Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 8:33 pm

Yet another installment in our semi-regular series. I am building what is quickly becoming an impressive collection of examples of the Los Angeles Dog Trainer (aka Los Angeles Times) using its back pages to hide things it doesn’t want you to see. For other examples, see here, here, here, here, and here.

Here is the latest example. It’s a story no paper could possibly ignore: Democrats in Sacramento, in what they believed was a private meeting, were discussing what a great idea it would be for them to be inflexible during the current budget negotiations, because precipitating a budget crisis now is good politics for Democrats.

I am not making this up. There are some great quotes in the article from nutty Democrats, most of them Los Angeles-based politicians. Take Los Angeles Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg. (Please!) “Since this is going to be a crisis, the crisis could be this year,” Goldberg said, according to a transcript. “No one’s running [for reelection].” Another guy from L.A., Fabian Nunez, chimed in: “If you don’t have a budget, it helps Democrats.”

So how do we know about this? Our old friend the open mike. Yep, that’s right: the supposedly private meeting was being broadcast (and tape-recorded) all over the State Capitol. At some point, a staff member came in and said: “Excuse me, guys, you can be heard outside.” To which Jackie Goldberg replied: “Oh [expletive], [expletive].”


Of course, the Dog Trainer has been pushing the line that the budget standoff is almost completely the Republicans’ fault, as I explained in this post from over a month ago. Once you read these quotes, it’s pretty danged hard to believe that line.

If you read the quotes, that is. Don’t forget the title of this post. You see, the most amazing thing about this story is that all of the fun, juicy quotes I just gave you were on the back pages, which (as the Times editors know) hardly anybody reads.

Well, you say, there’s only so much they can put on the front page. To which I reply: hahahahahahaha! If only I could show you the front page of the actual paper edition of the newspaper, so you could see the tiny little box they had to put the story in, so as to push all the quotes onto the unknown regions of page A19. (By way of comparison, this story gets less front-page space than this story about the “personal locator beacon” — a device that allows lost hikers to be found more easily. Miracle invention? Or spoiler of outdoor adventure? No need to turn to the back pages to see such issues discussed — they are thoroughly explored right there on page A1.)

Since I obviously can’t show you the hard-copy version, I’ll have to show you where the jump is on the internet version. If you go to the link I have provided, you can see that the quotes start right there in the fifth paragraph. On the internet, that looks pretty high up in the story. Sorry, not high enough. The jump is in the middle of the fourth paragraph.

What liberal media?


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:05 am

BUBBA ON THE SIXTEEN WORDS: This one is worth quoting at length. What follows is Bill Clinton on Larry King, talking about the brouhaha regarding Bush’s State of the Union address. I can’t remember another time when the guy made so much sense:

KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said — Mr. Fleischer said — that on balance they probably shouldn’t have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn’t have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we’re all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there’s a difference between British — British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don’t know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn’t have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That’s what I think.

. . . .

KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what’s put in front of you?

CLINTON: Well, here’s what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it’s some important issue — and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 — then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks…

… of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ’98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back in there….

And what I think — again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what’s the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn’t have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can’t make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That’s what I think.

(Via The Corner.)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1665 secs.