Is the Heritage Foundation really drifting away from its scholarly roots–or has it always been more of a corporate-funded right-wing lobby?
Most people think rich people should pay more in taxes. And they think the government should spend more to help revive the economy. The New York Times knows this—but still calls this discussion "politically sensitive." Today Jonathan Weisman has a piece (6/7/12) about recent comments by Bill Clinton and former Clinton/Obama economic adviser Larry Summers. The piece primarily channels Republican claims that these Democrats want to keep tax rates low for the wealthy. But that does not appear to be what either of them actually said, and both have released statements denying the Republican spin. Nonetheless, the article treats the Republican […]
Part of the 2011 Congressional debt reduction deal called for automatic cuts to social spending and military budgets over the next 10 years. The idea was that a deal to avoid these cuts would be struck, because Republicans wouldn't want to cut the Pentagon, and Democrats would try to protect safety net programs. That didn't happen, so these so-called "sequestration" cuts are prompting some alarm bells in the corporate media–ringing loudly at the mere thought of cutting the military budget. The New York Times (6/4/12) sounded the alarm today in a piece by Jonathan Weisman that framed things like this: […]
The corporate media love bipartisanship. So the news that a "bipartisan" budget failed a vote in the House was something to be mourned. Under the headline "Budget Plan's Defeat Shows Hurdles to Compromise," New York Times reporter Jonathan Weisman (4/2/12) explains that this budget proposal modeled on the media-beloved Bowles/Simpson plan failed because "Washington's conservative and liberal influence machines swung into action." By that he seems to mean think tanks that were critical of the plan. He adds: The Bowles/Simpson deficit plan–named after the former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine B. Bowles and former Sen. Alan K. Simpson, […]
WashingtonMonthly.com blogger Steve Benen (Political Animal, 8/12/09) has words for corporate pundits lambasting Barack Obama's "Attention to Detail" as "going "into the weeds": A few weeks ago, MSNBC's First Read had an item questioning whether President Obama "knows too much" about healthcare policy. The piece complained that the president is willing to offer Americans details about reform…. The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman raised a similar concern today, arguing that Obama cares too much about policy details…. This, apparently, is criticism, not praise. The president who inherited a devastating economic crisis is interested in U6 numbers–a measure that includes the […]
James Rainey of the L.A. Times (10/22/08) quotes a colleague dismissing the size of Barack Obama's crowds as an indication of the Obama campaign's chances in November: "Fall Out Boy gets crowds this big," Jonathan Weisman of the Wall Street Journal said at the Miami rally, referring to the pop punk band. "But I don't think they are going to end up in the White House. "You can't learn anything about the outcome based on how big the crowd is," Weisman continued. "These are the people who are already convinced." Of course, this is silly–you don't compare the size of […]