Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (213303)	12/29/2001 3:13:12 PM
From: JEB	Respond to of 769670

Here you go: nytimes.com

To: Skywatcher who wrote (213303)	12/29/2001 3:26:33 PM
From: JEB	Respond to of 769670

July 21, 1999 First Raines, Then Keller Memo To: Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. NYTimes publisher From: Jude Wanniski Re: Joseph Lelyveld’s successor I see in the New York Daily News that the guessing game already has begun as to who will be the next executive editor of the Times, and of course you get to pick. The News has it that the two men in the running are Bill Keller, the managing editor, and Howell Raines, the editorial page editor. Now I don’t know Keller personally, but when I ran the MediaGuide a decade ago, I would generally give him between * and, our highest, for his work. In 1989, for example, we gave him ** for his work in 1988 and wrote: "Moscow bureau. Beautifully organized reporting, with perceptions and revelations coming like clockwork, simply phenomenal reporting of perestroika and glasnost. Accurate and objective, he’s one of the most enterprising and resourceful foreign correspondents around." I did meet Howell Raines when he was deputy bureau chief in your D.C. bureau and have stayed in touch with him over the years. I’ve not seen eye-to-eye with him on very many issues, but respect his work and his arguments, and the vitality of his editorial page. I earlier had admired his work earlier as a political correspondent, because I couldn’t tell whether he was a liberal or a conservative, just an ace reporter. In the 1987 MediaGuide I wrote that "[Bill] Kovach’s talented deputy, Howell Raines, 43, was named London bureau chief. Raines, who had been the bureau’s national political correspondent, helped establish the eminence of the bureau in recent years after a long period in the Post’s shadow." As the Daily News tells it, Arthur, you seem to be leaning toward Raines and Joseph Lelyveld is leaning toward Keller, and the scrapping is going on -- even though there are three years to go before Lelyveld is 65 and gets to write a column instead of running the show. I gather Lelyveld and Raines are cool toward each other, although there are no details why. Strong personalities with strong views have a tendency to produce friction, but to an outside aficionado of the newspaper game, I can say without doubt that the Times has been steadily improving under their stewardship. But what’s the problem? Raines was born in 1943 and Keller in 1949. In three years, Raines will be 61, at the top of his game, a perfect choice. All Keller needs are four years as editorial page editor, to round out his professional skills. It really does help to have your executive editors manage the opinion pages for a few years, as it forces them to understand the cross-currents of the geopolitical economy in ways they do not quite pick up as bureau chief, or even managing editor. In either case, though, the Times will continue to flourish. These are two solid fellows, two of the best in the business. What a happy problem for you. Good pickin’. polyconomics.com

To: Skywatcher who wrote (213303)	12/29/2001 3:28:59 PM
From: JEB	Respond to of 769670

January 26, 1999 How to Boil a Frog (or Newspaper) Memo To: Howell Raines, NYTimes editorial-page editor From: Jude Wanniski Re: Time for a Change If you throw a frog into boiling water, Howell, it will jump right out. But if you put it in a pot of cool water and turn up the fire a few degrees at a time, the frog will not realize it is being overcome, so as the water comes to a boil, the frog sits there cooking. I’m afraid that’s what has happened to you, Howell, as you originally sought to justify William Jefferson Clinton’s behavior in the Oval Office in an adulterous relationship with a young girl, an intern, a subordinate who had been brought in as a paper gofer. A year ago, we began to learn of the nature of the relationship, simultaneously learning its connection to a federal civil rights suit that our President had gotten himself into by having a state trooper bring to his hotel room a young female employee who was not interested in his proffered genitals. We both should have decided at that moment that the President should resign if it turned out that the story were true about Monica Lewinsky. What he did was a disgrace to the Oval Office, the same place President Ronald Reagan occupied for eight years in a suit jacket, refusing to work in shirt sleeves because of his respect for the office. So, Howell, we began to make excuses, and excuses, and excuses, and excuses. When I finally noticed I was being boiled, during the Judiciary hearings, I bolted. You’ve chosen to remain in the pan as the water came to a boil. Please go back and read your Sunday lead editorial, where you celebrate the President for having perjured himself in his testimony before a federal grand jury and also for having obstructed justice. Okay, that’s bad enough, but you now find yourself denouncing Rep. Henry Hyde and the almost unanimous Republican Party for their lack of compassion in refusing to give the kid a break. The Democratic Senators who swore an oath to impartial justice now find themselves breaking that oath en bloc, horrified with the thought that a witness might be called to expose their hypocrisy. Every silly excuse they come up with finds a parrot in your corner. In acknowledging that our President has committed serial felonies, you honestly state what every member of the United States Senate and House of Representatives knows is true. Our whole country knows that Clinton has disgraced the office and the office must be cleansed, but it can't make a move unless the editorial page of the NYTimes throws in the towel. Look back on the Richard Nixon disgrace and you will find that it was the WSJournal editorial page that finally lanced that boil for the GOP. When you do the same, it all will be over. You know that every Democrat is now lying to himself, his family, his constituents, and his colleagues about how Henry Hyde and Ken Starr are the bad guys, and their felonious party leader is the victim of a sinister Republican plot to prove about him what you already stipulate. You may think I’m pulling your leg when I suggest you find another job, but I am dead serious. You have inched your way into your present position to where the quicksand will get all of you. The Democratic Party has been brain dead for a generation, except for the counseling it has gotten from the NYT editorial page. Which means you. And you are boiled without realizing it. Can you imagine historians a century from now reading your editorials in support of a man you have for months been vilifying as a disgrace to his party, his nation, and the world? There ain’t no way for you to shift gears, as far as I can see, unless you accept Rep. Lindsey Graham’s argument that in using Sidney Blumenthal to broadcast his attack against Ms. Lewinsky, he committed an act beyond bad, beyond criminal, well into evil. Try writing an editorial for the ages justifying his continued tenure, stipulating his evil while he breaks out another bottle of champagne and summons up another intern. What the hell. polyconomics.com