Name that party

The New York Times today covered two stories that broke yesterday about politicians involved in unsavory sexual situations. One of the two politicians is a Republican, one is a Democrat. Guess which one the Times identified by party?

• The first story is about a New York City Councilman who pleaded guilty Monday to two misdemeanors connected to unwanted sexual contact. The second sentence of the Times story mentions the guilty party's party:

  Mr. Gallagher, 43, a Queens Republican, told the court in a non-emotional tone that he touched the 52-year-old victim against her will....

• The second story is about New York's new governor who, soon after his inauguration Monday, admitted that he and his wife had carried on extra-marital affairs. The Times reporter must have had a hard time tracking down the new Governor's political affiliation, because in the nine-paragraph article he neglected to mention that the new governor is a Democrat.

Update: Yeah, I posted this before Taranto did. Yeah, he used my stuff without linking me. Yeah, I sent him the link to my piece before he published. And though he did credit me (by my non-blog name, in the list at the bottom of the page), he is well enough steeped in blog etiquette to know he shoulda linked me. James, James, James.

Name that party

Mark Hemmingway:

As a sidebar to an article at ABC news about Elliot Spitzer, they've helpfully put together this slideshow of 13 politicians involved in famous sex scandals.(Collect them all!) Anyway, it's rather interesting that of the 7 Republicans on the list, all of them save one are identified by ABC as Republicans. Of the six Democrats on the list, only one is identified by party affiliation.

Who is Nicholas Lemann?

I am shocked--shocked!--that Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia's journalism school and the man who hired leftist Victor Navasky to run Columbia Journalism Review, would pen a piece hostile to the Bush administration and get his facts wrong in the process.

(Hat tip.)

What passes for conventional wisdom at the New York Times

Opening paragraph of a book review by Michiko Kakutani, regular NYT book reviewer:

Even as more commentators on both the left and the right are using the adjective “incompetent” to describe the administration of George W. Bush, historians like Douglas Brinkley, Sean Wilentz and Eric Foner have begun to argue that Mr. Bush is in contention for the title of worst president in history, citing reasons like the metastasizing war in Iraq, a ballooning deficit, the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and a widening credibility gap.

Well, maybe the Iraqis, and the U.S., and the world, and the War on Terror, too, but who's counting them?

Joe Klein at a Washington Institute’s Special Policy Forum:

If the policy [President Bush has proposed for Iraq] succeeds, the only ones who would benefit are those in the administration.