Patterico's Pontifications

7/17/2007

Be Liberal! Or Don’t! Or . . . Do!

Filed under: General,Media Bias,Morons — Patterico @ 12:01 am

You gotta love the chameleon-like Chicago Sun-Times.

A week ago, they pledged to be liberal. No kidding. Visit the link if you don’t believe me.

What a bold pledge for a Big Media paper! The Editorial Page Editor reported the marching instructions that she had received from the publisher:

“‘Don’t be conservative,’ Cruickshank [the publisher] urged me. ‘We don’t want you to hold back.'”

“Don’t be conservative! We don’t want you to hold back.” I love it! It’s like we’re reading the internal e-mails at the L.A. Times!

But then the party ended. Just as quickly as the paper had decided to be “liberal,” it decided not to be. And so, three days ago, the order to become more “liberal” was abruptly reversed.

Or was it?

Just yesterday, the paper reported that a “staunch Republican” had undergone an astounding turnaround: he would, henceforth, support Democrats:

After watching the top five Democratic candidates for president speak before a trial lawyers’ group Sunday, attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

He will support the Democrats.

“I’m not only going to vote Democratic, I’m going to financially support the Democrats,” Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice, featuring Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden. “The Republicans in Washington are an embarrassment.”

My goodness. That really tells you something! And it gains extra credibility, because it comes from the one newspaper that has assured its readers that it will not be too liberal.

Just one problem: “staunch Republican” Jim Ronca of Philadelphia appears to have supported Democrats before.

That’s a subtle point that a liberal paper might miss, in trying to slam Republicans.

Thank God we have assurances that the Chicago Sun-Times is not a liberal paper.

(Thanks to “jimboster.”)

27 Responses to “Be Liberal! Or Don’t! Or . . . Do!”

  1. I don’t think it was a “be liberal” campaign. It was more “be honest” about what you are campaign. So instead they decided to go back an feign objectivity.

    jpm100 (69f039)

  2. Well Editor & Publisher being the thoroughly libtard outfit it is has always been a questionable source for anything…

    juandos (9c8c3b)

  3. “Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice…”

    “American Association for Justice”! I think that’s the 21st Century version of the Justice League, whose roster

    includes DC’s most popular characters. The original line-up is Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter.

    Oh. Wait. You’re talking about the recently-rebranded trade and lobbying organization of the trial lawyers? They of the famously Republican-leaning {sarcasm} even-handed {/sarcasm} PAC contributions?

    If the Democrats can make converts at a trial lawyers political gathering, they can garner them anywhere!

    AMac (f4e5d8)

  4. Just one problem: “staunch Republican” Jim Ronca of Philadelphia appears to have supported Democrats before.

    Hmmm…lots of Democrats, and for a long time. Aside from a donation to this guy, who I’ve never heard of, the only contribution to a Republican on his list of 10 donations is to RINO Arlen Specter. As far back as 2000, 3 of his 4 donations went to Democrats.

    Yep, that’s a staunch Republican right there. The party is sure gonna miss him.

    Pablo (99243e)

  5. “Edwards — who as a former trial lawyer received the warmest applause …”

    Edwards’ latest diversity initiative, forced busing.

    Former trial lawyer and populist!

    AMac (f4e5d8)

  6. Having been born and lived for many years in Chicago, my only thought was: “Someone actually reads the Sun-Times?!” The only reason I ever bought that ‘paper’ was the patternless crossword puzzle…

    oldirishpig (6e5bdc)

  7. Well according to Open Secrets it seems the Dems have been on the receiving end of the trial lawyers’ largesse by a margin of 3 to 1 since 1990…

    I’m not complaining or saying the trial lawyers shouldn’t do that but it sort of makes me wonder why Democrats keep blocking tort reform?

    juandos (9c8c3b)

  8. The Mind of a conservavtive:

    HH: You see, the textbook, the definition in the dictionary is pretending to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel. And I think that’s a much more specific thing. You’d have to show me that Vitter had been on the record as saying I have never sinned before I would say that was hypocritical during his period of sin. I just don’t know…

    JT: Well, what about all the statements he made about how important marriage was, and that the foundation of civilization is marriage, and family…

    HH: Well now, stop right there. How in the world does cheating on your wife not…undermine the idea that marriage is…it means that you might in fact have erred against the standard. You see, Christians have a very different view of this stuff. Sin is kind of a given. Everyone’s standard is going to be broken. People understand that. It doesn’t in any way diminish his belief in the truth of the statement that marriage is the bedrock of society, that he has sinned against his marriage. I mean, that’s a subtle point, but I don’t think it’s particularly subtle for Christians. It happens all the time. In fact, it’s sort of built in. It’s the given of Christian theology, is that every single person sins in numerous ways.

    JT: But he was active in the, he was a leader in the House and the Senate, in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    HH: Sure, I would hope he would be.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  9. AF, way to make an on-point comment. Brilliant. It really sheds light on the topic at hand. I’m very, very impressed. We bow and cringe before your genius. But what about the jackalopes?

    Al Maviva (89d0b6)

  10. This is an old story with lawyers claiming to be Republicans. A family friend was actually on the Republican Central Committee for Orange County for years on the basis of listing himself on the ballot (They are elected) as a “retired Marine colonel” which he was. However, every election he raised money for Democrats and always made the papers as a “staunch Republican on the county central committee.” He was a trial lawyer and, among other clients, defended one of the “Falcon and Snowman” spies. He was a big supporter of Loretta Sanchez, inducing her to move back to Orange County from her home in Palos Verdes and adopt her maiden name for the Santa Ana district she represents.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  11. A word of advice when you’re writing about campaign contributions: Go to the source.

    km (4891b1)

  12. To quote Andy Phillips: (emphasis mine)

    “Hypocrisy does not mean saying one thing and doing the opposite. It means saying something that one does not believe. Let’s take the example of getting drunk. Let’s say that I believe that getting drunk is immoral. Does it make me a hypocrite if I get drunk? No, it makes me weak. I could believe that it is immoral but still not be able to resist the temptation to get drunk. It doesn’t make my belief any less true or my actions any worse.”

    Christians know that everyone fails sometime, somewhere. Hence the need for forgiveness. But it’s not an excuse for quiting. If you lower your sights, you won’t achieve as much.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  13. Oh, Mike, which RINO was that? Was that the same one who supported the only RINO Speaker of the Assembly to be recalled by her Orange County constituents? Was that the same “lawyer” that tried to get protestors of that RINO sellout to Willie Brown removed from the sidewalk when she had a “coronation” down in OC?

    PCD (f0d1f4)

  14. Follow the link in #11 for Can’t See the Center’s caution to Patterico:

    …This post is simply advice for Citizen Journalists like Patterico: When you want fund-raising information, go to the source. That’s either the FEC for candidate contributions and expenditures, or the IRS for 527s & PACs.

    Karl Maher helpfully posted Jim Ronca’s campaign contributions, as listed by the FEC. The format is somewhat opaque, so here’s the summary:

    1997 $500 to Al D’Amato (R) for Senate
    1999 $250 to Stu Greenleaf (R) for Congress
    2000 $1,000 to Ronald Klink (D) for Senate
    2000 $250 to Pat Casey (D) for Congress
    2001 $500 to Arlen Specter (R) for Senate
    2004 $2,000 to John Edwards (D) for V.P.
    2004 $2,000 to John Kerry (D) for President
    2004 $500 to Allyson Schwartz (D) for Congress
    2004-06 $2,000 to Bob Casey (D) for Senate
    2006 $1,000 to Joe Sestak (D) for Congress
    2006 $500 to Bruce Braley (D) for Congress

    A total of $1,250 to Republicans, and $9,250 to Democrats.

    AMac (c822c9)

  15. Greg Packer, a life-long Republican from Long Island, had stood in line for hours just for the chance to shake hands with Sen. Obama. “The last seven years have been a mess,” said Mr. Packer. “It’s time to give the Democrats a chance.”

    Nels Nelson (4a3ac4)

  16. Both Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson claimed to have been Republicans before being turned off by GWB’s record. Since both those claims were exploded, any time such a claim is made I automatically presume it to be false, subject to proof. Recent claims that Patrick Fitzgerald was a Republican have reinforced this skepticism.

    Milhouse (ef8775)

  17. It would be interesting to see if the reporter, Jennifer Hunter, has anything to say about this. Her report said:

    “attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing…”

    She states he is a staunch Republican as if it is a matter of fact. Doesn’t she have an obligation to verify this before she states it as fact? I wonder what the paper’s official policy is on something like this. All she had to write was:

    “attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, who states he is a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing…”

    Four extra words and the article is at least honest, even if Mr. Ronca was stretching the truth.

    Jeff C. (29f726)

  18. Hillary Clinton, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing: She is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

    She will support the Democrats.

    JayC (dcc820)

  19. I going to again to interrupt your regularly scheduled bullshit, to ask a question:
    When is a filibuster not a filibuster?
    Answer: When it’s the republicans who’re doing it.
    That’s your liberal media “inaction.”

    We now return to your regularly scheduled bullshit.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  20. Patterico, your main point is hornswoggle. Or you are actually less literate than Mr. Cruikshank?
    Conservative and liberal have meanings which have nothing to do with politics. You can align those meanings with the usual political connations, but they do mean something: liberal means loosely or freely, conservative means minimally, with least possible exposure to risk, etc. Haven’t you ever read a mutual fund brochure that talked about a conservative investment philosophy that takes fewer risks and seeks out value? Liberals may want to spend your money liberally, and conservatives want to spend your money conservatively (unless they’re Bush 43 types, of course)–but that’s nothing to do with Cruikshank’s statement. But all Cruikshank was saying that, first, he wanted to paper to loosen up on its reporting, and then he turned around and nixed that. Possibly after seeing how liberal with the truth the results are. If he had wanted the paper to be more liberal in the political sense, he would have used the catchword that is now replacing liberal in political parlance–progressive.

    kishnevi (fc54fd)

  21. Patterico, your main point is hornswoggle.

    Hm. Does “hornswoggle” have a new and radically different meaning?

    If it now means “entirely supported by the first link in the post” then you are quite right.

    Otherwise, with all due respect, I’m quite content to let readers read the piece in the first link in the post, and make up their own minds . . . and then mock you bitterly.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  22. The editorial meetings must be mano a mano! Who’s winning this week?

    Patricia (824fa1)

  23. You got to admit, those Democratic candidates are impressive:

    Richardson said he would like to see a Supreme Court that “looked like this country, that would be diverse.” (The Supreme Court is comprised of white men, except for Justice Ruth Ginsburg and Justice Clarence Thomas, an African American.)

    I never noticed before that all the people on the Supreme Court who aren’t black are white, and all the ones who aren’t females are guys. Wow. I was a staunch Republican thirty seconds ago, now I’m a Marxist dialectician.

    Glen Wishard (b1987d)

  24. Jennifer Hunter, the author of the Sun Times piece, is the wife of the publisher, John Cruickshank. Which probably explains why she got the cushy assignment of following the Obama campaign. see here

    To be fair, she does have a lot of reporting experience in Canada, where they don’t have ‘staunch’ anything as I recall.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  25. [Comment by AMac — 7/17/2007 @ 9:15 am]

    Thanks for posting the list, AMac. Here’s a few to add to that list, from Newsmeat:

    1990 Arlen Specter (R) $250
    1990 Arlen Specter (R) $250
    1992 Dem. Nat’l Com $500
    1994 Wolford Harris (D) $1,000
    1994 Charles Oberley (D) $250
    1995 Edward M Kennedy (D) $500

    That’s $500 for R’s and $2,250 for D’s.

    Don’t buy used dictionaries from Jim Ronca.

    Dusty (e28a9f)

  26. […] the piece in question. Patterico was on top of this story back when it was first published last week and has a link up to recent […]

    Sister Toldjah » What is a “staunch Republican” to the Chicago Sun-Times? (1466f5)

  27. bruce campbell…

    Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…

    bruce campbell (eeabee)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3296 secs.