I was, obviously, not happy with the Los Angeles Times under John Carroll’s leadership. I thought their hit piece on Arnold Schwarzenegger was atrociously timed (though a pretty good piece), and believed that Carroll was blind to the concerns over the timing. He was also the man who made the famous claim that outlets like Fox News were engaged in “pseudo-journalism” — a term that I had some fun mocking over the years.

But the paper established the “Outside the Tent” series under Carroll, which provided a forum for critics of the paper (including myself) to criticize the paper in its pages. And although this was hardly Carroll’s idea (it was Michael Kinsley’s), his support for Kinsley made this possible.

And I know a few people I respect who respected Carroll. (Of course, some others didn’t.)

73 is too young.

R.I.P.

[guest post by JVW]

Jon Healey, a member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, wrote an opinion piece on Friday which brilliantly trolls progressives by pretending to make an argument that only the most pathetic and desperate Obamabot could conceive of floating. The gist of the clever piece is contained in its incredible headine: “House GOP leaders are outmaneuvered again on fast-track vote.” Virtually every single other left-wing media outlet rightly recognized the failure of the House to pass both trade authority bills last week as a “major blow” and “stunning defeat” for the President with one outlet pointing out that Obama failed to win over even California Democrats whose state should theoretically benefit from more Pacific trade. Other media outlets who have generally supported the Administration are left wondering if this signals and end to Obama’s ability to work with even his own allies in Congress. But Healey, that charming scamp, has decided to troll progressives (or is he trolling conservatives? — maybe he’s just trolling all of us) by spinning this as a defeat for the GOP:

It’s tempting just to blame (or credit, if you’re anti-TPA or anti-free trade) Democrats for the results, which were a major setback for the Obama administration and its trade agenda. But consider this: About 125 of the Democrats currently in the House voted to renew the trade adjustment program three years ago, compared to 40 on Friday. Had the Democrats produced 125 votes for the TAA Friday, it still would have fallen short because Republicans voted by almost a 2-1 margin against that portion.

By contrast, 191 Republicans voted for the TPA provisions. Had that many Republicans voted for the trade adjustment section, it would have passed easily, and the package would have gone to President Obama to sign.

In other words, the House GOP leadership couldn’t persuade Republicans to back a program they dislike in order to pass a bill that they strongly support, while Democrats happily voted against a program they cherish in order to block TPA.

Oh, that clever Healey! It’s not a failure of President Obama to bring along his fellow Democrats to support a key item in the administration’s agenda, it’s a failure of Republicans to vote us further into hock to support the “trade readjustment program” — a typically inefficient and unsuccessful federal program beloved by progressives because it spends federal dollars to give the appearance of “caring” about workers. So Healey is completely baiting the Barbra Streisands of the world by telling them that the reason Obama may be the first President in a generation to fail to receive the ability to fast track trade deals is because of the recalcitrant GOP, not a Democrat Party that is in bondage to organized labor and the anti-capitalist left. This is of course just the message that clueless yet smug progressive Los Angeles Times readers long to hear and will be happy to parrot. Talk about your Irish wit, Mr. Healey! Keep up good work poking fun at gullible liberals.

– JVW

[guest post by Dana]

Good morning! Let’s talk about beer! After all, even President Obama has been known to chug with breakfast:

New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan is facing push back for momentarily losing sight of her state’s motto: Live Free Or Die.

At issue: State representative and bar owner Keith Murphy, R-NH, wanted to sell Founders Breakfast Stout at his place of business. However, given that the Founders Breakfast Stout label features an old-fashioned rendering of a toddler and that it’s illegal in New Hampshire to depict minors in alcohol advertising, Murphy was prohibited from selling the product.

In response to the prohibition, Murphy sponsored a bill to remove the restriction from the law, which the legislature passed earlier this year.

Gov. Hassan vetoed the bill because of concerns about underage drinking in her state:

“Substance misuse, including alcohol misuse, continues to be one of the major public health and safety challenges facing us as a state,” Hassan said in her veto message. “Moreover, statistics suggest that New Hampshire has among the highest rates of underage drinking in the country.”

House members expressed their displeasure with Hassan’s decision:

House members disagreed Thursday, hitting the necessary two-thirds threshold to override the veto. The state’s Liquor Commission would have to approve or deny labels under the law.

Senators must also vote on whether to override the veto.

Further:

Murphy said the veto is an overreach and noted that neighboring Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont sell the beer. He also pointed out that a New Hampshire-produced craft beer, Smuttynose Baltic Porter, would have to come off the shelves because its label shows Father Time and a baby.

Here is the Founders Breakfast Stout label shamefully encouraging underage drinking:

Here is the Smuttynose Baltic Porter label also encouraging underage drinking:

–Dana