ideal" presentation should be a slick package, a false front, a façade. Stanley's basically saying she'd rather have him be fake than honest. And it bugs me to hell and gone that she or anyone else are only concerned about having a reassuring package that looks good on the surface than someone who's competencies lay elsewhere but isn't perfectly smooth at presentation. In other words, A Stanley's criticism is the epitome of demanding style over substance. And that is what drives me up the wall.

She's welcome to her empty suits. Forgive the snark, but I can't help thinking that she works in a place that suits her perfectly.

[David]

*sigh*

One thing that continues to disturb me is the faux liberals' criticism of President Bush's policies that he effects for the country's defense (positive actions in the GWOT)... and failure to criticize those of President Bush's policies that harm US security (his amnesty program for alien invaders, for example).

This petty slam is simply another faux liberal of focusing on non-issues as a way of buttressing attacks on the President by means of lying memes ("ever-sliding ratings in the polls" when most recent polls show a tick upwards, for example--close, but no cigar, like the lying memes "Bush lied" and "No WMD"). It reveals one of the central characteristics of faux liberals today: way down deep, they're too shallow to breed pond scum. Focusing on trivia and then lying about the trivia to make a point that has no bearing on any substantive position is a hallmark of petty minds with nothing worthwhile to contribute.

I paged over to the NYT article in question, read it and immediately had to drink a couple more cuppsa "IQ Juice" (coffee) to bring my brain back to normal intelligence. As is so often the case, listening to one of these twits—even briefly reading one of these twits, caused minor brain damage.

Thank God for coffee.

:-)