In recent posts, I have argued that a cabal of left-wingers in the L.A. Times newsroom made a huge deal out of the Andres Martinez/Grazergate non-scandal to embarrass Martinez because he resisted their efforts to politicize the opinion section. Okie on the Lam thinks he sees one potential problem with my theory:
Honestly, I don’t see how the LA Times op-ed section could get any more “leftist” . . .
I don’t mean to imply that the editorial page under Martinez was some kind of hangout for Townhall-style conservatives. But consider the following:
- Martinez’s editorial page endorsed Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor, as well as two other Republicans for statewide races.
- Under Martinez, Jonah Goldberg was a columnist, and Robert Scheer wasn’t.
- Under Martinez, the editorial page had a (kinda-sorta, and very tepid) endorsement of the surge:
But if Congress accepts Bush’s argument that there is still hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won’t be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace — if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the president try this “surge and leverage” strategy.
- Under Martinez, the editorial page seemed to have the occasional anti-regulatory bent.
None of this means that the editorial page under Martinez was a hotbed of conservatism, notwithstanding the fevered nightmares of extreme leftists. But the page was probably less consistently leftist than Okie on the Lam has noticed — or than certain leftist staffers would like it to be.