Snide remark from the LAT

LAT reporter Robin Abscarian, writing in the "On the Trail" column this morning, said, "When Obama was in the Illinois legislature, not getting any executive experience, he voted "present" rather than "yea" or "nay" more than 100 times."[Emphasis added.] This was an attempt to ridicule Republican claims that Obama had no executive experience and it has no place in a news report. A piece on the editorial page would be another matter.  

Skelton says bad budget better than no budget

LAT columnist George Skelton this morning argues that it's time California's legislature passed a budget because the failure to do so is getting too expensive. Skelton is right about that but he and Dem lawmakers are still insisting on raising taxes. That's the one thing that won't fly -- as Dems and Skelton have known since last June. Raising taxes requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of California's legislature. There are not that many Dems. Therefore, Dems must offer a budget that doesn't raise taxes if they want Republican support. What have they been waiting for? 

Rainey justifies himself, or tries to

LAT columnist James Rainey, after getting nasty with Sarah Palin yesterday, argues today that it wasn't him who was nasty but all those supermarket tabloids. He says "serious news organizations ... try to get it right," unlike tabloids. Obviously, he means to include the LAT in the former group. He should read the column he wrote yesterday. 

Apologies to the LAT

Last week this blog criticized the LAT for its headlines and for the color portrait of Barack Obama that appeared on the front page. Today's front page has a large headline about Palin's speech and a color portrait of John McCain. Is today's headline as large as last week's? Is McCain's portrait? Who knows but in any case an apology is in order. Mea culpa, me culpa, mea maxima culpa. 

All hands on deck at the LAT

All hands must have been called on deck at the LAT when preparing for today's edition. Their purpose: To trash Sarah Palin and bring down her nomination. Tom Hamburger, Richard Simon, Janet Hook, Peter Wallsten, Doyle McManus, Dan Morain, Mark Barabak, Maeve Reston, Michael Finnegan, Mary McNamara and James Rainey all pitched in with something to say about Palin, her husband or her daughter Bristol, most of it negative. The LAT seems panicked by the possibility that she might help elect John McCain. 

The piece by Rainey was the most slimey. He acknowledged that families should be off limits in political campaigns but mentioned Bristol's pregnancy several times. Here's an especially offensive portion of his piece.

"I personally don't need to know a lot about Bristol and her hockey-playing, salmon-fishing, snowboarding beau, Levi. So the kids got a little crazy and Alaska will be populated by one more premature hockey mom.

"I'm willing to wait for the People magazine photo spread of the new family, when the youngster delivers her 'blessed' bundle, as the evangelicals are saying, into the world."

This is reporting, LAT style.

Cave to Conyers, LAT tells White House

Not for the first time, the LAT this morning argues in an editorial that Josh Bolten, Harriet Miers and Karl Rove should testify before John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee about the firing of a few U.S. attorneys a couple of years ago. The LAT calls it a compromise. The LAT misrepresents a District Court judge's decision that said Bolten and Miers had to show up for a Committee hearing but did not say they had to testify. The administration is appealing that decision.

Sadly, the Conyers investigation is a political witch hunt. The Bush administration had the right to fire the attorneys because they were political appointees. No reason for the firings had to be given. Conyers is wasting legislative and judiciary time and resources.

Wallsten, LAT hatchetman

LAT reporter Peter Wallsten is fast becoing the LAT's chief hatchetman. This morning, he has a piece on page A11 about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Throughout the piece, Wallsten hints that he knows new dirt is coming on Palin, and he tries to throw in a little dirt but none of it is new or significant. He suggests that McCain's judgment may be in question or his campaign's vetting process may have been faulty. Palin is a problem, he suggests, but he has no news to report.

Wallsten's piece wouldn't have been missed if it hadn't been published. So why was it?